Americans can be such arrogant b*stards!

[SoulOnIce]

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bf63bb07-df95-4f39-8118-514e41b91fdf

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1123797013935&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

Basically the U.S claimed that Canadian softwood lumber was unfairly subsidized by the Canadian government. So they slapped tariffs and such on lumber being imported into the U.S costing Canada billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Canada launched a protest. A NAFTA panel and a WTO panel both sided with Canada. Recently ANOTHER NAFTA panel unanimously decided in Canada's favour but the U.S says it does not have to abide by the ruling and pay Canada back the money it owes.

What amazing arrongance!

This is typical of the U.S. You expect the world to abide by the rules but, of course, the mighty U.S is above the rules the rest of the world have to obey.

Is it any wonder most of the world dislikes you?

[Adam Crocker]

What amazing arrongance!

No, not really, because...

This is typical of the U.S. You expect the world to abide by the rules but, of course, the mighty U.S is above the rules the rest of the world have to obey.

Trade disputes with Canada aside this is kind of obvious in the way Bush was promoting free trade in Latin America even though he won't bring down subsidies on corn, meaning that the U.S. gets to dump it on Mexico, but Mexico can't subsidize its corn because it has to abided by trade rules. He's stance on free trade amounts to nothing more than pious hypocrisy.

Mind you though, my stance whenever the U.S. government talks about promoting free trade, particularly in Latin America, I find that has historically been about promoting American economic dominance in the region.

Is it any wonder most of the world dislikes you?

I was having a discussion on MSN about this with a friend in Singapore. We somehow ended up getting into the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia to which found an article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html) on how they were forced to release some training manuals back in 1996 that reccommended use of tactics such as arresting witnesses relatives, blackmail, execution, and torture.

He then observed that it has been running for almost sixty years, through more than a handful of administrations, both Democratic and Republican, and that its reason for being (or raison d'etre for you fancy foreign jargon types) is "to train terrorists and death squads." He then said, and I feel this is the most important part to understand:

"I understand why people get upset over "anti-American" sentiment, but the problem is, too often it's actually justifiable."

And while generally I like a lot American culture (or at least the music) and get along fine with Americans I know online (even those I disagree with politically), MAN I could not help but agree with that statement completely.

[outlander78]

The fact that American treaties (whether trade or nuclear) cannot be trusted does not reflect well on a country that claims to be the greatest.

It's unfortunate that stupid white people were allowed to re-elect Bush (I say that because of the correlation between education and not voting Republican). It would have been interesting to see if an honest (relative, I realize) American administration would have behaved differently.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

My favourite is the guy with a button that say "I didn't vote for Bush, or his dad."

It must be frustrating to be a decent American (incidentally, every American I have met falls into the group of people I consider decent) these days.

[Samurai]

Yeah, I hate the huge trade imbalance we have, where the US only wants to sell its goods overseas and never buys anything from those countries... It's totally unfair!

Oh wait, that's China. The US is a massive importer of goods, taking in far more than it exports, effectively subsidizing the industries of our trading partners with our net consumption....

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yeah, I hate the huge trade imbalance we have, where the US only wants to sell its goods overseas and never buys anything from those countries... It's totally unfair!

Oh wait, that's China. The US is a massive importer of goods, taking in far more than it exports, effectively subsidizing the industries of our trading partners with our net consumption....

None of this speaks at all to the situation referrred to in the first post, with Canada.

Nice try, again, at changing the subject.

[the4thpip]

The US is also refusing to follow the WTO judgment that they have to drop the illegal Byrd amendment, which is costing German metal companies millions that go right to their American competition. And Germany isn't aggressively pursuing that anymore because the company that made the most money off that is run by the new American abassador to Germany, and my government is trying to make nice with him for some reason.

Bush is NOT a free trade Republican.

[EdContradictory]

None of this speaks at all to the situation referrred to in the first post, with Canada.

Nice try, again, at changing the subject.
What, you don't want to talk about China in a thread about the US abusing Cananda?

[Adam Crocker]

Yeah, I hate the huge trade imbalance we have, where the US only wants to sell its goods overseas and never buys anything from those countries... It's totally unfair!

Oh wait, that's China. The US is a massive importer of goods, taking in far more than it exports, effectively subsidizing the industries of our trading partners with our net consumption....

That's nice, now do you mind actually addressing the point at hand, that the U.S. doesn't actually follow the trading treaties it signs (even when it has been at the forefront of pushing said treaties)? Because whatever trade imbalances the U.S. has through importing goods, the fact remains that not adhering to the treaties you sign, trade or otherwise, is dishonest not to mention hypocritical. The U.S. went after Canada (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3723/is_4_15/ai_102223458) through the WTO over illegal diary subsidies amd Canada then complied with the ruling. (http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2003/Dec/31-635626.html) It also went after Canada over the practices (http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2004/April/U.S._Wins_Key_Issues_in_WTO_Wheat_Dispute_With_Can ada.html) of the Canadian Wheat Board, yet when the WTO rules against it, the U.S. just blows it off. Why the hell should Washington expect other people to abide by NAFTA and the GATT when it doesn't even bother to itself?

