The United States and the US dominated world institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank (WB) are the most vociferous promotors of free trade. Although free trade agreements have failed to benefit the common people everywhere and in fact have worked to their detriment by putting pressure on wages and replacing many well-paid jobs with part-time and low paid work, these policies did result in increased trade.

The beneficiaries of this increased trade are the large corporations and their executive leaders, the former by reaping huge profits and the latter through salaries and bonuses that have gone through the roof. Of course I'm not even speaking here of the criminal actions of some corporate managers (think of Enron) who literally lied and cheated, while falsifying corporate records not only to the detriment of their employees, but also their shareholders.

That in itself is bad enough. But to have a free trade agreement between countries only to learn that one of the partners in the deal is untrustworthy and does not abide by the agreed-to rules is probably even worse. Yet such is exactly the case with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, the USA and Mexico.

Before signing this agreement it was understood that there would at times be disagreements between the partners, so a dispute mechanism was established consisting of a panel of people from both parties in the dispute who would investigate the complaint and issue a binding judgement. Fair enough.

But in practice, if the decision of the panel goes against the United States, they simply do not accept it. The eagle, symbol of the USA is a predator who does not let go of its prey easily. One of the best known examples of this is the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the USA. American lumber producers complained that Canadian producers have an unfair advantage because most of their product comes from publicly owned crown land and is harvested for a set fee (stumpage fee) whereas in the US product must be purchased from private landowners who charge a higher price. The cheaper Canadian product puts American companies out of business, they argue.

This dispute started way back in 1986. Successive Canadian governments were unable to resolve the issue, but the NAFTA dispute-settlement panel has ruled in Canada's favour on three separate occasions, only to have their decision appealed each and every time.by the US. Meanwhile, billions of dollars in punishing import duties had to be paid by Canadian producers which forced several forestry operations to shut down and discharge their employees. In the province of British Columbia alone, some 15.000 forestry workers lost their jobs.

When even the WTO ruled in favour of Canada in August of 2003 and ruled the American duties unjustified, it appeared that Canada had finally won its case and the duties would be removed.

But no such luck! Even then, the eagle would not let go of its prey. As reported in The Chronicle Herald (Halifax) on september 9, 2004:

"Just last week, a NAFTA panel again ruled against the U.S. saying that the US International Trade Commission has not shown that Canadian softwood imports unfairly damage the American industry. The arbitrators in this case also attacked the U.S. combatants for 'undermining' the NAFTA findings through repeated challenges. "The US trade commission has made it abundantly clear to this panel that it is simply unwilling to accept this panel's review authority under....NAFTA".

A few days later Canadian Press reported that the lobby group representing the US softwood lumber industry is now demanding the US government appeal the most recent NAFTA panel ruling favourable to Canada's industry. They call the ruling an "injustice".

So, after four separate rulings in favour of Canada, the US is still not prepared to honour their commitment and accept the binding rulings they agreed to when signing the NAFTA agreement.

So much for a reliable trade partner! Apparently the US only abides by dispute settlement rulings when these rulings are in their favour.

© Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com