Today's National Post had a comment about Barak Obama [Presidential hopeful Obama ‘promotes’ PM to president].U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, already under fire from fellow Democratic candidates for his supposed inexperience and unguarded comments on American foreign policy issues, is raising eyebrows again after vowing to telephone the "president of Canada" if elected to the White House to begin renegotiating terms of the NAFTA trade deal.Most of the fuss is about the fact that Obama doesn't know we have a parliamentary system of government with a Queen, but no President. That's pretty bad for a Senator from a northern state but it's not the only thing that troubles me.
The titular miscue came Tuesday night during a discussion of trade and labour issues at a Democratic debate in the Illinois senator's home base of Chicago.
"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labour agreements in that agreement right now," Mr. Obama said. "And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."
We don't need a lecture from the US President on the proper way to treat workers. If there are any "labor issues" that separate Canada and the USA then it's the way the American Congress kowtows to special interest groups, like farm workers and workers in the softwood lumber industry, in violation of NAFTA. A really sore spot for Canada is the way American ignores the parts of the treaty that it doesn't like whenever it feels like it.
There are many Canadians—I'm not one—who would gladly terminate the treaty if the American government wanted to re-open it. It would mean that Canada would be free to sell its gas and oil to other countries at the full market price. Under "free trade" we are obligated to supply a certain set amount of oil and gas to America every year [Article 605].
Here's a list of current disputes (2006-2007, see below) under NAFTA [Canadian NAFTA Secretariat]. They all involve countervailing duties or import restrictions imposed by the US Congress on Canadian goods in spite of "free trade." In most cases, the Canadian goods can be sold cheaper in the USA than similar goods produced in America by American workers. As far as I know there are no disputes involving Canadian restrictions on American goods. Also, I believe that the USA has lost every single case that has come before the dispute resolution panel.
I wonder if Barak Obama knows this?
- Magnesium from Canada (Five-Year Reviews of the Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders)
- Softwood Lumber from Canada (Dumping - 2002)
- Softwood Lumber from Canada (Countervailing Duty - 2002)
- Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada (Countervailing Duty)
- Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada (Countervailing Duty)
- Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews - 2005)
- Softwood Lumber from Canada (Determination under Section 129(a)(4) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act - 2005)
- Softwood Lumber from Canada (antidumping duty determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act - 2005)
- Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review - 2006)
- Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review - 2006)
- Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review)
6 comments :
So he didn't say "Queen of Canada" so what? He's a republican after all ;-)
Lucky for Obama, most Americans wouldn't know the difference!
Aren't we being a little harsh here? His point wasn't that he was an expert on Canada and trade.. He just said that he'd try to re-open the discussion of such trade agreements and perhaps try to make things a little more fair for all the parties involved.
The fact that he's even willing to suggest something for the sake of freer trade is quite admirable. Especially since he knows full well that it's going to bite him to be that honest about his intent to engage in such touchy issues.
The alternative to truthiness is mouthiness which is what Clinton offers. She's pretty good with the debate.. but she's just saying whatever she needs to win. Obama may have a lot to learn.. but at least he has the integrity of a leader.
Will this be used as to argue that he is an idiot on all foreign policy the way that Bush's faliure to name President Musharaf was?
arkaro syas,
Aren't we being a little harsh here?
Perhaps. Maybe Barack would make a good Prime Minister of America in spite of his lack of knowledge of his closest neighbor. ;-)
His point wasn't that he was an expert on Canada and trade.. He just said that he'd try to re-open the discussion of such trade agreements and perhaps try to make things a little more fair for all the parties involved.
I don't think you understand any more than Obama does. No country is going to renegotiate an agreement with an American President unless there are guarantees that it has a good chance of being approved in the Congress. If it's a treaty (NAFTA was not) the it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate [Treaties].
It's quite pointless for a President to call up another leader on the phone and discuss treaty/agreement amendments. The fact that Obama suggest this is why I raised the question about his naivety.
The fact that he's even willing to suggest something for the sake of freer trade is quite admirable.
It might possibly be admirable if that was his goal. However, I strongly suspect that his goal is protectionism. He wants to protect the American worker from the competition of real free trade.
Will this be used as to argue that he is an idiot on all foreign policy the way that Bush's faliure to name President Musharaf was?
"The Commander Guy" doesn't need to be judged by one misstatement. He's got a track record of over 6 years in office to judge him by.
Post a Comment