| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:09 pm Post subject: "If you're not with us, you're against us" |
 |
|
A.K.A. 'Why it's sometimes hard to be an ally and friend of the USA'
| Quote: |
U.S. Customs has collected more than $5-billion in duties since May 2002, when American trade officials concluded Canadian softwood imports were unfairly subsidized.
NAFTA panels have three times concluded that the U.S. failed to prove that Canadian softwood poses a material threat of injury to U.S. producers.
Under trade rules, if Washington can't prove Canadian timber injures or threatens to injure U.S. producers, it is obliged to scrap the duties on Canadian lumber imports.
Canada's latest victory was on Aug. 10, when a NAFTA panel ruled that the U.S. had once again failed to adequately demonstrate injury to U.S. producers. The decision should have put an end to the dispute, but the United States said it [has] no inclination to lift the duties and return the money. |
Is this going to create yet another US vs. Canada thread here?
Probably.
But at least this time it'll be about a concrete issue.
And I'm particularly interested to hear what 3rd parties have to say about this.
FULL ARTICLE |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yoda
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Location: Incheon, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This ongoing trade dispute has been going on since the late 80s. I believe is the third version of it. The US has pursued this and delayed as far as they possibly can and are now legally obligated to not only remove the tariffs but pay the 5 billion back. It may indeed be a NAFTA breaker. Whether you think the crown leasing of the land is an unfair subsidy or not, the dispute resolution has been taken to the extreme and Canada won |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have to say I just don't get it- why would the Bush admin listen to the special interest groups to the point of putting the entire NAFTA in jeopardy? What's going on is also bad for the American consumer, the housing/construction industry, etc. it's mind boggling. Much more so than the BSE incidents, where- although irrational- you could understand the fear.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| are now legally obligated to not only remove the tariffs but pay the 5 billion back |
i don't think the latest ruling was legally binding...i thought there was still one more avenue.
In the end, if three different courts rule that there are no subsidies, does the b. admin. think that they are taking the moral high road here arguing for duties that are obvious not in contradiction to anything other |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
