Wednesday-Night

See also NAFTA News

24 June 2008
Speaking of Obama and NAFTA
Sen. Obama had staked out an increasingly negative attitude on NAFTA as the primary season unfolded - particularly in Pennsylvania and Ohio. One unspoken reason why his position is wobbly, is that he doesn’t want to say what he really thinks, and that is, Canada is not the issue, it’s Mexico. Canada’s environmental and labor issues aren’t the reason why the United States has lost manufacturing jobs, it is the nature of the global economy. In fact Canada’ wages are generally higher than the American wage scale, and the environmental regulations have been strengthened right across the board in recent years. Mexico’s situation is, of course, different. But if he were to rail against Mexico on the campaign trail, that would be problematic with the Hispanic vote that he must win over. So now he will settle for a side agreement on environment and labor [exactly what President Clinton said -and did- following his election in 1993.] The fact of the matter is that the United States under NAFTA has secured access to Canadian oil and natural gas, which is essential to America’s future.
Of course, McCain knows this, and that’s why his visit to Ottawa was designed to showcase the issue, thus throwing Obama onto the defensive.
22 June
Harper missed an opportunity by ducking meeting with McCain
The PM could have formed a personal bond with the man who might be next president
L. IAN MACDONALD, The Gazette
This was a bad call by Harper’s office. He should have received McCain in his office or for a working breakfast at 24 Sussex, and would have enhanced his own international credentials. McCain is no clone of Dubya, and has strong credentials on trade, the environment, and praises for Canada’s role in the NATO mission in Afghanistan. By meeting him, Harper would have established personal equity in the event McCain wins the presidency. Instead, the prime minister was busy on a trip to Saskatoon.
We rarely agree with L. Ian, but he’s right about this. We could only wish that he had mentioned the Harper government’s appalling lack of diplomatic finesse, whatever the dossier.
20 June
(Washington Post) McCain Defends NAFTA in Canada
U.S. Senator John McCain seeks stronger NAFTA ties with Canada
(Canadian Press) OTTAWA — U.S. Senator John McCain is calling for stronger NAFTA ties, including harmonized Canada-U.S. energy policies.
The Republican presidential candidate says the free-trade deal has contributed to stronger growth and employment in both countries, but there’s room for improvement, such as border-crossing procedures.
19 June
Obama backs off NAFTA attack ahead of McCain visit to Canada
American presidential hopeful Barack Obama appears to have moderated his opposition to NAFTA just ahead of Republican rival John McCain’s extraordinary visit to Canada to praise the trade pact.
Mr. Obama, who said in March he would renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement if he’s elected, said he might have gone too far.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” the Democratic nominee told Fortune magazine in an interview.
Mr.Obama said he believes in “opening up a dialogue” with trading partners Canada and Mexico “and figuring to how we can make this work for all people.”
The admission was published shortly before Mr. McCain was expected to pour unvarnished praise on NAFTA, drawing a clear distinction between America’s two combatants for the White House.
The debate over trade puts Canada in an unusual position: right in the middle of a campaign for the U.S. presidency.
18 June
Tories dodge McCain
OTTAWA — It may the most sought-after ticket in Ottawa, but when Republican presidential nominee John McCain addresses a sold-out luncheon on Friday it will be hard to find a Conservative politician in the crowd.
The visit is further complicated by the fact Mr. McCain’s speech is to deal with the North American free trade agreement. The Tories are still smarting from the diplomatic embarrassment caused when Mr. Harper’s chief of staff suggested to journalists that Democratic party attacks on NAFTA weren’t to be taken seriously.
April 21
North American summit overshadowed by election
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - With the U.S. election looming over their annual summit, North American leaders gathered on Monday for largely symbolic meetings likely to be dominated by questions about free trade.
At the two-day summit, U.S. President George W. Bush and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts are expected to defend the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement, which has come under fire in the United States amid concerns that the country is in or headed to a recession.
‘Three Amigos’ expected to talk trade at leaders summit
Threat of new NAFTA negotiations looms
(CBC) Border security and trade are likely topping the agenda as Prime Minister Stephen Harper meets with his U.S. and Mexican counterparts at a two-day leaders summit in New Orleans.
April 18
WASHINGTON: U.S. GOVT. WILL DEFEND NAFTA
(RCI) The White House says it is looking for arguments to defend the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has become a major issue in the current presidential campaign. Both Democratic Party candidates, Sens. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, have said that if elected they would withdraw from NAFTA unless better environmental and labour protections were negotiated. Dan Fisk, the senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs, says the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will discuss the issue when they meet next week for their fourth annual trilateral summit. Mr. Fisk says the government will seek ways to convince the American people that NAFTA is a good deal because trade between the three neighbours has tripled to $1 trillion since 1994. Canada’s governing Conservative Party is strongly opposed to reopening the accord and some commentators have suggested that in the event of a renegotiation the favourable access for the U.S. to Canada’s oil and natural gas should be placed on the table.
March 28, 2008
Clinton ready to walk away from NAFTA, adviser warns
Tough talk on trade comes as Democrats turn their focus to Pennsylvania primary
(Globe and Mail) OTTAWA — Hillary Clinton’s threat to pull the United States out of NAFTA is a negotiating tactic to extract changes in the trade deal, but is a threat she’ll make good on if she doesn’t get her way, her top economic adviser says.
In comments after a speech near Parliament Hill Thursday, Gene Sperling clarified the position of the Democratic presidential candidate on the North American free-trade agreement – just weeks before she faces off against Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, where the next primary in the tight race will be held.
March 21, 2008
(ABC news Political Punch) From the Fact Check Desk: The Clinton Campaign Misrepresents Clinton NAFTA Meeting
I have now talked to three former Clinton Administration officials whom I trust who tell me that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton opposed the idea of introducing NAFTA before health care, but expressed no reservations in public or private about the substance of NAFTA.
Yet the Clinton campaign continues to propagate this myth that she fought NAFTA tooth and nail because she opposed the substance of the bill.The campaign claims over and over that she did not support NAFTA. That may be emotionally and intellectually true — but actions speak louder than misgivings.
March 15
A Free Trade in Politics NAFTA Rhetoric Goes Both Ways — Remember When Jean Chrétien Wanted to Renegotiate, but Not Really?
David Jones, Ottawa Citizen Special
Once there was a politician who in the midst of campaigning repeatedly criticized the NAFTA agreement and insisted upon renegotiation following the election. The agreement was the product of a previous administration so it was a convenient target during the ongoing economic downturn.
The politician? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton?
Try Jean Chrétien, who during his 1993 campaign inveighed constantly against the various sins of commission and omission of the despised Mulroneyites. And, along with the GST, NAFTA was a particularly pertinent target.
At that juncture, NAFTA had been agreed to but ratified neither by Parliament nor Congress and, under the diplomatic negotiating precept that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” it was certainly technically possible to reopen the accord. And the Liberals’ Red Book indicated that a Chrétien government would sign only with significant improvements on energy, culture, and rules on subsidies and dumping.
The problem was obvious: comprehensive renegotiation would effectively scuttle the agreement. However, based on confidential conversations with senior Chrétienites, members of the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa did not anticipate that the Liberals would derail the pending agreement by seeking full-scale negotiations; but nothing was assured. And, as has been outlined by then-ambassador James Blanchard in Behind the Embassy Door, there were minor technical adjustments that permitted Chrétien to adhere to the letter of his Red Book objectives. The effort was tightly held, didn’t leak, and ultimately political and economic self interests prevailed over posturing. Full article
Before total panic set in over the dramatic headlines from CanWest, it would have helped if more people (including Ian Brodie) had read David Leonhardt’s thoughtful - and calming - view of what it was all about: Ohio. Then, perhaps, we would never have heard of NAFTA-gate.
February 27, 2008
(NYT) The Politics of Trade in Ohio By DAVID LEONHARDT
Watching Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton compete with each other to say the nastiest possible thing about the Nafta trade deal has made me think about the politics of abortion.
In campaign after campaign for more than 30 years now, Republicans have been denouncing Roe v. Wade. Yet even though they have held the White House for most of that time — and made 12 of the last 14 Supreme Court appointments — abortion remains legal. … Now come Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, campaigning across Ohio with a similar kind of tough talk about foreign trade. Based on what they’re saying, you’d have to conclude that they believe that Nafta and other trade agreements have caused Ohio’s huge economic problems.
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, meanwhile, have been putting out the word that she tried to persuade her husband not to support Nafta — which liberalized trade with Mexico and Canada — when he was running for president. (He did support it, aggressively, and signed it into law in 1993.) “I’m not just going to talk about what’s wrong with Nafta,” she said in Youngstown, the day after Mr. Obama had been there. “I’m going to fix it and I have a four-point plan to do exactly that.”
