Some comments from a former ambassador to the United States, and a negotiator of the 1988 Free Trade Agreement:
"... a strategy [of ignoring the NAFTA Panel ruling] risks the stability of the legal framework supporting the world's largest trading relationship. There can be no effective rule of law governing trade unless all parties respect the applicable treaties. While trade is obviously affected by politics, honouring an international treaty regime should not a matter of discretion or convenience. The most basic norm of international law is pacta sunt servanda -- treaties must be respected.
...
For Canada, whose trade overwhelmingly moves south, the consequences could be devastating if NAFTA is undermined by protectionism. For the United States, the fallout would be equally dire, for it would undermine the North American regional regime central to its trade strategy and its own national interest. Moreover, it would represent a blow for the thousands of businesses that depend on Canada for both components and markets. It would also put the United States out of step with the massive regionalization of trade going on in Europe and Asia. Moreover, undermining trade on its home continent can only weaken U.S. efforts to forge new multilateral trade agreements such as the FTAA."
His suggestions:
"Engage the White House at the highest level. If our point is that our jointly held national interest in free trade transcends special interests, then we must press that point with the audience that truly matters.We must state the issue in plain terms. Does the United States want stable, expanding, deepening economic relations with its neighbours? Does it believe, from the standpoint of its own national security, that a harmonious, productive trade relationship serves its national interest? George W. Bush's statements, as well as the accord he reached in March with Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., would suggest he believes the answer is yes."
And some comments from a compatriot blogger:
"...someday, the Americans will need our help - perhaps on security issues - and Canadians are going to be a lot less inclined to give it. If a relatively hawkish, pro-American blogger like me is this angry, what on earth are Liberal and New Democrat MPs - who, like it or not, actually run the country - thinking?"
Seconded
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Even despite what the Liberals and NDP might be thinking (which can be simply translated, pretty much, as "Grr"), the former Conservatives who were part of the Mulroney govt that brokered the deal are putting in some pretty telling sound-bites:
“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.
“I always said they were jackboot negotiators,” protests Senator Pat Carney, who was trade minister at the time.
- Today's Globe and Mail
(sorry about the Nazi imagery there, guys)
"...someday, the Americans will need our help - perhaps on security issues - and Canadians are going to be a lot less inclined to give it."
Ha!
No offense, but we needed Canada's frigging help for the last four years, and they haven't done a damn thing. You'll have to come up with a better threat than that.
I'm not one to defend the current government's foreign and defence policies, but that's a little harsh, Tom. Canada has been helping fight terrorists at several points. Troops have been in Afghanistan since the start of Enduring Freedom (where they've taken their heaviest casualties from an American pilot dropping a bomb on their training exercise) and are currently deploying to Kandahar to assist in eliminating al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region. Although the government refused to assist in Iraq directly, Canadian officers were involved in Iraqi Freedom and the Navy has had an almost continual presence in the Persian Gulf. And not to mention NORAD and continental defense, as well as intelligence co-operation among law enforcement and spy agencies.
So while there's more the country could've and could still do to fight terrorists and support the U.S. in Iraq, it's not right to say that Canada hasn't done a damn thing since Sept. 11.
Post a Comment