Time to stand up to the American bully

[CHIMO]

The softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States has taken on a significance that goes far beyond the lumber issue itself.

It really is about the value of NAFTA and the kind of future relationship the United States wants to have with its northern neighbour.

The U.S. attitude that the findings of successive dispute panels under NAFTA, showing U.S. trade penalties on Canadian softwood lumber to be illegal, are irrelevant demonstrates not only a complete disregard for the legal obligations in the agreement, but a cavalier approach that assumes the United States can get away with ignoring the panels.

What we are seeing, though, is that the United States does not seem to believe the relationship is very important, and thinks it can bully Canada into submission because our business community is terrified of getting on the wrong side of the Americans.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1124401814499&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

(Free registration required)

The article pretty well sums up the issue.

[DanCa]

1. Bullies are like a ballon

You pop em hard they'll go away. But you really got to pop em hard that is the trick.

[nine23]

2. The article pretty much accurately describes the present situation.

My only problem these days is the use of the word "bully". I think we as Canadians - especially journalists and the more gonzo business types - need to come up with a more accurate, in-the-face, descriptive term. The more obscene the better, as that's the type of, um..."people" we're dealing with here.

"Bully" is a very ambiguous term. For one thing, it's too "lite", and quite frankly, rather overused. It can mean "power", but we know this form of power is delusory by nature. (These folks, however, seem to think they have "it" - as in "power" - but the world at large is thinking otherwise in a big way, and is making changes in it's global relationships as we speak.)

"Bully" also has connotations of being fleeting and/or temporary, as in "playground" bully - the kind that grows up only to find themselves alienated, lonely, and in the end, basically useless to their former acquaintances. (Only again, in this case, they just don't give a fuck. It appears the current US administration, and a little over 50% of the US population, ACTUALLY RELISHES their current role as international pariahs extraordinaire. Or they're just too stupid to "get it". I think it's a bit of both.)

When the world at large would rather deal with "evil", oppressive Chinese dictators (who, even as "evil" dictators, at the very least honour their legal agreements 100% of the time), as opposed to "faux-democratic", "faux-free-enterprisers" (who, at best, only honour their agreements "some of the time", and even then, solely at their own whimsical discretion), well...you know there's a serious problem here. "Bully" hardly describes the problem.

But back to a new word for "bully". How about, splattered across the front pages of the print media in Canada: "Assleaks Of The Planet". (A term, coincidentally, that pre-9/11, the more hardened journos of the world would use when describing Kabul, Afghanistan, and the "assleaks" who ran the place.)

[hermetic]

3. Myself, I prefer

asshats. Just has a nice look. And re your statement: "and a little over 50% of the US population", that number is now less than 50%, 48% maybe, or 42%. So please don't write us all off just yet.
:toast:

[nine23]

7. I hear ya' bro. That's why there's such a Canadian presence on DU.

We understand most/some Americans are NOT intrinsically assholes. I would imagine most Canucks here are well versed in American history/current events, perhaps have relatives in the States, and are well traveled south of the 49th. I myself fit into all three categories, including living and working in LA for a couple of years back in the early 90's. (Nothing like a major race riot to make one pine for home...)

DU does a fine job in curbing our anti-American sentiments, as we can converse daily with "that other +/-50%", and recognize that, yes indeed, there IS hope; no need to write 'em off "just yet". (big shout-out to DU there!)

This is also not to say Canadians are intrinsically anti-American, either. It's just that if one opens a newspaper or turns on their telly these days, we're literally bombarded ON AN HOURLY BASIS with information that fuels anti-American sentiment. (This applies to the entire planet). It takes an almost super-human intellectual strength to keep it in check...

We're absolutely no different than any other western democracy; unlike those others, however, we just happen to share a border with the US. Any "changes" to the relationship made over the next few years (or decades) will simply be in step with the rest of "free" world.

Peace :toast:

[Bassic]

4. We should threaten to back out of NAFTA.

The U.S. doesen't like it's rulings? Fine, we're out.

(I know, I know, it's more complicated than that)

[Spazito]

5. We need to tack on outrageous taxes on any exports of oil, gas

electricity and water going to the US. When they then take us to NAFTA, etc, and we are ruled against, we thumb our nose at those rulings as the US is currently doing or, better yet, serve 6 months notice that we are leaving NAFTA.

[HEyHEY]

6. I say we rip nafta up

Say, "fuck it" they're knowingly in breach of contract.

[idlisambar]

8. That would be nice n/t

[Grey]

9. I'm with HeyHey on this one.........

What boggles my mind is that when the USAians slamed the door to shipping beef south, we didn't say "OK,the door stops swinging BOTH ways." Before that, when the 'us' slapped a duty on Canadian lumber that we didn't just say, "OK, we will just slap an export tax at about 5% more than your blackmail scheme and watch them scream. At least then we would be collecting the tariff/dutys, not pleading with others to "please give us back what is rightfully ours". Scum.....

[CHIMO]

11. Dithering Around

I haven't heard much from the premiers other than some strong words after their recent meeting. It seems that the public are ready for some brass tacks type of action but the idea has not yet gelled. There is still no word from the unions into the debate. In addition the opposition parties are sitting back.

With an election coming up one can see that no one wants to take a step that would require a back down and loss of face.

If one looks at a recent poll(not scientific) in The Globe and Mail it has 59% stating that NAFTA has not been good for Canada(I take the low number of respondents in the paper of record to indicate that interested groups didn't try to sway the results)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.Page/document/polls/pollResults?id=35512&pollid=35512&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult

So until someone takes the bull by the horns and knocks the DJI down 20 to 30% in a day we are not going to see much progress on the issue as there is no other political party willing to voice the concerns of the public.

There are a lot of other issues involved in the beef and lumber than those that first come to mind.(I don't know all of them but it is wheels within wheels)

I think we are all suffering from frustration.

Another frustrating bit of news.


War of words is heating up in Canada/U.S. softwood lumber dispute
Last Updated Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:48:28 EDT
CBC News

Trade Minister Jim Peterson will meet with Wilkins in the next ten days and press the point that Canada wants a long term solution.

Looks like they are going to get on their knees again.

Call on Mulroney in trade warEnlist help of Mulroney

Martin could promise that the government of Canada will backstop the tar sands, speed up environmental approval and ensure their development in exchange for lumber, wheat, beef and other natural resources no longer being subject to trade harassment.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1125006612080&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

[achtung_circus]

10. I'm generally a middle of the road kind of guy.

Rather that rip the whole thing up (which remains a consideration, but not a short-term one) I'd like to see tariffs on the heavily subsidized American corn.

I'd also like to see tariffs on "butteroil". This is the sneaky way they do an end run around NAFTA by combining subsidized sugar with subsidized butterfat. An enormous proportion of the ice cream you consume is no longer made with cream. It is made with butteroil, at the expense of Canadian dairy farmers.