But when you read this plan, or Mr. Obama’s trade agenda, you discover none of it is particularly radical. Neither candidate calls for a repeal of Nafta, or anything close to it. Both instead want to tinker with the bureaucratic innards of the agreement. They want stronger “labor and environmental standards” and better “enforcement mechanisms.”
It’s a bit of an odd situation. They call the country’s trade policy a disaster, and yet their plan to fix it starts with, um, cracking down on Mexican pollution.
The first problem with what the candidates have been saying is that Ohio’s troubles haven’t really been caused by trade agreements. When Nafta took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, Ohio had 990,000 manufacturing jobs. Two years later, it had 1.03 million. The number remained above one million for the rest of the 1990s, before plummeting in this decade to just 775,000 today.
It’s hard to look at this history and conclude Nafta is the villain. In fact, Nafta did little to reduce tariffs on Mexican manufacturers, notes Matthew Slaughter, a Dartmouth economist. Those tariffs were already low before the agreement was signed.
A more important cause of Ohio’s jobs exodus is the rise of China, India and the old Soviet bloc, which has brought hundreds of millions of workers into the global economy. New technology and better transportation have then made it easier for jobs to be done in those places and elsewhere. To put it in concrete terms, your credit card’s customer service center isn’t in Ireland because of a new trade deal.
March 10
Neil Macdonald, CBC’s Washington correspondent, offers a lengthy explanation of what happened, complete with coherent timeline, and asks some tough questions. It seems we’ll never know the whole story, but we prefer his evenhanded report to the version offered by L. Ian Macdonald (no relation as far as we know) below.
Anatomy of a leak: What we know about NAFTA-gate
In a bit of wishful thinking that was almost plaintive, the Canadian embassy here in Washington said today there is “nothing more to be said” on the so-called NAFTA-gate leaks, the ones involving Barack Obama’s purported stand on the North American free trade deal.
The department of foreign affairs has issued official statements on the matter and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has spoken, said embassy spokeswoman Sally Southey.
So, case closed.
It is understandable the embassy would desire such an outcome, especially with a team of investigators, dispatched on the orders of the prime minister, conducting interviews and sifting through diplomats’ e-mail accounts in search of the leaker. Or leakers.
L. Ian weighs in on the topic, never missing an opportunity to make snide reference to practices at Foreign Affairs, and giving us the benefit of his experience as Press Attaché at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. Isn’t it a relief to know that the Harper government is pure as the driven snow? And that any mistakes were made by everyone else?
Conspiracy theories in NAFTA leak
Stories of Canada interfering in U.S. election are Mickey Mouse
L. IAN MACDONALD, The Gazette
In the grassy-knoll theory of the NAFTA memo leak, the Conservatives sought to undermine Barack Obama’s presidential campaign to bolster Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, so as to help the Republicans get the match-up they want for John McCain in the general election.
The conspiracy theory goes that McCain can beat Clinton, a polarizing figure who will mobilize the Republican base, but doesn’t have a chance against Obama, the candidate representing hope and change, the two most powerful forces in politics.
March 7
(NYT Campaign Stops) Trade Talks
Ross Perot must have been proud. As Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigned across Ohio last week, staking their candidacies on which of them is more strongly opposed to opening trade markets between the United States and the rest of the world, Mr. Perot might as well have been playing ventriloquist.
It’s worth noting the thread that was started by the first comment on this post and the reference to the ‘Canada Nafta story’: can anyone verify that the Canada NAFTA story was mis-handled by the NY Times? On the day it broke, I heard that BOTH campaigns had reassured Canada, but the Obama campaign and not the Clinton campaign was not blamed in subsequent days. Now, it seems it was the Clinton campaign which initiated contact and the Obama adviser was sought out by Canada.
The other comments run the gamut from reasoned arguments to rants but are indicative of how strong anti-free-trade sentiment is among many in the U.S. Worth thinking about.
Meanwhile, the CBC reports Clinton didn’t brief Canadian officials on NAFTA stand: PMO
March 6
Top aide to Canada PM sparked NAFTA spat: reports
OTTAWA (Reuters) - A major controversy over the sincerity of U.S. Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama’s attacks on NAFTA was triggered by the top aide to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, media reports said on Thursday.