[Adam Crocker]

What, you don't want to talk about China in a thread about the US abusing Cananda?

Well if he can actually point out why it is relevant to the discussion of following trading agreements and how it somehow takes the onus off the U.S. in this case then I will listen.

(I'm iffy about the GATT and WTO myself, but I my full opinion on them is pending further research on the matter. Needless to say though if you won't follow the agreements you signed, then get out of them, but don't stay on and expect others to do so. The Canadian government isn't innocent in this regard either, especially when it comes to trading with developing countries.)

[PatrickG]

I agree with most of the anti-American sentiment, especially in regards to our lack of culture and the Iraq war.

But these treaties don't sound like good ideas to begin with.

How would the U.S. go about abandoning a treaty if they later decide it's a bad idea? If breaking it is the only way, I can't say that I find the American action too outrageous here.

No law should last forever and I don't think it's fair to expect future administrations to honor treaties made by past administrations without an exit option.

The idea of international law with which compliance is anything more than voluntary rubs me the wrong way.

If anything, I'm just ticked that we don't respect the sovereignty of OTHER nations above international law as well.

[EdContradictory]

Well if he can actually point out why it is relevant to the discussion of following trading agreements and how it somehow takes the onus off the U.S. in this case then I will listen.

It's quite clear that because of China, anything the US does is fine.

[the4thpip]

I agree with most of the anti-American sentiment, especially in regards to our lack of culture and the Iraq war.

But these treaties don't sound like good ideas to begin with.

How would the U.S. go about abandoning a treaty if they later decide it's a bad idea? If breaking it is the only way, I can't say that I find the American action too outrageous here.

No law should last forever and I don't think it's fair to expect future administrations to honor treaties made by past administrations without an exit option.

The idea of international law with which compliance is anything more than voluntary rubs me the wrong way.

If anything, I'm just ticked that we don't respect the sovereignty of OTHER nations above international law as well.

This thinking leads to trade wars.
The European Union is already putting tariffs on American goods to retaliate to American behavior.

[The Mirrorball Man]

The idea of international law with which compliance is anything more than voluntary rubs me the wrong way.
Then don't see it as international law: see it as a contract.

[PatrickG]

Well, a contract isn't a promise and isn't criminal law.

It's basically programming language that stipulates actions, reactions and agreements.

And you can either use a termination clause to get out of a contract or outright breech it and let the matter go into civil court. There are risks with the latter and consequences with the former but my brain just isn't wired to see a contract as a moral obligation. I mean, frequently, there's an accompanying moral obligation.

But if I say I'll water mow your lawn and you say you'll walk my dog and one of the two doesn't happen, well, agreement over. What conseqences, if any, stem from that need to be hammered out, preferably in advance...

... But any agreement that can't be broken is tyranny.

[Adam Crocker]

]
But these treaties don't sound like good ideas to begin with.

How would the U.S. go about abandoning a treaty if they later decide it's a bad idea? If breaking it is the only way, I can't say that I find the American action too outrageous here.

[...]

If anything, I'm just ticked that we don't respect the sovereignty of OTHER nations above international law as well.

For now I'd just like to state that your last sentence is the main problem here. The U.S. breaks these treaties, but from the examples I posted it seems to, even under Shrub's administration, expect that other nations go along with them even if it isn't willing to follow them.

Edit: And I should add this sort of behaviour has been a pattern with the U.S. government.

As for how to pull out of a treaty, well when they decided to abandon the 1972 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to build a missile shield* they actually announced they were doing so. Which is what leads me to believe that the Bush administration has no intention of pulling out of NAFTA or GATT. It merely expects that, as usual, rules will apply differentially to it than elsewhere.

(*Now pulling out of that I regard as stupid, though mostly because the alternative to breaking established non proliferation precedent was to adopt a defensive measure that doesn't even work.)

[Dry Observer]

The U.S. embassy in Canada's website has a report (http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/can_usa/ustr_tradeestimates_2005.pdf) on U.S.-Canadian trade.

The U.S. trade deficit with Canada was $65.8 billion in 2004, an increase of $14.1 billion from $51.7 billion in 2003. U.S. goods exports in 2004 were 190.2 billion, up 11.9 percent from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from Canada were $255.9 billion, up 15.5 percent. Canada is currently the largest export market for U.S. goods.

This report also lists some U.S. concerns with Canadian trade practices, though I'm sure the Canadian government would offer their own perspective (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/trade_and_investment/wltr2001-en.asp). I'm not taking a position on any of these disputes, but I'm happy to see people are interested in learning more about the subject. =)

Ralph

[Adam Crocker]

This report also lists some U.S. concerns with Canadian trade practices, though I'm sure the Canadian government would offer their own perspective (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/trade_and_investment/wltr2001-en.asp).

As it always would. Thanks for posting these Ralph. I'll read them later.

I'm not surprised that the U.S. is the largest export market for Canadian goods, that's common knowledge, but I did not know that they now have a trade deficit with us. Since I can't read these right away allow me to toss out a preliminary thought for people to chew on: might this and how much of this deficit might be due to the decline in the U.S. manufacturer sector in recent years?

But that's something I'll have to figure out later as I got to go get some groceries.

[Dry Observer]

Oh, and Canada's GDP was just over US $1 trillion last year, so a trade surplus of US $68 billion represents well over 6% of her GDP, or substantially more than her growth rate of 2.4%.

It's interesting to look at the numbers and see who benefits and who doesn't do so well in international trade -- though of course you really need an industry-by-industry breakdown to do so, maybe even a local breakdown of trade flows.

Ralph

[Matt Algren]

It's unfortunate that stupid white people were allowed to re-elect Bush (I say that because of the correlation between education and not voting Republican).
Please post your backup for this statement. I know it must be comforting to have such an easy excuse for being outvoted, but I'd like to see your data.

Also clarify whether you're talking about education or intelligence. I realize that you wrote education, but I would think that intelligence would be a better standard.

Sorry to be a dick, but we've been through this before. Others have tried to give "proof" before, but have failed miserably.

[outlander78]

Those are interesting numbers.

It wasn't too long ago that Canada shipped raw goods to the U.S. and bought backed finished goods. This was good for the U.S., less so for us. It was at this time that NAFTA was started.

Now we both buy our low-end (and some high-end) goods from China, India and other locations. It appears that what is left is our timber, farm produce and oil moving south.

I hope the U.S. fixes its trade deficits (ie finds ways to get Americans to buy American again), as no country can long withstand such huge trade and budget imbalances. Impact to my country aside, I don't like seeing the slide the U.S. is in, and would like it restored to greatness, sans the neo-cons, religious nuts, corporate shills - notice that means both sides - and other fringe groups that somehow control it.

There are many things the U.S. does well, but as Canada has a far higher ratio of natural resources to people, it would be hard to compete with us on either quality or price for timber, in the same way that Canadian media are hard-pressed to compete with their U.S. counterparts.

If the U.S. wants to withdraw from NAFTA, I could understand that, especially given the numbers above. I suspect most Canadians and perhaps world citizens would appreciate honesty when they do so, instead of saying free trade while having anything but.

I'm very tired of feeling great anger towards America, given that nearly every citizen of that country I've met has been a decent person. However, currently, being a trading partner of America is like being a business partner of Microsoft - you are bound to get screwed.

Anyone care to guess what is needed to fix America's government? Get its voters to turn out in good numbers again? More political parties? Less outright buying of politicians? Worthwhile candidates? The seperation of state and church(es)? Lives lived without fear of armed neighbours and faceless opponents with backpack bombs?

I realize that my country has many, many flaws as well, but I live in hope that our flaws won't be as destructive, and that America's won't ruin a perfectly good country.

[outlander78]

Please post your backup for this statement. I know it must be comforting to have such an easy excuse for being outvoted, but I'd like to see your data.

Also clarify whether you're talking about education or intelligence. I realize that you wrote education, but I would think that intelligence would be a better standard.

Sorry to be a dick, but we've been through this before. Others have tried to give "proof" before, but have failed miserably.

I'm just using the limited data given by U.S. media analysts. It's no doubt flawed. I withdraw the comment, with apologies.

My anger with the administration's behaviour, and my concern for the future of a country with such terrible leadership stands, however.

Doesn't it scare you to run such massive deficits and court the anger of ever-larger groups of enemies who use terrible tactics against your countrymen? Was it Greenspan who tried to publicly communicate to Bush that it is hard to be militarily strong while economically weak?

[Dry Observer]

The U.S. trade deficit with Canada was $65.8 billion in 2004, an increase of $14.1 billion from $51.7 billion in 2003. U.S. goods exports in 2004 were 190.2 billion, up 11.9 percent from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from Canada were $255.9 billion, up 15.5 percent. Canada is currently the largest export market for U.S. goods.

Oh, and Canada's GDP was just over US $1 trillion last year, so a trade surplus of US $68 billion represents well over 6% of her GDP, or substantially more than her growth rate of 2.4%.

Oh, and if you look at these two sets of numbers, you'll notice that the growth in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada alone accounts for over half of Canada's growth last year. US $14.1 billion out of just over US $1 trillion equals between 1.3 and 1.4% of Canada's 2004 GDP, and her growth rate was only 2.4%.

