|
We used to call these agreements
Customs Union. They were never free trade. All Harry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Weick Where Oh where Oh where is Captain Beavo
when we need him? Ed Globeandmail.com > Trading with the ‘schoolyard bully' By JOHN IBBITSON Saturday, August 20, 2005 Updated at 1:07 AM EDT From Saturday's Globe and Mail E-mail John Ibbitson Read Bio Latest Columns They were present at the creation. And they feel betrayed. Derek Burney, Pat Carney, Allan Gotlieb, Simon Reisman and
Gordon Ritchie were key members of the negotiating team that forged the 1988
free-trade agreement between Last week, the The Americans' refusal to respect the tribunal's decision
represents "an egregious, shocking, dishonourable breach of their
obligations," says Mr. Ritchie, who was deputy chief negotiator during the
original negotiations. "It's the tactic of the schoolyard bully," declares
Derek Burney, who was chief of staff to then-prime minister Brian Mulroney, and
a key player in the talks, "which was exactly what we were trying to
prevent when we negotiated the free-trade agreement it's beyond the pale." Those who were most responsible for establishing the rules that
the Americans are now flouting have chosen to ignore the pleas of David
Wilkins, American ambassador to Canada, who has warned Canadians of the
"responsibility of keeping the rhetoric down." "I always said they were jackboot negotiators,"
protests Senator Pat Carney, who was trade minister at the time. She believes
the cause of free trade has suffered a major failure. "We will have to see
now whether it unravels totally after this." Mr. Gotlieb, who was "It is profound," he argues. "There is a risk
that you're putting NAFTA at risk." If both sides agree to a dispute resolution process, and then
one side flouts the rulings that come out of the process, Mr. Gotlieb argues,
"then it goes to the very heart of the Grand Bargain." He notes that the Americans insist they are not in violation,
although all of those interviewed found the reasoning of Rob Portman, the Language this strong usually comes from opponents of the FTA,
NAFTA and the globalization movement. That the very architects of free trade
between Even more shocking is that, to a man and woman, they believe
Canada should impose retaliatory tariffs, or other restrictive measures, unless
the Americans are prepared to negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement that
accommodates Canadian, and not just U.S., concerns, even though such a move
could lead to a trade war between the two countries. "I would sit them down and I would say to them, ‘All
right. Enough of this. You are out of line, and you know that you are out of
line,'" says Mr. Reisman, who was chief negotiator of the original free
trade pact. "Set a deadline. And if they cannot meet that deadline,
and if they persist in this, then there might be no choice but to act in
retaliation." "We should certainly load the gun on retaliation, in my
view," Mr. Burney agrees. "We should take a look at There is a palpable sense of personal injury in their comments,
which may come from the political irony that lies behind the American rebuke. In 1987, the free-trade negotiations between Although the Canadian negotiating team was very reluctant to
accept yet another layer of appeal for trade disputes, they finally acquiesced. It was to that Extraordinary Challenge Committee that the
Americans appealed last year, when all other rulings on softwood imports went
against them. It was that same committee that ruled last week in At this point, there are no good options. That ruling won't come until next year, however. And imposing
tariffs on wine, orange juice and other American imports, to recoup the
$5-billion, would only hurt Canadian consumers. After all, outside the softwood lumber dispute and a few
smaller trade irritants, "the agreement is working," Mr. Reisman
observes, "and it is a great advantage for Conversely, slapping export tariffs on Canadian oil and gas
exports to the "Others would say: ‘What the hell are you doing screwing
with our trade because you have a problem in another sector?'" Mr. Reisman
points out. Nonetheless, he believes "There is a strong case to be made that when you're
dealing with a bully, and the bully punches you, you should punch him
back," Mr. Ritchie maintains, echoing Mr. Burney. "You're doing
something stupid to keep somebody else from doing something stupid." Mr. Ritchie is both advising and representing the Canadian
government in the negotiations. Ms. Carney believes that The Americans, she says, know full well that "when you
talk about security, you are really talking protectionism." The Bush administration has urged the Canadian government to
return to the table in search of a negotiated settlement. Such a settlement
would probably involve Canada accepting some sort of quota on its softwood
exports, with tariffs on all sales above that quota, in exchange for which the
Americans might give back some (though probably not all) of the illegally
collected tariffs. For now, however, While all of the members of the original free trade team agree
that a negotiated settlement is probably inevitable, they warn that the
Canadian government must impose a deadline on negotiations, and make it
absolutely clear that if those negotiations fail, this country will retaliate. "Retaliation is a good thing, sometimes," Mr. Gotlieb
argues. "It's a necessary tool." "You can't simply stand down and let them behave in this
cavalier manner," Mr. Burney insists. "You've got to stand up to the
Americans at some point." And these are the Canadians who consider themselves among |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