Harper has promised an investigation into the leak of a memo on a discussion between Canadian diplomats and a member of Obama’s team. The Globe and Mail newspaper, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Canadian Press said Harper’s chief of staff Ian Brodie told reporters from the CTV network last week that someone from the Clinton campaign was “telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.” CTV probed the remark and then ran a story focusing on Obama.
A Clinton advisor told reporters on Wednesday that the furor had helped her win primary contests in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday.
CBC quoted an unnamed Obama advisor as saying the leak was “really, really stupid.”
The chances of Brodie losing his job would appear to be remote. Harper, who does little to hide his contempt for the media, is fiercely loyal to his staff.
Canadian NAFTA memo leak ‘interference’: U.S. ambassador
A recent leak of confidential diplomatic information that raised doubts about the sincerity of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s threat to renegotiate NAFTA amounts to interference in America’s political process, the U.S. ambassador to Canada said Thursday. “But again, I don’t think it’s something the Canadian government did in an official capacity and I think they’ve expressed their deep regret.” [ ‘Deep regret’ for getting caught out?]
March 5
(Globe & Mail) ‘NAFTAgate’ began with remark from Harper’s chief of staff
OTTAWA — If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.
CBC News confirmed Wednesday that Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, was the source of what is now being dubbed NAFTA-gate. Brodie allegedly also discussed musings by Obama’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, saying people from her camp also told Canadians to take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt.
CTV News went to air with the information on Feb. 27, focusing on the Obama side of the story, and it caused an uproar in the United States. Clinton accused Obama of double-talk, while the Republican front-runner and now nominee, John McCain, said Obama wasn’t a straight-talker.
A CTV reporter told CBC News on Wednesday that Brodie was, in fact, the source behind the network’s report. ABC News suggested as much earlier this week. But the Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday night told CBC News that Brodie does not remember directly discussing either Obama, or Clinton, in the budget lockup.
We can only imagine what furor and fury would break out in Canada if the roles were reversed, and are appalled that a senior member of the PM’s staff will be permitted to get away with this incredibly stupid, not to mention partisan, breach with a tap on the wrist - if that. Adding insult to injury is the concluding sentence that implies that Mr. Harper somehow believes that because he doesn’t like the media, the blame lies with it rather than Mr. Brodie. Words fail us! We commend Bob Rae for his pithy remarks that point out the long-term damage done to Canadian diplomacy.
March 4
(NYT) Memo Gives Canada’s Account of Obama Campaign’s Meeting on Nafta
The controversy began last week when CTV, a Canadian television network, reported that an Obama official had called the Canadian ambassador in Washington to play down the significance of Mr. Obama’s criticism of Nafta.
The campaign and the Canadian Embassy issued denials that were, it appears, technically accurate. But they were incomplete because they did not address Mr. Goolsbee’s meeting with Canadian officials.
When WKYC-TV in Ohio asked Mr. Obama about the CTV report, he said: “I don’t have to clarify it. The Canadian Embassy already clarified it by saying the story was not true. And our office has said the story was not. And so I think it’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” When pressed, he said, “It did not happen.”
ABC News then reported that the Nafta conversation involved the Canadian consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, not the ambassador. ABC News identified Professor Goolsbee as the official who met the Canadians.
March 3
Background
The denials were sweeping when Senator Barack Obama’s campaign mobilized last week to refute a report that a senior official had given back-channel reassurances to Canada soft-pedaling Mr. Obama’s tough talk on Nafta.
On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.
According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”
It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”
(National Post) NAFTA rhetoric drags Canada into U.S. primaries
DALLAS — The Canadian government today was enveloped in a heated dispute with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over the North American Free Trade Agreement, a controversy Hillary Clinton sought to exploit on the eve of key primaries in Texas and Ohio.
Obama on the Hot Seat
Today Mr. Obama opened [his press conference] by denying a story that an adviser had sent back-door messages to the Canadian government, assuring them that the candidate was talking merely tough about the North American Free Trade Agreement in order to win votes in the midwest.
It turns out that a Canadian official invited a top economics adviser to the campaign, Austan Goolsbee, to meet at the Canadian consulate in Chicago. The two men talked informally about trade policy. The Canadian official later wrote a memo summarizing this meeting in which - according to CTV News, a Canadian network - it was claimed that Goolsbee said the Senator’s rhetoric was more about political positioning.
Mr. Goolsbee has disputed this account. And Mr. Obama initially denied the meeting took place.
More to the point, Mr. Obama noted that his position on trade has not shifted. He favors free trade, but he also wants to renegotiate existing agreements to include safeguards for the environment and labor rights, including the ability to organize unions.
February 29
The Harper Conservatives Are Trying to Sink Obama Admittedly Bob Rae is hardly a neutral voice, but the actions of the Harper team do little to belie his theory. And it makes sense: polls show that John McCain could beat Hillary, but not Obama.
February 28
(Gazette) U.S. anti-NAFTA rumblings worry minister
Clinton, Obama. Protectionist sentiment growing, Emerson says wordz wordz wordz
Federal Trade Minister David Emerson says threats by two Democratic presidential contenders to pull the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement are cause for genuine concern because they feed a growing protectionist sentiment south of the border.
February 27
(CBS) Canada Threatens U.S. Oil Supply Over NAFTA
Proposed re-opening of NAFTA is unacceptable to Canadian government without Consequences for U.S.
TORONTO (CBS4.com) ― Less than 24 hours after both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said they would use the threat of withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian Trade minister warned the U.S. against this action. Trade Minister David Emerson said access to Canada’s oil fields might be at stake if NAFTA is reopened.
“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. When people get below the rhetoric and pick away at the details, they are going to find out it’s not such a slam dunk proposition,” Emerson told the Candian press.
February 26
(CanWest News Service) WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Tuesday night both threatened to take the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if elected president, warning Canada and Mexico the deal is dead unless America wins concessions to strengthen labour and environmental standards.
During a nationally televised debate in Cleveland, the two Democratic presidential candidates suggested Canada and Mexico would be given just six months to make compromises on the deal in order to satisfy the U.S. government.
“I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate,” Clinton said. “I have said we will renegotiate NAFTA (and) you would have to say to Canada and Mexico, ‘That’s what we are going to do.’”
Said Obama: “We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out” to force Canada and Mexico to reopen trade talks.
The heated rhetoric over NAFTA - a signature achievement during Bill Clinton’s administration - came as both Democratic candidates fought for votes in economically troubled Ohio, which has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the last decade.
The trade deal has become the central point of contention between Clinton and Obama over the past week, with the former first lady accusing her rival of falsely claiming she has been a supporter of the deal.
When confronted about past statements praising the deal, Clinton acknowledged NAFTA has helped boost the economy in other parts of the U.S.
But Clinton maintained that, if she is elected U.S. president, her administration would “immediately have a trade time-out” to write new, enforceable labour and environment standards into the deal.
(Macleans) Misrepresentations fly in Clinton-Obama dustup over NAFTA
Thanks to past equivocations, the Democratic presidential candidates have left themselves open to the criticisms and misrepresentations they are now turning against each other as they scramble to dissociate themselves from a trade agreement they once praised - with qualifications.
(NYT) Democrats Clash on Health, Trade and Rival Tactics
The tenor of the debate was set from the beginning, when the moderators played clips of Mrs. Clinton praising Mr. Obama at the debate last Thursday and then declaring “Shame on you, Barack Obama” on Saturday, after his campaign sent fliers to voters in Ohio suggesting that she viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement as a boon.
Nafta is hugely unpopular in Ohio, and the two candidates have records of both praising and criticizing it, though Mrs. Clinton never used the word “boon.”
February 11
(NYT) Nafta Is a Sweet Deal, So Why Are They So Sour?
Fourteen years after Nafta came into effect, the last remaining barriers to agricultural trade in North America were dismantled last month. Mexican corn farmers and American Big Sugar hate this unreservedly.
Mexico confronts a daunting challenge in dealing with rural poverty. One in five Mexicans depends on agriculture, and of those, a third live in extreme poverty. But farming corn on tiny plots will not provide the solution.
The Mexican government must revamp its own system of supports that now favors mainly big farmers, and provide small farmers with access to credit and know-how. Rural Mexico needs investment to increase yields and move out of corn and into more lucrative crops that are better suited to the country’s arid and mountainous terrain. And Nafta will help, providing a market for Mexican agricultural exports.
Opening up the sugar trade with Mexico will be good news for Americans: it will lead to lower sugar prices for everybody, from confectionary manufacturers to regular consumers. And Nafta will be good news for Mexico’s consumers and many of its farmers.