Search this site powered by FreeFind

Quick Link

for your convenience!

Human Rights, Youth Voices etc.

click here


 

For Information Concerning the Crisis in Darfur

click here


 

Northern Uganda Crisis

click here


 

 Whistleblowers Need Protection

 

 

A free trade in politics
NAFTA rhetoric goes both ways -- remember when
Jean Chrétien wanted to renegotiate, but not really?

By David Jones, The Ottawa Citizen Special
March 15, 2008

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.

Fast forward to March 2008.

What we have been seeing with the "who said what to whom" exchanges between Senator Obama's representative and a Canadian government official and the subsequent reports of intra-government and media discussions are of the same ilk.

The economic reality remains that free trade is societally helpful, but specifically painful. The tens of millions who purchase products more cheaply are less aware of the benefit than the thousands who have lost jobs in the process are bitterly aggrieved over the result. Both Senators Obama and Clinton seek the votes of those unhappy job losers, have proclaimed their concerns, and suggested reopening the agreement.

What this would mean in January 2009 is unanswerable. NAFTA has been in operation since 1994; it is as subject to renegotiation as any agreement. Moreover, it is possible that the public discussion of private assurances with the intimation that Obama was duplicitous may mean that "President Obama" would feel compelled to "keep his promise" and indeed reopen the agreement. Would "President Clinton" be driven into comparable action? Again, what would be sought and in what detail with what requirement for subsequent Congressional/Parliamentary ratification is now unknowable.

What is clear is that renegotiation (and NAFTA has three partners, not two) would leave every element of the agreement open for modification. As a diplomat, I have seen the U.S. government advise a partner against renegotiating an agreement, noting that our ally was not the only one that would have fresh requirements and new demands. Nor have I ever seen the partners as pleased with the results of renegotiation as they were with the agreement prior to renegotiation.

It is not the first time that Canadian diplomats have been caught up in U.S. or Canadian election. Those with moderately long memories will recall that in 2000 then ambassador to the U.S. Raymond Chrétien indicated in a semi-public forum with Canadian officials that a "President Gore" would be better for Canada than the alternative.

Subsequent dissemination of that comment did not enhance ambassador Chrétien's access to the Bush administration. Nor did ambassador Frank McKenna's public statements that the U.S. government was dysfunctional and that dealing with Congress was akin to working with 535 Carolyn Parrishes, bolster bilateral comity.

But I don't recall Opposition suggestions that either Mr. Chrétien or Mr. McKenna resign for undiplomatic comment.

Thus the intimation that current Ambassador Michael Wilson said some unknown private something to the Canadian media may be important to Canadians but not to Americans -- if it wasn't said in public, it doesn't exist.

Nevertheless, Stephen Harper is well within his mandate to observe that reopening the NAFTA agreement would be a mistake. Senator Obama's foreign affairs experience is not, to put it diplomatically, extensive and learning that Canada has a prime minister, not a president, was a useful addition to his knowledge base.

Thus the PM's observations were not politics but a polite reality check of the like that Canadians deeply enjoy delivering to their southern neighbours whether we think we need it or not.

Those playing spin games are simply announcing their own political biases.

David Jones, co-author of Uneasy Neighbo(u)rs: Canada, the USA and the Dynamics of State, Industry and Culture, is a former American diplomat who served in Ottawa. He now lives in Arlington, Virginia.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Home Books Photo Gallery About David Survey Results Useful Links Submit Feedback