Canada, Mexico and the United States are involved in contentious negotiations to update the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The Trump administration has offered a series of hard-line proposals that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce labeled as “nonstarters.”

Canada and Mexico firmly rejected the latest American proposals. President Trump said, “If we cannot make a deal, it will be terminated and that will be fine.”

Warren Maruyama, who worked on NAFTA in both Bush administrations, was quoted Friday in the Wall Street Journal as saying he believes the president cannot unilaterally invalidate most of NAFTA’s provisions.

Unlike the president and his supporters, I and most politicians on both sides of the aisle want to retain NAFTA.

The president has derided NAFTA as the “worst trade deal ever made” and focused his anger on trade deficits. Last year, the U.S. had a $63 billion trade deficit with Mexico and a $12 billion deficit with Canada.

The president’s supporters want protectionist policies because globalization has harmed their communities. It is true manufacturing’s share of the workforce has declined in part because of NAFTA.

But the president blames the pact for costing the U.S. hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs even though trade with Canada and Mexico has more than quadrupled since 1994.

Canada was the United States’ second-largest trading partner in 2016 and Mexico was the third.

Most U.S. lawmakers and business groups have aligned themselves with Canada and Mexico’s desire to keep NAFTA. Business lobbies representing auto manufacturers and retailers, two groups hurt by the trade agreement, want to modernize it, not kill it.

According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, terminating NAFTA would cause Canada, the United States and Mexico to impose tariffs on each other — 3.5 percent average by the U.S., 4.2 percent by Canada and 7.5 percent by Mexico. These tariffs would raise prices in the United States.

While I empathize with voters who suffered because of globalization, I think that access to international markets is on balance a good thing. First of all, we all benefit from lower prices, wherever those products come from.

The U.S. also has retained many manufacturers who partner with overseas companies. In general, these companies get imports and then provide intermediate goods for overseas manufacturers. In the auto industry, mirrors and seats crisscross the border several times before ending up in a finished car.

The Boston Consulting Group calculated that ending NAFTA would raise the cost of a car by $1,200 and cost 50,000 American jobs.

Officials now think that the NAFTA negotiations could run until the end of February instead of December.

This delay could help the current leading candidate in July’s Mexican presidential election: Andres Obrador, a leftist whose critics say is opposed to democratic norms.

We cannot take for granted that Mexico will continue its current course. Until recently, the country was ruled by a single party and suffered from an impoverished economy.

Let me ask this question? Would we prefer a vibrant Mexico on our border or a country with the economic characteristics ofVenezuela?

NAFTA has created the world’s largest open market, with a population of close to 480 million and a gross domestic product in excess of $20 trillion. Both economic theory and centuries of empirical evidence support the conclusion that free trade means prosperity for all. Free trade is not a zero-sum game in which one side must lose for the other to prosper.

International trade encourages more efficient production of goods and services and thus creates wealth for our citizens.

During and after World War II, the United States saved the free world and championed globalization. We need to honor that important role of our country, not abandon it.

Originally published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune