Obama wants to reopen NAFTA but keep trade flowing

[OhioChick]

Source: Reuters

Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:00am GMT

OTTAWA, Feb 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he still wants to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite a warning from Canada that this would be a mistake, but he said he did not want to end up curbing trade.

In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, shortly before his visit to Ottawa on Thursday, Obama also declined to characterize oil from Canada's vast oil sands region as "dirty oil" which should somehow be curtailed.

Obama had alarmed Canada during the Democratic primaries last year when he advocated renegotiating NAFTA, and he reiterated this goal on Tuesday while recognizing these were sensitive economic times.

"As I've said before, NAFTA, the basic framework of the agreement, has environmental and labor protections as side agreements. My argument has always been that we might as well incorporate them into the full agreement so that they're fully enforceable," he said in the interview with CBC television.

However, he also said: "I think there are a lot of sensitivities right now because of the huge decline in world trade."



Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN1739264120090218

[HeresyLives]

1. There are side agreements

on labor and enviroment negotiated when Clinton was in. He's just talking about making them part of the main agreement.

[ChromeFoundry]

2. now opening up a channel for discussion

brings a warning from Canada? Don't they understand that it could also benefit them as well?

[provis99]

5. only Conservative Party Canadians don't want to reopen the trade deal

The liberals and socialist parties (the majority in Canada) have long been against NAFTA, as has most of the Canadian population. It has been a much worse deal for Canada than us; they've lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs to the South, and are forced to sell their natural resources to us at prices below the world market.

The ordinary Canadians would love to reopen NAFTA, and establish "fair trade", not "free trade".

Don't confuse the Conservative Party of Canada with Canadian citizens; the Conservatives are free-trade nuts who want to establish a feudal society of businesspeople over the ordinary working people, and they're only in power as a minority government because of the fluke that the liberal parties are divided.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

27. Sorry, Wrong

The Liberal Party is strongly in favor of Free Trade, the NDP that is only relevant because both the Liberal and Conservative parties have weakened themselves via internal divisions to the point neither can govern is extremely anti-American.

Canadian objections to NAFTA are not to Free Trade, they are to the failure of the United States to live up to its NAFTA obligations to Canada.

[defendandprotect]

3. We should be ripping up these trade agreements . . . the same way Bush ripped

up Nuclear Proliferation Treaty --- and wasn't that our Constitution he also

ripped up?

[OhioChick]

4. 100% in Agreement. n/t

[pampango]

6. Obama should do what Bush did? I thought Obama wanted to get along with and

work with the rest of the world. I, for one, am tired of the "lone cowboy" style of US foreign policy.

It might be difficult for him to conduct a foreign policy based on diplomacy, negotiations and agreements, if we rip up the agreements we already have. If he rips up existing agreements, then asks "Who wants to negotiate with me now?", there might not be a stampede to work with him. Renegotiating existing agreements, OTOH, seems consistent with approach to dealing with the rest of the world.

[defendandprotect]

8. As we can see the trade agreements are turning us into the GOP's ..."third world America" --

JFK was going to rip the CIA up into a thousand pieces and throw it to the winds . . . .

What a great move that would have been --- imagine the misery it would have saved the

entire world had it happened!

The Democratic Congress should be in a mood to RE-REGULATE failed capitalism again ---

AND, rip up the trade agreements.

[pampango]

10. The Democratic congress should re-regulate many aspects of our economic system.

If the Congress and Obama want to renegotiate trade agreements or withdraw from them if negotiations don't go well, fine. Ripping up existing treaties and agreements of any kind is not going to make it easier for Obama to pursue a foreign policy based on negotiation and reaching agreements with other countries, rather than going it alone (the Bush MO).

Why should another country negotiate with Obama if he is going to rip up treaties when he feels like it? (You'll note that there were not exactly numerous international agreements under Bush, partially because no one expected him to fulfill the our part of any agreement, if he changed his mind about it later.)

I like the idea of international rules for trade, just like I approve of an international body that deals with climate change (Kyoto or its successor), with international politics (the UN), etc. Sure, it's possible for each country to go it alone and do whatever they want, but the world is better off when we work together. What we need to do is work to change the rules of trade now that we have a more sympathetic president and congress, so that the real needs of people take precedence over the needs of corporations.

[defendandprotect]

12. "Ripping up" is an expression . . .

But I don't think that's going to help you get a point you really don't want to see.

DLC, by any chance?

Why should Russia still be talking with us . . . after Bush . . . ?

Is that what you're saying?

Agreements are fine -- including trade agreements -- when they are NOT intended to

harvest slave labor and/or create corporatism, i.e., fascism.

[OhioChick]

13. "they are NOT intended to harvest slave labor and/or create corporatism, i.e., fascism."

You got it.

[defendandprotect]

14. When they are NOT intended to harvest slavery . . .

and/or create corporatism, i.e., fascism ---

and, of course, that's what these agreements, in fact, actually do.

[OhioChick]

16. I agree....

Time to renegotiate/do away with some of these unfair trade agreements/policies. They don't help workers anywhere and only benefit all of our corporate masters.

[defendandprotect]

18. Yes . . . and . . .

doesn't seem to be helping Mexico much or Canada . . . ???

Imagine Mexico lending us money rather than investing it in jobs for Mexicans in Mexico!

[OhioChick]

19. Yes.....

And the citizens of other countries don't want this "free trade" BS with the U.S., either. Which country was it in the past year that had citizens protesting in the streets because they did not want their government to sign a free trade agreement with the U.S.? I want to say Peru, but believe that it may have been another country.

[defendandprotect]

25. I think you're correct . . .

StopPeruFTA - Free Trade Agreement With Peru - TradeJustice.net
... the Peru FTA, organize protests, street theater, press conferences, rallies, or ... Email us for a sample resolution. Will you take action to stop the Peru FTA? ...stopperufta.org/?page=Call - Cached

No chance we'd be spreading unions to protect labor -- !!!

[marksmithfield]

11. Agreed nt

[Mr. Hyde]

21. But look how much better off everyone is thanks to free trade.

:sarcasm:

[OhioChick]

23. Couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Hyde.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Prometheus Bound]

7. As a Canadian I say "Please tear up that agreement Mr President."

If you value democracy and resent corporate North America's bypassing the democratic process, oppose this agreement. It has little to do with trade and everything to do with bypassing democracy.

[defendandprotect]

9. These agreements are mainly about harvesting slave labor ----

you can't compete with a slave --

We are headed towards "third world America" ---

How is Canada faring--??

[Lorien]

24. Exactly. nt

[w4rma]

15. Good. It's a good start. (nt)

[lonestarnot]

22. Yes it is!

[Dappleganger]

17. NAFTA is what killed the US

[CHIMO]

20. Perhaps It Should Be Re-Opened

Maybe he could do it tomorrow.

Protectionism poses 'huge risk' to global economy: Harper
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 | 8:04 PM ET

"We're the biggest trade relationship in the world," Harper said. "We're always willing to look at ways it could work better, but it's a fine line .… If you open the agreement, I think you could get into a negotiation that would never terminate."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/18/harper-cnn.html

And if he doesn't want to curb trade, then so much for the environment!
http://www.dioceseofstpaul.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135&
2009 January 25 - The Integrity of Creation and the Athabasca Oil Sands

[burrowowl]

26. Obama

FAIR Trade, not free trade!