Like I say, you can learn an awful about the world economy just by looking over some of these basic statistics. But it's a field that deserves a lot of in-depth study...

For example, what benefits do both sides get from each other's cheaper materials, goods and services? What benefits do they gain from an open border? What problems does that border create (or dangers)? What inequities exist in U.S.-Canadian trade, and whose job depends on, or is threatened by, their trade agreements?

And you could just go on and on. Some would argue, for instance, that the relatively free flow of talent into both countries is a great benefit to the entrepreneurial, cultural and scientific base of each. Others feel threatened when highly talented, highly educated and ambitious people come from other countries to compete for jobs. (And even more threatened when those people can stay home and still compete on the international job market through outsourcing.)

It's a fascinating field. =)

Ralph

[Samurai]

Nice link Dry. I thought this line was especially important:

Softwood Lumber

The 1996 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expired on March 31, 2001. The bilateral agreement was put in place to mitigate the harmful effects of subsidies provided by the Canadian federal and provincial governments to Canadian lumber producers on the U.S. lumber industry.

Upon expiration of the 1996 Agreement, U.S. industry filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions regarding imports of Canadian softwood lumber.
So, the agreement expired in 2001, and the US govt decided not to renew it, and instead impose duties. Seems to me they didn't break the agreement at all... it was over and done with due to its expiration date before the duties were imposed. How could the "NAFTA Court" rule that an agreement that had already expired had been violated, and try to penalyze the US for that?

[EdContradictory]

How could the "NAFTA Court" rule that an agreement that had already expired had been violated, and try to penalyze the US for that?
I bet it was China's fault.

[Samurai]

I bet it was China's fault.
It might have been... what nationality were the civilian judges? What special interests did they have? How well did they know the laws and treaties? How much accountability is there?

If there was a 5 year expiration date on the treaty, and the US simply chose not to renew it after the 5 years are up, that is perfectly within their rights. And if a biased court tries to rule otherwise, knowing that America's massive trade deficit is responsible for half the growth in their country and doing everything they can to see that the imbalance continues to grow, America is right to tell them to go jump in the lake, and ignore the ruling.

[Clement]

Simple version:

Most of the canadian forests are owned by the canadian government. The governement allows companies to cut and re-grow parts of those forest for free, because the forest has to be cut to be refreshed and renewed, something would happen in the past when forest fires went unchecked. This creates jobs, and brings in taxes from the industries that revolve around the lumber industry.

The american government handles it's forest much like oil producing countries handle their oil fields. You can come in and exploit them, but you have to give me a chunk of revenue. (of course, the chunk is much larger when it comes to oil).

Bottom line, it costs less for canadian lumber companies to take a piece of wood out of the forest and cut it and put it on the market than for american companies to do the same, because they don't have to pay the owner of the forest to do so. So, by that logic, the great Bush governement decided that not asking for money to let people cut your forest was equal to giving them money to produce lumber, which allows them to hide behind the anti-duming laws and ignore the free trade agreement.

Seems like the free trade agreement works fine for the US, but just when it benifits them. When they end up with the short end of the stick, they don't like it so much.

Of course, this comes from the same governement that says there's no global warming and that the jury is still out on evolution, so it's not really surprising.

[estee]

Well, a contract isn't a promise and isn't criminal law.

It's basically programming language that stipulates actions, reactions and agreements.

And you can either use a termination clause to get out of a contract or outright breech it and let the matter go into civil court. There are risks with the latter and consequences with the former but my brain just isn't wired to see a contract as a moral obligation. I mean, frequently, there's an accompanying moral obligation.

But if I say I'll water mow your lawn and you say you'll walk my dog and one of the two doesn't happen, well, agreement over. What conseqences, if any, stem from that need to be hammered out, preferably in advance...

... But any agreement that can't be broken is tyranny.

So I guess you want the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution done away with too?

[Patriot07]

The fact that American treaties (whether trade or nuclear) cannot be trusted does not reflect well on a country that claims to be the greatest.

It's unfortunate that stupid white people were allowed to re-elect Bush (I say that because of the correlation between education and not voting Republican). It would have been interesting to see if an honest (relative, I realize) American administration would have behaved differently.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

My favourite is the guy with a button that say "I didn't vote for Bush, or his dad."

It must be frustrating to be a decent American (incidentally, every American I have met falls into the group of people I consider decent) these days.

Well that's the great thing about America. We have the right to choose, no matter how wrong it is. At least we get the simple freedoms that a lot of the world don't get.

[Ian Boothby]

Simple version:

Most of the canadian forests are owned by the canadian government. The governement allows companies to cut and re-grow parts of those forest for free, because the forest has to be cut to be refreshed and renewed, something would happen in the past when forest fires went unchecked. This creates jobs, and brings in taxes from the industries that revolve around the lumber industry.

