Well, colour me shocked. Apparently, the U.S. thinks about as much of NAFTA as they do of all of the other international treaties they've taken a steaming dump on lately:
U.S. brushes off softwood ruling
Canada scored what should be a knockout legal victory in the softwood dispute Wednesday, but the U.S. government quickly dismissed the unanimous NAFTA ruling as irrelevant, a stalemate that observers warn could undermine respect for the 11-year-old trade deal.
The U.S. lumber lobby, which started the timber battle in 2001, responded to the NAFTA judgment by calling the trade treaty's dispute resolution process “constitutionally defective.”
I'm guessing that dismissing something you don't like as "constitutionally defective" has the same rhetorical heft as White House Press Lizard Scott McClellan telling you that he "doesn't agree with your characterization. Next."
And what do you do when you don't like the contract you signed? Oh ... that's what you do:
The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports announced it's preparing a constitutional challenge to try and scrap this section of the North American free-trade agreement.
I can see the analogies now:
"Well, I've decided that I don't like this mortgage I signed with you folks last year, so I was thinking of cancelling parts of it. Now, I'd still get to live in the house but, the part where I have to keep paying you every month? I'm not so crazy about that part."
And that "sore loser" part:
NAFTA panels have three times concluded that the United States failed to prove that Canadian softwood poses a material threat of injury to U.S. producers.
Under trade rules, if Washington can't prove Canadian timber injures or threatens to injure U.S. producers, it is obliged to scrap the duties on Canadian lumber imports.
Wednesday's decision should end the dispute immediately.
But the United States said the extraordinary challenge committee ruling was inconsequential and that it had no intention of scrapping the duty on Canadian softwood that can exceed 20 per cent or refunding the $5-billion in levies collected over the past few years.
“We are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders,” said Neena Moorjani, spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.
Mercifully, the Canadians involved in the process are taking a pragmatic, realistic attitude:
Ottawa said it believes the United States is now obliged under international law to scrap the softwood duties and refund the levies collected since 2002. “The world is watching,” International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said.
And, of course, your unintentional hilarity for the morning:
“For the U.S. government to deny the effect of this process weakens respect for the NAFTA and for the rule of law internationally, something the U.S. espouses when it suits its purposes,” said trade lawyer Lawrence Herman of Cassels Brock in Toronto.
And, as we all know, it there's one thing you can take to the bank, it's the U.S.'s respect for international law.
5 comments:
Funny how looking back you can see how this softwood lumber thing forshadowed the whole Guantanamo "detainees" thing and today's crap about Maher Arar.
International law when necessary, but not necessarily international law?...
hmm, it occurs to me that with the excited states swiping some 5 billion in excessive and illegal tarrifs, it might be just as economical for our softwood producers to just say screw them guys. why not just withdraw from the u.s. market altogether and seek trade deals with europe, asia and south america. if we are swallowing these huge levies that would likely put overseas export costs in line with the current american cost of trade. it would be a boon to our shipping and ports and the yankums could go without. let them denude their own lands. our dependence on u.s. trade is an anchor strapped to our butts. we should look at diversifying our international trade and bolstering other international partnerships. as america crumbles from within we shouldn't get dragged into the eddy along with them.
Butbutbut...Clinton signed NAFTA! We don't have to anything that Clinton did!
IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT!
(I'm being sarcastic, BTW)
Soon, we'll be hearing about how it was the liberals who wanted NAFTA in the first place. (They've been saying that it was the liberals who wanted to expand trade with China for months now.)
sigh...
Well, it reminds me of a bumper sticker we have down here in the States "Sure you can trust the government, Just ask an Indian."
To be fair, some of us think that NAFTA isn't constitutional in a lot of ways, and the dispute resolution provisions are one of the highlights. I'm not saying that the current objection isn't self-serving; I'm just saying that it might not be wrong.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this situation is that, from the South of the Border perspective, this is not only an insignificant story, it's pretty much a non-story.
I can't find any coverage on this one on any of the major US news channels, even when searching for it. As near as I can tell, 90-some percent of the USA has no idea that the Bush Admin. just gave the bird to Canada and NAFTA.
However one wants to argue the constitutionality of the situation, I'm more pissed about the fact that not one major national US news source considers this topic worth even covering.
Post a Comment