Re: Canada's Softwood Lumber Strategy - UPDATE

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:51:42 GMT, bruce.swinden@xxxxxxxx (Bruce
Swinden) wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:11:00 GMT, bruce.swinden@xxxxxxxx (Bruce
>Swinden) wrote:
>
>>Gottleib (Canada's ex Ambassador to Washington) is a sane Canadian
>>voice. I love the warning about 'playing leapfrog with a unicorn'.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Saturday » August 20 » 2005
>>
>>The dos and don'ts of softwood lumber
>>
>>Allan Gotlieb
>>National Post
>>
>>August 20, 2005
>>
>>The softwood lumber dispute has reached a stage whereby the national
>>interests of both Canada and the United States have become deeply
>>engaged. Washington has chosen to ignore the recent NAFTA panel ruling
>>that would remove U.S. duties on Canadian lumber and reimburse those
>>already collected. Though it is difficult to grasp the abstruse legal
>>argumentation offered in support of the U.S. position, it appears to
>>many as a gesture meant to appease the U.S. lumber lobby.
>>
>>If so, such a strategy 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.
>>
>>Canadians have long understood that the U.S. political system is
>>perhaps the most complex in the world, that power is widely dispersed
>>in Washington, and that special interests influence outcomes. This is
>>why Canada proposed creating a new legal structure, the Canada-U.S.
>>Free Trade Agreement, which subsequently became NAFTA, to provide a
>>stable legal framework that would protect both nations' interest in
>>free trade.
>>
>>Both parties agreed to reduce or eliminate tariffs, free up the flow
>>of investment and provide non-discriminatory treatment to each other's
>>citizens. An essential part of the architecture was the creation of a
>>new mechanism for settling trade disputes such as this one. Without
>>it, there would have been no agreement.
>>
>>The treaty has worked well: Trade has more than doubled since NAFTA
>>was enacted, and the dispute settlement panels have been used often.
>>In general, they have proven effective. But their authority
>>increasingly has been called into question.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>WHAT CAN CANADA DO TO ADDRESS THE IMPASSE? HERE ARE TWO THINGS WE
>>SHOULD NOT DO:
>>
>>1) Canada could retaliate, if we wished, in conformity with the
>>international rules of trade. Unfortunately, such retaliation
>>generally means higher tariffs on imports, the costs of which would be
>>indirectly borne by our own consumers.
>>
>>Moreover, in a retaliatory war, the big guy is most likely to win. As
>>former head of the AFL/CIO Lane Kirkland once advised me when I was
>>ambassador to the United States, (during the shingles and shakes
>>dispute of the 1980s): "Please tell your Government what my pappy
>>always told me: never play leapfrog with a unicorn." If we link our
>>oil or gas exports to softwood lumber, as some are advocating, we
>>would indeed shaft our national interest on the horn of the unicorn.
>>
>>This is not to say that Canada should never retaliate. If Washington
>>continues to flout trade law, we may have to target some U.S. exports.
>>But the moment is not now.
>>
>>2) Another approach would be to resume discussions in order to reach a
>>"negotiated solution," as the U.S. Trade Representatives office has
>>suggested. But Canada was right to suspend current discussions: Given
>>the way the U.S. system works, negotiating with the trade office is
>>not the ideal way to engage. The U.S. trade office is highly
>>responsive to protectionist pressures from Congress and various
>>special interests.
>>
>>NOW, HERE ARE TWO THINGS WE SHOULD DO:
>>
>>1) 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. Mr. Martin, who enjoys good personal relations with
>>the President, should build on that commitment.
>>
>>2) Create a mechanism for restoring the integrity of NAFTA and move
>>forward to strengthen it. The Prime Minister should propose to the
>>President that the two leaders each appoint a special high level envoy
>>-- either from within government or outside -- to review the softwood
>>impasse and the damage it is creating to our larger interests. The
>>envoys should report directly to the leaders on how to remove this
>>growing threat to the legal foundation of an agreement of immense
>>value to both countries.
>>
>>Allan Gotlieb is Senior Advisor at the law firm Stikeman Elliot and
>>former Ambassador to the United States.
>>© National Post 2005
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global
>>Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
>>Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher".
>
>The game begins with wrapping ourselves in the flag. It got the
>Autoworkers independence. The Americans got so sick of the antics they
>just gave it up in disgust! Canadian ingrates!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ottawa: We won't bow to U.S. 'bully'
>Ministers talk tough after envoy's jab
>
>
>Saturday, August 27, 2005
>
>Prime Minister Paul Martin speaks to reporters following the
>conclusion of his cabinet meeting in Winnipeg Friday.
>
>WINNIPEG - Paul Martin and senior Liberal Cabinet ministers have
>spurned an American call to stop "emotional tirades" over the softwood
>lumber dispute, with one of them yesterday urging Canadians not to
>allow "the bully to basically mop the floor with us."
>
>David Emerson, Industry Minister, also labeled as "hypocritical" a
>fresh appeal from U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins for the two countries
>to declare a verbal truce and return to the negotiating table before
>the dispute mushrooms into a multi-product trade war.
>
>"I respect Ambassador Wilkins, but I found his comments a little
>hypocritical," Mr. Emerson told reporters as he entered a federal
>Liberal cabinet meeting.
>
>The Minister, a former CEO of a forestry company, said his experience
>during five years of negotiations was that the U.S. uses "punitive
>duties and whatever aggressive actions they can take to force us to
>come to our knees in a dispute where legal rulings have shown time
>after time that we are in the right."
>
>Mr. Martin told reporters after the meeting that he backed the tough
>position taken by Mr. Emerson and other ministers.
>
>"It's not emotional to state the facts," he said, "and the facts are
>that when you sign an agreement you should live up to its terms."
>
>Mr. Martin declined to lower the volume of the war of words, rejecting
>suggestions that some of his ministers' language may have gone too far
>and hurt chances of resolving the dispute.
>
>"No," he said. "What the ministers have done is to simply outline the
>options, and they outlined them in as dispassionate, but as
>comprehensive way as they could. And they should have."
>
>Mr. Wilkins told the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday that Canadian
>officials should embrace negotiations to settle the softwood dispute
>rather than risk a trade war involving other sectors. "Emotional press
>conferences are not going to settle the issue," he said.
>
>He argued that the latest NAFTA panel ruling in Canada's favor was not
>final. "It wasn't a settlement, it was a ruling," he said. "You have a
>difference in legal opinions."
>
>The long-simmering feud over whether Canada's softwood exports are
>harming the U.S. industry flared anew after the U.S. government
>announced it would ignore the final NAFTA ruling. International Trade
>Minister Jim Peterson later pulled the plug on talks that has been
>scheduled for this week in Ottawa.
>
>Mr. Martin said this week the U.S. position is "absolutely untenable,"
>and that the only resolution is for the Americans to implement the
>ruling that would end the stiff U.S. tariffs on imports of Canadian
>softwood, and reimburse the Canadian industry for the $5-billion in
>duties it has paid since 2002.
>
>Mr. Peterson said Friday that Canada would return to the bargaining
>table when it's in Canada's best interests.
>
>"The message that the ambassador should be delivering to Washington is
>that they should not confuse emotion with commitment and determination
>by Canadians to ensure that the NAFTA is respected," he said.
>
>Mr. Emerson took umbrage at the tone and content of Mr. Wilkins'
>comments.
>
>"When I hear him speaking like that, when we know this is a game
>Americans play where heads they win, tails we lose, I think we have a
>right to get emotional," he said.
>
>"I think it's hypocritical for him to think that we haven't been
>negotiating. We have. There hasn't been a response from the other
>side."
>
>At the same time, he warned Canadians they must unite around any
>retaliatory action the government might take against the United States
>or risk defeat.
>
>"As soon as you name a sector, or a particular target of retaliation,
>then the regional divisions, the sector divisions begin to spring up
>in Canada," Mr. Emerson said.
>
>"And candidly Canadians have to decide, as a small trading economy,
>are we going to stand together, are we going to unite, are we going to
>be stronger than the sum of our parts, or are we going to be endlessly
>bickering amongst ourselves and allowing the bully to basically mop
>the floor with us."
>
>Mr. Peterson is charged with coming up with a range of retaliation
>options, including identifying products on which Canada could impose
>import duties. Canadian officials say California wine and liquor are
>among the items that have been suggested by some of the groups he has
>been consulting.
>
>Canadian officials have time on their hands, considering that June of
>next year is the earliest the country can retaliate under
>international trade rules.
>
>The challenge, officials say, is applying the maximum amount of
>pressure on the United States and the minimum damage on Canadian
>interests.
>© National Post 2005
>

Laboratories in America have been testing water samples collected from
lakes all over Canada and find they contains high levels of estrogen.
.

Relevant Pages