American voters to have say on NAFTA

It certainly is a great idea to open NAFTA. Open it and throw it in the garbage. NAFTA is not a free trade agreement so much as an agreement that Canada will supply oil and natural resources on sweetheart terms to the U.S. and an agreement that we must share those resources with the U.S. It also challenges our ability to have an independent economic policy that might go counter to corporate interests. The dispute mechanism almost always shafts us with the softwood lumber conflict. No doubt the Americans haven't a clue about all this. The forces that want further integration of the North American market are not about to jettison NAFTA. This is pure rhetoric. Seems to me that at one time the Liberals were going to renegotiate NAFTA! This is from the National Post.

Thursday, February 28, 2008
American voters to have say on NAFTA
Job Losses Mount
Janet Whitman, National Post, With Files From News Services Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
NEW YORK - Blaming free trade for an exodus of good jobs, about a dozen activists gathered outside Hillary Clinton's senate office here on Tuesday before some were carted off by police.
Similar feelings about free trade are running high across the United States amid a growing belief among many Americans that trade with other countries is hurting the economy.
The sentiment has made free trade -- in particular the nearly 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico -- a front-burner issue for U.S. presidential candidates such as Ms. Clinton.
The New York Senator and rival presidential contender Barack Obama ratcheted up their anti-NAFTA rhetoric during a televised debate on Tuesday night in Cleveland, which has been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Each candidate pledged to pull out of the trade agreement unless changes are made to the deal.
Economists interviewed yesterday said they don't believe the Democratic candidates are simply pandering to voters, including blue-collar workers in the Midwest where manufacturing job losses have taken a big toll.
Instead, with the increasing cries against it here, NAFTA will probably end up back on the bargaining table if either Democratic candidate is elected president, economists predicted.
"If you ask who won or lost across North America, it is obvious that NAFTA encouraged and accelerated the redistribution of wealth upward in all three countries," said Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, a labour-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C. "How much so is open to debate. But I think most people--even those who think it was a good idea -- acknowledge that NAFTA was oversold."
Beyond agreeing they would like to see tougher labour and environmental safeguards, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been vague on details about what changes they would seek.
Besides rejigging NAFTA, the two presidential hopefuls have called for a time out in the negotiation of new free trade pacts. Neither candidate is believed to be interested in encircling the country with protectionist walls.
Once in office, they could take the action to "opt out" of NAFTA within six months if Canada and Mexico refuse to strengthen labour and environmental provisions and change an aspect of the agreement that favours corporate interests too much.
The candidates' apparent focus on labour and environmental standards suggests Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are mainly concerned about Mexico.
But opening NAFTA up to renegotiation could end up putting any issue on the table.
In Ottawa yesterday, federal Trade Minister David Emerson hinted at that possibility, saying Canada could seek its own list of concessions -- including on the topic of oil.
As part of NAFTA, Canada is forbidden from rationing oil exports to the United States in the event of a supply disruption or global shortage, unless the same cutbacks are forced on Canadians.
"Knowledgeable observers would have to take note of the fact that we are the largest supplier of energy to the U.S. and NAFTA has been the foundation for integrating the North American energy market," Mr. Emerson told reporters.
"When people get below the rhetoric and pick away at the details, they are going to find it's not such a slam-dunk proposition."
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty suggested in comments to reporters yesterday morning that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama may not be completely up to speed on the trade agreement.
"NAFTA is of tremendous benefits to Americans, and perhaps the nominees have not had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the benefits to Americans and the American economy," Mr. Flaherty said in Toronto.
"There's a tendency to say it favours Mexico, or it favours Canada, rather than to recognize the mutual benefits that come out of free trade."
Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, once strong supporters of free trade, have changed their views on NAFTA in recent years.
Ms. Clinton, who helped her husband, Bill Clinton, lobby for the ratification of NAFTA while he was president, said she became a critic when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that during his Senate campaign in 2004, he had said that NAFTA brought huge benefits to his state of Illinois.
As they started campaigning for president, their rhetoric about NAFTA has become increasingly harsh.
Mr. Obama now says, "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have."
Ms. Clinton says, "You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the [Clinton] administration."
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks