The Toronto Star: It’s time to end the charade and walk away from NAFTA; A deal is reached

  • 主题发起人 主题发起人 ccc
  • 开始时间 开始时间

ccc

难得糊涂
管理成员
VIP
注册
2003-04-13
消息
239,382
荣誉分数
37,489
声望点数
1,393
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...end-the-charade-and-walk-away-from-nafta.html


upload_2018-9-28_11-17-28.png


afp_18r42p.jpg

U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hold a meeting at the G7 Summit in La Malbaie, Quebec in June. Trump’s instance on overriding any trade deal for reasons of “national security” make NAFTA worthless, writes Thomas Walkom. (SAUL LOEB / AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

More specifically, what’s the point of entering into a trade agreement with a nation that insists on the right to overrule that pact on a whim?

That’s a question that many have asked privately. On Wednesday, Canadian ambassador to the U.S. David MacNaughton asked it publicly.

“If you can’t resolve disputes in a fair and balanced way, then what’s the use of the agreement?” he said. “If you can’t have some curb on the arbitrary use of tariffs under the guise of national security … then I don’t think it’s much of an agreement.”

Here, the ambassador was referring to two major points of contention in the talks between Canada and the U.S. The first is whether there should be some kind of independent system for resolving disputes. Canada wants to stick with the existing so-called Chapter 19 provisions. The U.S. wants to scrap them.

The second is U.S. President Donald Trump’s insistence on being able to override any trade deal — including NAFTA — for reasons of “national security.”

He has used this national security exemption to slap punitive tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports to the U.S. He is threatening to do the same with Canadian-built autos.

The president isn’t required to prove that U.S. national security is endangered before invoking this law. And so far he hasn’t.

Rather, he has boasted that he is using this loophole in U.S. trade law as an excuse to force other nations, including Canada, into making concessions.

As MacNaughton says, what’s the point of making a deal with someone who plays that kind of game?

If Trump could be trusted not to use this national security loophole arbitrarily, a deal certainly could be possible.

Except for the concessions already made by Mexico (that country has agreed that 40 to 45 per cent of NAFTA auto content must be made in plants paying at least $16 U.S. an hour), such a deal wouldn’t be particularly good for Canada.

To win Trump’s approval, Canada would have to make significant concessions in its supply management system for dairy farmers.

Canada would also have to give way to the Americans in areas such as drug patents and intellectual property (thus raising the price of pharmaceuticals in this country).

And it would have to accept that the U.S. won’t exempt Canada from state and local Buy American laws.

Ottawa has said it won’t relax its laws designed to protect Canadian culture. But in the digital era, many of these laws are out of date. Others — such as measures designed to ensure Canadian ownership of the news media — are simply not enforced by Ottawa.

So I’d be surprised if the Americans cared that much about removing the so-called cultural exemption clause from NAFTA.

Even the dispute resolution impasse could be finessed. The existing Chapter 19 provision is already weak. It requires only that independent panels determine whether each country is adhering to its own trade laws.

In some cases, most notably those involving softwood lumber, the U.S. has dealt with a loss suffered before a Chapter 19 panel by simply changing the law.

In short, there is probably a way to weaken Chapter 19 further, without eliminating it entirely. That would give the U.S. what it wants without embarrassing the Canadian government too much.

But if Trump insists on keeping intact the U.S. national security loophole, as he almost certainly will, there is simply no point to NAFTA.

A trade pact that can be upended on the whim of the U.S. president is of no use to Canada. It provides no certainty for those Canadian businesses that hope to export tariff-free to the U.S. It provides no certainty for those who might invest in Canada.

To its credit, the Canadian government is now acknowledging this publicly. If Ottawa can’t persuade Trump to exempt Canada from the national security loophole, it’s time to end the charade.

It’s time to walk away from these talks.
 
有花袜子就够了,要什么NAFATA!:buttrock:
 
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...end-the-charade-and-walk-away-from-nafta.html


浏览附件789122

afp_18r42p.jpg

U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hold a meeting at the G7 Summit in La Malbaie, Quebec in June. Trump’s instance on overriding any trade deal for reasons of “national security” make NAFTA worthless, writes Thomas Walkom. (SAUL LOEB / AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

More specifically, what’s the point of entering into a trade agreement with a nation that insists on the right to overrule that pact on a whim?

That’s a question that many have asked privately. On Wednesday, Canadian ambassador to the U.S. David MacNaughton asked it publicly.

“If you can’t resolve disputes in a fair and balanced way, then what’s the use of the agreement?” he said. “If you can’t have some curb on the arbitrary use of tariffs under the guise of national security … then I don’t think it’s much of an agreement.”

Here, the ambassador was referring to two major points of contention in the talks between Canada and the U.S. The first is whether there should be some kind of independent system for resolving disputes. Canada wants to stick with the existing so-called Chapter 19 provisions. The U.S. wants to scrap them.

The second is U.S. President Donald Trump’s insistence on being able to override any trade deal — including NAFTA — for reasons of “national security.”

He has used this national security exemption to slap punitive tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports to the U.S. He is threatening to do the same with Canadian-built autos.

The president isn’t required to prove that U.S. national security is endangered before invoking this law. And so far he hasn’t.

Rather, he has boasted that he is using this loophole in U.S. trade law as an excuse to force other nations, including Canada, into making concessions.

As MacNaughton says, what’s the point of making a deal with someone who plays that kind of game?

If Trump could be trusted not to use this national security loophole arbitrarily, a deal certainly could be possible.

Except for the concessions already made by Mexico (that country has agreed that 40 to 45 per cent of NAFTA auto content must be made in plants paying at least $16 U.S. an hour), such a deal wouldn’t be particularly good for Canada.

To win Trump’s approval, Canada would have to make significant concessions in its supply management system for dairy farmers.

Canada would also have to give way to the Americans in areas such as drug patents and intellectual property (thus raising the price of pharmaceuticals in this country).

And it would have to accept that the U.S. won’t exempt Canada from state and local Buy American laws.

Ottawa has said it won’t relax its laws designed to protect Canadian culture. But in the digital era, many of these laws are out of date. Others — such as measures designed to ensure Canadian ownership of the news media — are simply not enforced by Ottawa.

So I’d be surprised if the Americans cared that much about removing the so-called cultural exemption clause from NAFTA.

Even the dispute resolution impasse could be finessed. The existing Chapter 19 provision is already weak. It requires only that independent panels determine whether each country is adhering to its own trade laws.

In some cases, most notably those involving softwood lumber, the U.S. has dealt with a loss suffered before a Chapter 19 panel by simply changing the law.

In short, there is probably a way to weaken Chapter 19 further, without eliminating it entirely. That would give the U.S. what it wants without embarrassing the Canadian government too much.

But if Trump insists on keeping intact the U.S. national security loophole, as he almost certainly will, there is simply no point to NAFTA.

A trade pact that can be upended on the whim of the U.S. president is of no use to Canada. It provides no certainty for those Canadian businesses that hope to export tariff-free to the U.S. It provides no certainty for those who might invest in Canada.

To its credit, the Canadian government is now acknowledging this publicly. If Ottawa can’t persuade Trump to exempt Canada from the national security loophole, it’s time to end the charade.

It’s time to walk away from these talks.
签了才是自讨其辱。
As a trade talks deadline with Canada looms Brian Higgins tells me @BBCBusiness that the Trump administration has failed in its obligation to renegotiate NAFTA. He says many Republicans and Democrats will not support a deal with Mexico alone
Brian Higgins:美国会贸易委員会委员
 
这样的协议签了也等于没签。trump 随时随地可以任意加税,并没有独立第三方仲裁,也不需要证明国家安全真的受到危害。
 
好啊,好啊,赶紧给加拿大的汽车和汽车配件加25%的税吧。
不破不立,安省只有置于死地,才会把土豆党置于死地。
 
这样的协议签了也等于没签。trump 随时随地可以任意加税,并没有独立第三方仲裁,也不需要证明国家安全真的受到危害。
那等于零,签它做甚。
 
没看出有什么鸟用,P新意也没有,不过是想拖时间,土豆还是车轱辘话来回说,主动权还在床铺手中 ......

你只看标题就够了。
 
你只看标题就够了。
详文里才有各方出的招以及美国的反应。土豆的小动作可能不仅救不了他,反而会招至痛扁。
 
详文里才有各方出的招以及美国的反应。土豆的小动作可能不仅救不了他,反而会招至痛扁。
墨西哥当选总统坚持续三方的NAFTA,这是新闻,其他是背景交代。
 
像星报说的这样,转身走人不谈了,看谁急。:D
 
后退
顶部