The american government handles it's forest much like oil producing countries handle their oil fields. You can come in and exploit them, but you have to give me a chunk of revenue. (of course, the chunk is much larger when it comes to oil).

Bottom line, it costs less for canadian lumber companies to take a piece of wood out of the forest and cut it and put it on the market than for american companies to do the same, because they don't have to pay the owner of the forest to do so. So, by that logic, the great Bush governement decided that not asking for money to let people cut your forest was equal to giving them money to produce lumber, which allows them to hide behind the anti-duming laws and ignore the free trade agreement.

Seems like the free trade agreement works fine for the US, but just when it benifits them. When they end up with the short end of the stick, they don't like it so much.

Of course, this comes from the same governement that says there's no global warming and that the jury is still out on evolution, so it's not really surprising.

The U.S. is really become a "One set of rules for us and one for the rest of the world" nation.

[Samurai]

The U.S. is really become a "One set of rules for us and one for the rest of the world" nation.
Yeah... other countries get to decide for themselves whether or not to renew a treaty with a 5 year expiration date, but not the US. If the US dares not to renew such a treaty, the international courts will force them to abide by it in perpetuity, expiration date be damned....

[TCJohnson]

Yeah... other countries get to decide for themselves whether or not to renew a treaty with a 5 year expiration date, but not the US. If the US dares not to renew such a treaty, the international courts will force them to abide by it in perpetuity, expiration date be damned....

Samurai, if you bothered reading Clement's post, it is not that treaty that the US is violating, it is the North American Free Trade Agreement that America is violating. Part of the NAFTA agreement is that duties would be applied in a certain set of circumstances. One of the circumstances is if an industry is subsidized. The US argued that Canada was subsidizing the soft wood industry because it did not charge people to harvest the lumber. A NAFTA panel, which previously the US agreed to obey it's decision, has said that this is not the case and the tarrifs the US were imposing broke the agreement.

This has nothing to do with that treaty that expired. This has to do with the rules of NAFTA which has not expired and which America has previously agreed to.

[Samurai]

Samurai, if you bothered reading Clement's post, it is not that treaty that the US is violating, it is the North American Free Trade Agreement that America is violating. Part of the NAFTA agreement is that duties would be applied in a certain set of circumstances. One of the circumstances is if an industry is subsidized. The US argued that Canada was subsidizing the soft wood industry because it did not charge people to harvest the lumber. A NAFTA panel, which previously the US agreed to obey it's decision, has said that this is not the case and the tarrifs the US were imposing broke the agreement.

This has nothing to do with that treaty that expired. This has to do with the rules of NAFTA which has not expired and which America has previously agreed to.
I don't think it's nearly so cut and dried. NAFTA began in Jan 1994. Why then would the US and Canada sign a seperate agreement on lumber in 1996 (set to expire in 2001) if everything was already covered by NAFTA? What would be the point of such an agreement? Obviously, both the US and Canada believed that the lumber issues addressed in the seperate treaty were not part of NAFTA, or else they superseded NAFTA (since they came later). Seems like Canada is simply using the NAFTA legal processes to try and force America to renew a seperate treaty that was not part of NAFTA...

[Adam Crocker]

I don't think it's nearly so cut and dried.

Yes, but now you need to ask if the evidence support this supposition? I decided to look up the background on the Softwood Lumber Agreement of 1996, and this dispute has been going on for 15 years prior to the signing of the agreement. There was actually an option to renew it when it expired, but that never happened. I'd say that more likely the agreement was set up in an attempt order to find some sort of workable compromise (though making temporary in case it didn't pan out for one of the parties) in an ongoing trade dispute.

Furthermore, according to the 1996 agreement itself (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/pdfs/treaty-e.pdf) disputes regarding the Agreement would be referred to NAFTA or the WTO (see page 7) so it's unlikely that both parties regarded the matter as outside of the purview of NAFTA if they were using it as one of the sources for mediating conflicts under the old agreement. Especially since the NAFTA Secretariat's website has rulings on this dating back to 1993. (Similarly why has the U.S. government only dispute the rulings, but not NAFTA's jurisdiction in this matter?)

[Adam Crocker]

And if a biased court tries to rule otherwise, knowing that America's massive trade deficit is responsible for half the growth in their country and doing everything they can to see that the imbalance continues to grow, America is right to tell them to go jump in the lake, and ignore the ruling.

It's one thing to suspect bias. It's another to claim it is affecting these rulings without providing evidence and only going on a hunch based on nationalist suspicions.

According to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001448.html) the panel consisted of two Canadians and one American. I suppose that could be a basis for claiming that its unfairly biased, though the ruling in this case unaminous. This Extraordinary Committee was also set up at the request of the U.S. in order to rule on an earlier decision made under NAFTA rules. So it's not as though its only Canada doing pushing here and the fact that U.S. resorts to NAFTA seems that it recognize it as a mechanism for resolving this dispute. Moreover, this matter has been ruled on (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/) in the past several times under NAFTA and the WTO, mostly in favour of Canada in this case. I looked up the cases on the NAFTA Secretariat's website (note the Secretariat has three sections to it, one for each country) and some of the past decisions that ruled in favour of Canada mostly had Americans on the panel. (And one from 1993 that ruled in favour of the U.S. where most of the panel were Canadians.) The World Trade Organization's rulings are another matter, but I don't know when I'll get around to them. (Of course that doesn't stop anyone else from looking them up if they please...)

Of course unlike the WTO, NAFTA is supposed to be a binding agreement.


Most of the canadian forests are owned by the canadian government. The governement allows companies to cut and re-grow parts of those forest for free...

Actually, the Canadian government does charge companies for use of their forests, namely in the form of a stumpage fee. However, according to Environmental Media Services (http://www.ems.org/softwood_lumber_agreement/questions_and_answers.html#companies) that fee is well below usual market price, and often further reduced or returned to the companies, which is the basis for the American claim that Canadian lumber is subsidized. (EMS is fairly critical about this because, as they claims, "most timber companies could not afford to log many of the ancient forests currently being clearcut without these subsidies." On top of that, they are critical of the Canadian and BC governments providing environmental subsidies for the companies by lowering environmental standards and enforcement, making it less costly for these companies to cut down forests - which leads to clear cutting according to them.

[Samurai]

Why create a new system of dispute settlement when one was already in place?

And NAFTA had the right to settle disputes only while the treaty was in place... they had no right IMO to try and force the US to renew the treaty if they didn't want to. And that's really what this suit amounts to... we had a 5 year treaty with Canada which ran out. Canada REALLY liked the treaty and wanted it to continue, but the US didn't renew it, instead imposing tariffs after the treaty expired. Canada, acting as if the treaty were still in effect, took it to the NAFTA court and somehow got a ruling in their favor. The US says "that's ridiculous, our treaty is over and done with, and no longer applies, and we won't abide by the unjust ruling that we must still be bound by it." And they are right to do so, it seems...

If I had a 5 year subscription to cable TV, then quit after the 5 years expired and went with a satelite dish, the cable TV company should have no right to sue me for dropping them after my subscription ended.

There was a 5 year committment. It was fulfilled. Treaty over. Live with it.

[TCJohnson]

But the North American Free Trade Agreement is not over, and that is what the US is violating. And they are not trying to force the US to renew the treaty. They are trying to force the US to refund duties they charged which violated NAFTA...which has not expired and the US signed.

Where are you getting that Canada wants the US to sign a new treaty?

[Adam Crocker]

Why create a new system of dispute settlement when one was already in place?

Well it's debatable if they did since NAFTA is referred to as a dispute settlement mechanism in the treaty. As I have stated before, given that this was a long-standing dispute with several rulings from NAFTA or the WTO that have failed to resolve the matter, the treaty was probably an attempt to find a compromise for the time being since litigation had gone nowhere in the years prior to that.

And NAFTA had the right to settle disputes only while the treaty was in place... they had no right IMO to try and force the US to renew the treaty if they didn't want to.

And where has it been said that the NAFTA commission was trying to renew the treaty? According to the stories it only merely ruled that a previous decision in Canada's favour did not violate settlement rules and that the U.S. should pay back the duties collected on Canadian lumber. It did not state that the U.S. has to the renew the 1996 treaty.

And that's really what this suit amounts to... we had a 5 year treaty with Canada which ran out.

The Extraordinary Challenge Committee who handed down the recent ruling was set up at the U.S.' request.

Canada REALLY liked the treaty and wanted it to continue, but the US didn't renew it, instead imposing tariffs after the treaty expired. Canada, acting as if the treaty were still in effect, took it to the NAFTA court and somehow got a ruling in their favor. The US says "that's ridiculous, our treaty is over and done with, and no longer applies, and we won't abide by the unjust ruling that we must still be bound by it." And they are right to do so, it seems...

Why do you keep insisting on the idea that Canada is trying to enforce an expired treaty when none of the stories have said anything to that effect? It's ruling on Canada's Softwood Lumber practices as they apply under NAFTA rules, not the rules of the 1996 treaty. If you want to question NAFTA's rules with reference to them, fine. But the 1996 treaty doesn't seem to have anthing to do with this ruliing and both parties seems to regard NAFTA as applying to the matter.

[Adam Crocker]

Where are you getting that Canada wants the US to sign a new treaty?

I'm trying to figure that out, since if one was trying to make a credible argument for Canada trying to force the U.S. to take up the treaty again, one would try to find...oh you know, evidence for that instead of tossing out conjecture.

