Quake3World

The political equivalent of 'neener neener'.

Ottawa — 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.”

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.

Wednesday, a last-ditch NAFTA appeals panel rejected Washington's claims that an earlier string of softwood rulings in favour of Canada broke trade rules.

<u>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.</u>

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.

The United States says it found a fresh justification for the softwood duties in November, 2004.

Washington says Wednesday's NAFTA ruling only applies to the U.S. International Trade Commission's 2002 finding of injury. It says the new justification for the duties came after the ITC reinvestigated the case in 2004 and again found Canadian timber poses a threat of injury to the U.S. market.

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.

Trade experts say the United States is eroding respect for NAFTA by ignoring Wednesday's decision.

<u>“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.</u>

While they disagree about Wednesday's ruling, both Canada and the U.S. are trying to steer the conflict to the negotiating table in the hopes of finding a settlement that would end legal wrangling.

Canada's Trade Minister said he thinks the NAFTA ruling enhances Ottawa's negotiating position “because the panel decision was final and unanimous.”

Senior officials from both countries have been meeting since March and another negotiating session is planned as early as Aug. 22.

Ontario's Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay called on the U.S. to reconsider its dismissal of the NAFTA ruling. “How much longer are they going to continue, basically, to ignore an international treaty? That's something they need to ask themselves,” he said. “They'd be pretty upset with us if we decided ... just to ignore decisions such as NAFTA panel decisions.”

The U.S. timber lobby signalled that its members have lost patience with the dispute resolution system. “The process does not work,” said lumber coalition chairman Steve Swanson. “NAFTA panels consistently act beyond their authority under U.S. law and the NAFTA.”

What's most infuriating is that the Canadian government is to cowardly to do anything about it. GGs Mr. Dithers.

I've been injured quite severely by Canadian softwood. I almost lost me hand. Thank goodness that satan stuff's not gonna make it's way into the U.S. again I say.

America Rocks! You Suck!

AMERICA... FUCK YEAH!

rofl. all the usa has done is piss off the canadian producers. in the last few years they have pumped big $$ into the mills.

now they pump out twice the lumber for the same cost. gg usa.

they have machines now(DDM-6-8-12's)that 3d scan every log. it's turned, cut, chipped into optimal lumber for that one log.

it's pretty cool, the wire frame view of each log comes up on a screen. they go through 10,000+logs in 8 hours with 2x the lumber from each log.

rofl, wait till we slap a pollution tax on every barrel of oil and kilowatt hour of power exported to the usa.

CANADA..FUCK YEAH!

that is pretty cool shadd

i love wood .

what company isat there?
hehe

If the International Trade Commission investigated last year, and found that it poses a threat, why can't we prove it in court? Is it another case of an ideological/cronyist or paid-off commission panel?

nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

by all means, America should become isolationist

i pray that it happens and i don't even believe in god

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

the only place nafta has been good is mexico.

were not some third world country up here you fucking retard.

shadd_ wrote:

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

the only place nafta has been good is mexico.

were not some third world country up here you fucking retard.

aye, our manufacturing sector i.e. textiles has been devastated

not to mention that America never trades fairly so entering into NAFTA was just utterly retarded

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

Let's all give Dekard a hand for a brilliant commentary on the subject! Bravo, sir!

R00k wrote:If the International Trade Commission investigated last year, and found that it poses a threat, why can't we prove it in court? Is it another case of an ideological/cronyist or paid-off commission panel?

exactly right rook. you see the problem lays in the fact that there is so much privately owned land in the usa. hence these landowners want top fucking dollar for their trees. canada stayed away from the route the usa took 100+ years ago. we did not allow all the public land to be sold off. so now pretty much all of canada is publicly owned without greedy landowners shafting the forest companies.

R00k wrote:

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

Let's all give Dekard a hand for a brilliant commentary on the subject! Bravo, sir!

Do you honestly think he'd offer anything besides "Rah! Rah! USA! USA! USA!"?

Don't even bother waiting.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

R00k wrote:

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

Let's all give Dekard a hand for a brilliant commentary on the subject! Bravo, sir!

Do you honestly think he'd offer anything besides "Rah! Rah! USA! USA! USA!"?

Don't even bother waiting.

yeah Drek is a nimrod

shadd_ wrote:

R00k wrote:If the International Trade Commission investigated last year, and found that it poses a threat, why can't we prove it in court? Is it another case of an ideological/cronyist or paid-off commission panel?

exactly right rook. you see the problem lays in the fact that there is so much privately owned land in the usa. hence these landowners want top fucking dollar for their trees. canada stayed away from the route the usa took 100+ years ago. we did not allow all the public land to be sold off. so now pretty much all of canada is publicly owned without greedy landowners shafting the forest companies.

Well I'm not sure I'd agree that publicly-owned land would be the best solution - I think the problem is more institutional.

Besides, can you imagine what a nightmare this issue would be if our government owned the land and fought for the direct profits from it?

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

Yeah, CAFTA was signed what, a week ago? Care to cite some examples?

Nightshade wrote:

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

Yeah, CAFTA was signed what, a week ago? Care to cite some examples?

lol

You'd have a better chance of the Bush Administration admitting a mistake.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

R00k wrote:

Dek wrote:nafta and cafta have totally fucked up the US job scene as it is.. so stfu..

Let's all give Dekard a hand for a brilliant commentary on the subject! Bravo, sir!

Do you honestly think he'd offer anything besides "Rah! Rah! USA! USA! USA!"?

Don't even bother waiting.

Where did I say, Rah Rah USA USA!? You think because I disagree with NAFTA, CAFTA? It's pro-USA? The government wants it, I don't.. I'd call that an opinion you fat slob. :icon27:


Here's some facts:

General Facts About CAFTA – DR
10 years of NAFTA have shown just how devastating these agreements can be for working families and the environment. In the maquilladora zones along the US-Mexico border, wages are low, union organizing is suppressed, and industrial pollution has dramatically increased cases of hepatitis and birth defects among workers. NAFTA should be repealed, not expanded.15

• According to Kevin Gallagher, research associate at the Global Development and Environment Institute at the Tufts University “The U.S. Congress should also think twice before ratifying CAFTA. According to the U.S. government, CAFTA will only benefit the U.S. economy by one hundredth of one percent after it is fully implemented… A more recent study conducted by two researchers at Yale University examined the relationship between investment agreements and investment flows in the world economy… What they found was a negative relationship. The countries that had signed investment agreements with the U.S. government received less investment. The best way for CAFTA to help the U.S. economy is to ensure that Central American countries develop their economies so they can import more U.S. products in the future. Without the type of investment that boosts the growth of the domestic market, that development won’t occur.”

• The U.S. proponents of CAFTA-DR have focused on the benefits that America will experience economically with open trade with these countries. History however makes it clear that CAFTA-DR will only further the trade deficit that the U.S. has experienced since 1997 due to trade with these countries—NAFTA increased the deficit and so will CAFTA-DR!

• Turnaround exports to the Central American countries during the period of 1997 to 2004 rose nearly 60%; that’s much lower than the 234% increase in the U.S. global trade deficit.17 Despite all of the accolades of CAFTA-DR, the evidence is not there to substantiate proponents’ claims of economic benefit.

• Central American domestic industries are in cahoots with foreign industry and are just as adamant about getting CAFTA-DR passed as is the Bush administration and the corporate interests here in the U.S. Central American governments are pushing three issues for support of CAFTA-DR, claiming that the agreement will not provide charity, rather it will provide opportunity to the Central American countries and its citizens:

1. CAFTA-DR will bring more jobs to Central American countries, which suffers from high unemployment rates.
2. CAFTA-DR will ensure competition which will result in increased efficiency and productivity.
3. CAFTA-DR will ensure that goods and services will be cheaper.18

The truth behind claims that CAFTA-DR will increase export revenues for Central American countries is that it will probably only increase exports from enterprises that specialize in low wage labor (i.e., maquilladoras). Local small agricultural enterprises are very concerned because CAFTA-DR will more than likely result in their destruction, due to the competition with foreign agribusiness that is better funded through subsidies.19

• CAFTA-DR proponents talk of increased foreign investment in Central American countries if the agreement is accepted, but experience with NAFTA proves that the increased economic efficiency of a country does not illicit increased capital flows to the countries. Rather the only real source of capital flowing into the countries out of foreign markets are the monies sent home by those who have migrated out of their communities looking for the promised jobs.

•Passing of CAFTA-DR will lead to the expansion of the stalled free trade agreement throughout all of Latin America and the Caribbean countries (excluding Cuba) called the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA. Currently, Venezuela, Brazil and other South American and Caribbean countries have stood in strong opposition to the FTAA and have succeed in disrupting recent FTAA talks20

• The CAFTA-DR is being pushed through in the region through cooercion! In response to a senior trade official’s statement (as reported by La Nacion on March 18, 2005) who claimed, “Allow me to be absolutely clear on this point: in order to benefit from duty-free access to the U.S., the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic will have to ratify CAFTA,” Representative Rangel, a leading House Democrat said, “It seems to me that if this trade agreement is as good for the region as the Administration claims, why has the Bush Administration resorted to threats to get other countries to accept it? If the Administration persists in trying to build a so-called coalition of the willing through threats then it diminishes further America's standing in the world.21

• Central American countries are not equally represented in CAFTA-DR negotiations: the combined GDP of the Central American countries is only 0.5% of the entire U.S. GDP and requires that market liberalization of the majority of sectors be guaranteed.22 The U.S. has tried to sweeten the deal for the obviously uneven trade agreement by guaranteeing that certain Central American sectors will be given increased market access (with regard to international trade, market access indicates the conditions under which a good or service can compete with locally-made goods; for the WTO, market access indicates that imports not be subject to discriminatory conditions) such as textiles and sugar. The Washington Office on Latin America says of the obvious discrepancies in the deal, “Analysts expect that--as occurred in Mexico--CAFTA will attract foreign direct investment and boost Central American exports in certain sectors, but will provide little benefit to the rural and urban poor of the region.” 23

Copy/pasted from O'Reilly's web page?

Dek wrote:Where did I say, Rah Rah USA USA!?

You didn't. But for the last 5 years you've implied it and usually didn't offer anything else in political discussions.

Your last post is a rarity that should go into the archives as you actually presented your case....however alarmist it might be.

I still find it amazing that whenever international agreements don't go the way the US intended they want to ignore them. Puff's wish might come true in 100 years...but not at the US choosing.

Actually no, I usually present my argument. I'm a liberal as well, registered Democrat. kinda opposite of where you like to paint me.

I'm anti-bush, he's the worst thing to happen to the country since he's father was president.

Pro-America, yes.. Anti-bush. If that's wrong.. well sue me