The big news is that the United States, Canada and Mexico have a new trade deal called USMCA. The small news is that it is actually the same deal with some tiny but poignant adjustments that favour the Americans.

The subtle truth is there was more to lose by fighting Donald Trump’s rebranding exercise, and the sober minds needed at least a stable benchmark to chart trade for the future, or face uncertainty over tariffs and a hostile trade relation with the US.

In fact, what we have lost is a vision of hemispheric co-operation and, at least for this moment, the idea of unified world. The North American Free Trade Agreement was just one step and an idea advanced with the hope of one day seeing a borderless hemisphere that embraces the concerns and the economies of not just Mexico, America and Canada, but also the Caribbean, South America and Central America. Bermuda, too.

Yes, the thinking during the Bill Clinton era may have been idealistic, and the impact of 9/11 followed by the Arab Spring, which has clouded immigration issues worldwide, was unforeseeable at the time. Now just the idea of Nafta is trashed as though it is the original sin.

However, is the challenge of diversity and immigration a justification to retreat from the idea of a unified world and instead of trying to build a world of mutual co-operation, we are going back to the days of “me first” nationalism and trade wars?

As the United States begins its trade war with China, it has locked Canada and Mexico into its nexus, preventing each from unilaterally making deals with China unless they want to break their relations with the US.

I am not a conspiracist, but the reality is that Nafta and the idea of universal hemispheric co-ordination spell peace, while the idea of the self-interest national “me first” spells war.

China has a domestic market of a billion people, which is almost three times the size of the US, and is connected to Brics, which is the acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. That trade nexus represents nearly two thirds of the world population and more than half the landmass. Eventually, that market will become more lucrative and important than the US market. The only thing that can change the dynamic of what will naturally occur, or stagger the process of that union, is war.

In the meantime, as nations increase their budgets for defence, the stock price for arms is rising in value and simultaneously the contributions towards diplomacy are going down. Is that an accident or by design? The Bretton Woods Agreement was created after the war to foster peace on the basis of economic development and co-operation.

Does that formula still work? if not, how has it failed?

War that is not combating aggression, and flexing military muscle, does not bring peace, but brings resentment and more conflict. Economic development brings peace. As it stands, the only people on a global level with that message today ironically are the Chinese.

So in my humble opinion, the end of Nafta is the renewal of nationalism and isolation — the clearest indicator of future conflict.