[Samurai]

I'm trying to figure that out, since if one was trying to make a credible argument for Canada trying to force the U.S. to take up the treaty again, one would try to find...oh you know, evidence for that instead of tossing out conjecture.
Oh yee of short attention spans, look further up the thread to the US position on the matter that was linked to.

NAFTA was created in 1994. It didn't cover this issue sufficiently, so the US and Canada signed a seperate agreement in 1996, with a 5 year expiration date. It expired, and the US didn't renew it. Instead, they imposed tariffs. Canada used the resolution method stated in the seperate now defunct, expired, ended, dead treaty and got a ruling saying the US was wrong to let it expire and then impose tariffs, and had to pay back the tariffs because the violated the expired treaty.

If NAFTA already supposedly entirely covered this issue, why did both countries sign the seperate 1996 treaty?

[outlander78]

Perhaps to extend and modify the existing terms? To work around short- or medium-term issues that would go away in the long-term? To create work for cronies?

Samurai, why would anyone in Canada want to increase the trade deficit? It isn't sustainable, and we're better off with consumers than bankrupt former consumers.

[Arrjay]

I feel your pain.
I moved to the U.S a long time ago to be with the person I love.
I am extremely glad to be here because there is a lot of opportunuty and my special peson is here. I really can't complain about that.
What really pisses me off (and which I truly feel I do have a right to complain about) is the complete arrogance that the U.S approaches the rest of the world with. The U.S treats the rest of the world as if all other countries are merely second-class or something. Americans (and let's not forget their leaders) generally believe that their country is #1. Some of them will even tell you that. It's completely appallling considering that living conditions are actually much better in some other countries. The general treatment of people in the U.S and their freedoms is actually much less dignified than Americans themselves are lead to believe. The United States lies to it's own people a hell of a lot more than most other countries. Their probably closer to the #12 spot on the list of free and democratic nations who respect basic human liberties. It's actually quite depressing.

[Samurai]

Perhaps to extend and modify the existing terms? To work around short- or medium-term issues that would go away in the long-term? To create work for cronies?

Samurai, why would anyone in Canada want to increase the trade deficit? It isn't sustainable, and we're better off with consumers than bankrupt former consumers.
Are you seriously asking why anyone would look at short term gain if it will have negative consequences years down the line???

[Corrina]

[COLOR=Navy]What really pisses me off (and which I truly feel I do have a right to complain about) is the complete arrogance that the U.S approaches the rest of the world with. The U.S treats the rest of the world as if all other countries are merely second-class or something. Americans (and let's not forget their leaders) generally believe that their country is #1.

We're not?

[Samurai]

We're not?
He said he's a furner... guess he didn't get the memo. ;)

[Adam Crocker]

Oh yee of short attention spans, look further up the thread to the US position on the matter that was linked to.

[...]

If NAFTA already supposedly entirely covered this issue, why did both countries sign the seperate 1996 treaty?

As I stated before, the issue had been hashed over for several years prior to the signing of the treaty, and there's even NAFTA rulings on the matter prior to the treaty if you search the Panels and Decisions archive of the NAFTA Secretariat. Given this fact and that the U.S. has not disputed NAFTA's jurisdiction over the Softwood Lumber dispute the more likely reason they signed the treaty is that the issue wasn't approaching resolution at the time so they chose to has out a compromise agreement for the time being. According to the provincial government of British Columbia's website this was the reasoning behind the agreement (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/disputes.htm#The%201996%20Softwood%20Lumber%20Agre ement) as it was souring the two countries' trade relations.

Canada used the resolution method stated in the seperate now defunct, expired, ended, dead treaty and got a ruling saying the US was wrong to let it expire and then impose tariffs, and had to pay back the tariffs because the violated the expired treaty.

You're lecturing us about short attention spans when you keep saying that the Canadian argument is based on the treaty even though the NAFTA rulings never made reference to the damn treaty? Nor for that matter did the U.S. paper Ralph link to refer to the 1996 Softwood Lumber Agreement as being at issue in the current round of NAFTA decisions. Nor for that matter is it even mentioned in the Canadian government's position on the recent ECC ruling (http://w01.international.gc.ca/MinPub/Publication.asp?Language=E&publication_id=382884) or the original NAFTA ruling (http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?publication_id=381471&language=E) that the U.S. had challenged through the ECC.

There's no evidence for that the treaty itself has served as a part of the reasonings for the arguments of any of the parties here. The Canadian government's practices for charging companies to harvest softwood lumber could very well constitute a subsidy (whether they do so under NAFTA rules is another matter, and also opens the door to whether NAFTA rules are sufficient or whether NAFTA itself is a good idea). However, continuing to claim that the 1996 Agreement is a part Canada, the U.S. or the NAFTA panels' respective positions on the matter is blatantly dishonest.

