Captain Ed is one of many in the blogosphere calling Barack Obama for what may be a hypocritical retreat on NAFTA withdrawal. And if Obama has retreated, it represents a welcome change – because NAFTA has been good for all three parties to the agreement. However, most who are writing about Obama’s trip yesterday seem to be ignoring much of what Obama said on the subject yesterday:

Well, first of all, Jonathan, I’m not sure that was my exact quote. I always get a little nervous about responding to quotes without me actually seeing it. I think what I said was, is that now is a time where we’ve got to be very careful about any signals of protectionism, because, as the economy of the world contracts, I think there’s going to be a strong impulse on the part of constituencies in all countries to see if we — they can engage in “beggar thy neighbor” policies. And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it’s important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries.

Having said that, what I also indicated was that with a NAFTA agreement that has labor provisions and environmental provisions as side agreements, it strikes me if those side agreements mean anything then they might as well be incorporated into the main body of the agreement so that they can be effectively enforced. And I think it is important, whether we’re talking about our relationships with Canada or our relationships with Mexico, that all countries concerned are thinking about how workers are being treated and all countries concerned are thinking about environmental issues of the sort that Emmanuelle just raised earlier.

So, you know, I raised this issue with Prime Minister Harper. My hope is, is that as our advisors and staffs and economic teams work this through, that there’s a way of doing this that is not disruptive to the extraordinarily important trade relationships that exist between the United States and Canada.

What exactly does Obama mean? I haven’t a clue. He apparently still wants to renegotiate some of NAFTA, as long as it doesn’t hamper trade. The problem is not just that Obama is being vague though. As the Toronto Star points out, he seems not to know what he’s talking about:

Still, the two leaders clearly disagreed on the contentious issue of whether to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement. Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, said he raised with Harper his desire to incorporate side agreements on labour and the environment “so that they can be effectively enforced.”

But Obama has softened his language from last year’s Democratic primary campaign. He said yesterday it is important to “be very careful about any signals of protectionism” when the world is trying to shake off the global recession.

On NAFTA, it is unclear exactly what Obama is seeking, as the two side agreements are already monitored for enforcement by separate secretariats, including a labour co-operation secretariat located in Washington, and one on the environment located in Montreal, with a liaison office in Mexico.

So what does Obama want? We may need to check back in after he’s studied the agreement. Perhaps then he’ll be able to make his views clearer. Has he fully retreated from his stance in favor of renegotiating the agreement? Perhaps. But stay tuned just in case.