SEE how they run. It has been fascinating to watch how disciples of the various free trade agreements react when questioners wonder why those agreements, won at a price through hard-fought political battles in the 1980s and 1990s, are not the answer to the current trade crisis involving Canadian beef.
After all, the free trade theologians during the 1988 federal election, which was largely fought on the issue of Canada-U.S. trade, were adamant that with a binding agreement, there would be “rules-based trade” and not political trade.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
No more could the big bully kick sand at the little guy on the beach. No more would the little guy have to call on strongman Charles Atlas to avenge his humiliation.
There would be rules, both sides would be bound by them and the right of might would be replaced by the right of rules.
The same arguments were heard in 1994 when the government agreed to extend the free trade pact to Mexico (and it hoped beyond).
So here we are, 10 years later, and once again the American border is less open for what Canadian officials are convinced are political and economic reasons. (Some American respondents to an earlier column beg to differ but that is for a future column).
The North American Free Trade Agreement stands as the charter of trade law over politics.
So why not use it, rather than wringing hands over how to “persuade” the Americans they are wrong?
To ask that is to be dismissed as na•ve.
After agriculture ministers spent considerable time in Winnipeg last month debating the closed border, Alberta’s free-trade-deal-promoting minister Shirley McClellan was asked whether a NAFTA or even World Trade Organization challenge would not be in order.
In effect, she said it is an impractical idea. Trade disputes linger in the process for years and this is a crisis.
In a recent newspaper commentary, Ontario lawyer and trade expert Lawrence Herman made the same point. There are arguments Canada could use against decisions made by both Japan and the United States but victory is far from certain and by the time of decision, any victory would be hollow.
“There are limits on the WTO’s ability to solve the world’s trade problems,” he wrote.
No kidding.
Trade rules work if you have an industry so resilient or minor that years of delay in resolution do not matter. However, if the trade barrier is extreme and the affected industry important and time sensitive, old-fashioned politics and might-is-right remain the order of the day.
It’s like the typical response from federal officials when they are asked why Canada does not launch legal action against American trade and subsidy practices the way Americans regularly challenge Canadian practices.
The answer? We can’t afford to risk retaliation from the U.S. because trade-wise, Canada needs the American market more than it needs Canada’s.
So trade agreements or not, size still matters and Charles Atlas remains a player.
Remind us again how trade deals were going to “level the playing field”, replacing the law of the jungle with the rule of law.