[Arrjay]

We're not?

No saphead, you're not. I mean, perhaps in terms of having the maximum amount of sold garments created in overseas sweatshop condidtions, yeah. That aside, anyone who has travelled extensively in Europe and Australia and other countries around the world can tell you that there are many other countries that provide better for their people than the U.S. On that scale the U.S is definitely not number one.

[Adam Crocker]

Are you seriously asking why anyone would look at short term gain if it will have negative consequences years down the line???

Samurai's got a point there. Just because there will be negative long term consequences does not mean people will ignore them and look at short term gain first, as countless examples on the part of the human race have proven.

[Arrjay]

He said he's a furner... guess he didn't get the memo. ;)

Truly hilarious material.
Especially considering that most Americans are either foreigners themselves or descendants thereof. Except of course, Native Americans.

[Nick Soapdish]

Oh yee of short attention spans, look further up the thread to the US position on the matter that was linked to.

NAFTA was created in 1994. It didn't cover this issue sufficiently, so the US and Canada signed a seperate agreement in 1996, with a 5 year expiration date. It expired, and the US didn't renew it. Instead, they imposed tariffs. Canada used the resolution method stated in the seperate now defunct, expired, ended, dead treaty and got a ruling saying the US was wrong to let it expire and then impose tariffs, and had to pay back the tariffs because the violated the expired treaty.

If NAFTA already supposedly entirely covered this issue, why did both countries sign the seperate 1996 treaty?

I only skimmed through the articles so maybe I missed it.

But the US position didn't say anything about Canada's lawsuit being linked to the 1996 agreement - at least not in the 13 page document that Dry Observer linked to. In fact, it implied the reverse because the US alleged that Canada flooded the market after the treaty expired, hence their implementation of anti-dumping tariffs.

And NAFTA doesn't have to entirely cover the issue for their to be possible violations on what it does cover; it only needs to cover a component of the issue for their to be a violation. The treaty was presumably signed to cover stuff that wasn't covered adequately. None of the four articles linked to stated that Canada or the US was interested in renewing the treaty, although the one detailing the US position implied that the US might want it renewed since it apparently curtailed Canada's allegedly illegal softwood subsidies. (Although if softwood subsidies are illegal, why are we allowed to do it?)

[Adam Crocker]

Truly hilarious material.
Especially considering that most Americans are either foreigners themselves or descendants thereof. Except of course, Native Americans.

Well depends on how you look at that. They did originally come over to the western hemisphere back when Siberia was linked to Alask via a landbridge way back when. Of course humanity apparently originated in Africa and then migrated outward, or as Keith Richards' said: "...we're all African. Some of us just left and turned white." (Of course he was talking about the Blues!)

[outlander78]

Are you seriously asking why anyone would look at short term gain if it will have negative consequences years down the line???

I'm asking why Canadians would have such a view. We aren't generally that stupid, especially when it comes to high-stakes finance. As a country that mostly exports commodity items like lumber, gas, and agricultural produce, why would be silly enough to drag down our biggest customer?

[Corrina]

He said he's a furner... guess he didn't get the memo. ;)

Can't trust those furners.

Adding: sorry, should have had a smiley face that first time. Or a warning that I'm feeling like a wiseass today. Or a note that Samurai and I never agree on anything regarding politics.

Probably at least Cam realized I was being a wiseass. Though him being an Aussie foreigner and all, maybe not. :)

By the way, what's a saphead? I have a head of maple sap? It's not the right season for that, you know....

[TCJohnson]

I would never think of you as a wiseass, Corrina. Hell, when I think of you the word "wise" never even comes up.

[Arrjay]

Can't trust those furners.

Adding: sorry, should have had a smiley face that first time. Or a warning that I'm feeling like a wiseass today. Or a note that Samurai and I never agree on anything regarding politics.

Probably at least Cam realized I was being a wiseass. Though him being an Aussie foreigner and all, maybe not. :)

By the way, what's a saphead? I have a head of maple sap? It's not the right season for that, you know....

It's a tame insult some friends of mine used to throw at each other in the company of respectable folk so as not to offend. It works on these boards well as it doesn't really denote any kind of derogatory meaning.

[Ian Boothby]

Can't trust those furners.

Adding: sorry, should have had a smiley face that first time. Or a warning that I'm feeling like a wiseass today. Or a note that Samurai and I never agree on anything regarding politics.

Probably at least Cam realized I was being a wiseass. Though him being an Aussie foreigner and all, maybe not. :)

By the way, what's a saphead? I have a head of maple sap? It's not the right season for that, you know....


It's always the right season for maple syrup!
And yes the U.S. is #1. Number one what? Opinions vary.

[Corrina]

I would never think of you as a wiseass, Corrina. Hell, when I think of you the word "wise" never even comes up.

:slashes TC from Christmas card list: