I don't think it quite accurate to say the US is dropping one scheme and
proposing something else in the face of adversity. I think that the FTA
spilled over into NAFTA, which is being used as a model for much of the
MAI. In many ways, these are all parts of an amazingly coherent long term
strategy.
If Penners are interested, I'll shortly have completed an analysis that
I'm co-authoring on the MAI and its effect on Canadian telecommunications.
It includes a lot of background on the various trade forums and agreements
and how they interrelate.
Sid Shniad
>
> At 11:47 AM 3/6/98 -0800, The Guardian wrote:
>
> >EU-US TRADE ZONE LAUNCHED
>
> I'm wondering what to make of this. It's rather astonishing to me how quickly
> the U.S. drops one or another scheme to expand markets for the export of
> commodities and capital (FTAA, MAI) in the face of momentarily inopportune
> political conditions, only to very quickly propose (or at least seem hospitable
> to) something else.
>
> It seems to me that this proposal comes out of a mutual recognition by both
> the U.S. and Europe that East Asia is a basket case and can be left to sink on
> its own, since Japan is owed the most in East Asia and is unwilling to act as
> a regional hegemon and reflate its own economy.
>
> But (per our recent discussion on EMU) it seems like now is not the time for
> the EU to be pushing for bilateral liberalization given popular fears that
> EMU is going to eviscerate social democracy. It seems like _really_ ill timing.
>
> And is it reasonable to suppose that _all_ tariffs and quotas on _all_ traded
> goods/services (save agriculture and culture industry products) will be
> eliminated ? This just seems like some Ricardian wet dream, but completely
> politically unfeasible.
>
> John Gulick
>
> John Gulick
> Ph. D. Candidate
> Sociology Graduate Program
> University of California-Santa Cruz
> (415) 643-8568
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
