| Author |
Message |
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:28 pm USA/Canada Trade War |
|
| CANOE wrote: | U.S., Canada trade war talk grows
By MARTIN O�HANLON
OTTAWA (CP) - Just a week before George W. Bush arrives for a feel-good visit with Paul Martin, Ottawa is talking tough about a possible trade war with the United States.
The federal government announced Tuesday that it is launching consultations with Canadians on possible retaliation over American duties.
It's all about the Byrd Amendment, which allows American companies to receive anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected from foreign competitors - such as those on softwood lumber.
The U.S. has failed to act on a World Trade Organization ruling that the amendment is illegal.
"Retaliation is not the preferred course of action, but this is about respecting international trade laws," Trade Minister Jim Peterson said from Brazil, where he is on a trade mission.
"These consultations are an important step in protecting the rights of Canadian industry."
While the sabre-rattling comes a week before Bush's visit, that's just a "sheer coincidence," said a government official.
The official, who asked to remain anonymous, said the government had to make its intentions known in order to be in line with other countries seeking trade retaliation against the U.S. at a WTO hearing Wednesday.
The public consultations, while not required, are part of an effort to include citizens in the process, said the official.
"We're not saying we're going to (retaliate) or not. We're just showing that we're serious."
But a source close to negotiations suggested Ottawa will take action if the U.S. doesn't back off.
"At the end of the day, we're going to protect our industry," said the source.
Bush is coming to Ottawa on Tuesday as part of a second-term effort to mend international relations in the wake of the Iraq war.
Martin has said he will raise key trade irritants such as softwood lumber and mad cow, but that the big problem lies in the U.S. Congress.
Canadian lumber exports to the U.S., worth about $10 billion annually, have been subject to heavy duties since May 2002.
The U.S. maintains Canadian producers have an unfair advantage over their American counterparts through lower stumpage fees - the fee to cut wood on Crown land.
Canadian producers have paid more than $3 billion US in cash deposits - mostly held in trust - and the Americans want to give that money to U.S. firms.
John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, welcomed the government's action.
"Given that the U.S. has not complied with the WTO . . . we have no choice but to pursue our rights," he said.
Allan said that as a political tactic, the latest move is a "minor bargaining chip."
"But in a major way, we're in a legal fight for our lives. . . . The U.S. isn't going to respond to anything but economic pressure."
On Aug. 31, the WTO ruled that Canada, Brazil, Chile, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico and South Korea could retaliate by up to 72 per cent of the annual anti-dumping and countervailing duties on exports disbursed to U.S. companies in a given year.
On Nov. 10, Canada joined in submitting to the WTO the final retaliation authorization request, which is required by the WTO before any retaliatory measures can be applied.
The request is to be considered at a meeting of the WTO on Wednesday and automatically authorized unless it is unanimously rejected by WTO members.
Anyone who would like to be involved in Ottawa's consultations is asked to comment by Dec. 20, through the International Trade Canada website at byrd-consultations.gc.ca. |
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/11/23/727574-cp.html
I find this part in particular interesting:
| Quote: | | The U.S. has failed to act on a World Trade Organization ruling that the amendment is illegal. |
The U.S. certainly isn't complying with many world organizations lately, is it? 
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:39 pm |
|
Why should the U.S. comply with "World Organizations"... Hell, the U.S. is responsible for most of them existing, then they try to bully us.
We've been screwed over too many times to care anymore.
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:22 am |
|
Thats a bad attitude to take. The US needs to listen to the needs of other countries too, in the interests of peace.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:06 am |
|
If you call doing everything they say listening "to their needs" then you need to think about that.....
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:13 am |
|
Great attitude to take. Lets throw away all of our allies and piss off everyone else.
The World Trade Organization isn't like the UN, It actually listens to the people.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 10:07 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | If you call doing everything they say listening "to their needs" then you need to think about that..... |
So what would you say if Britain put a tariff on US steel and charged so much tax on it that it was more expensive than British Steel so people in Britain decided to buy only British steel because it was cheaper? Even though American steel would be cheaper otherwise, so people would buy it and make jobs in America. Would you think that fair?
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:34 am |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | If you call doing everything they say listening "to their needs" then you need to think about that..... |
So what would you say if Britain put a tariff on US steel and charged so much tax on it that it was more expensive than British Steel so people in Britain decided to buy only British steel because it was cheaper? Even though American steel would be cheaper otherwise, so people would buy it and make jobs in America. Would you think that fair? |
Yes I do. Thats the way bussiness works. Sounds like a great tactic to me.
|
|
|
Captain Dappet
Forum Revolutionist
Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 16756
Location: On my supersonic rocket ship.
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:05 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Why should the U.S. comply with "World Organizations"... Hell, the U.S. is responsible for most of them existing, then they try to bully us.
We've been screwed over too many times to care anymore. |
Why? Because you're part of the world, as much as you might hate that fact, or believe that you ARE the world, it's the truth.
And the U.S responsible for our existance? Well, we're responsible for your existance, as well, so that evens it out, doesnt it?
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:34 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | If you call doing everything they say listening "to their needs" then you need to think about that..... |
So what would you say if Britain put a tariff on US steel and charged so much tax on it that it was more expensive than British Steel so people in Britain decided to buy only British steel because it was cheaper? Even though American steel would be cheaper otherwise, so people would buy it and make jobs in America. Would you think that fair? |
Yes I do. Thats the way bussiness works. Sounds like a great tactic to me. |
Ah, well most people think that it isn't, and that the country with the cheapest goods should be able to sell it for the price without it being bumped up by taxes so the home country can enable it to compete with their own goods.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:41 pm |
|
| Captain Dappet wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | Why should the U.S. comply with "World Organizations"... Hell, the U.S. is responsible for most of them existing, then they try to bully us.
We've been screwed over too many times to care anymore. |
Why? Because you're part of the world, as much as you might hate that fact, or believe that you ARE the world, it's the truth.
And the U.S responsible for our existance? Well, we're responsible for your existance, as well, so that evens it out, doesnt it? |
Name another country in history who's had as much power as the U.S. and generally always used it for good.
The U.S. have given, and given, and given, and when, now, we need to take a bit, nobody respects that.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:17 pm |
|
Simple answer. The Romans. Yes, the Romans conquered, but they had the first paid military, They taught all cultures Latin and farming techniques, and there was much peace with their Reign.
We do not need to take a bit of anything, we are overtaxing these people illegally. The US doesn't run the world, as much as some people would like to believe. At any point in time another group of countries could steam roll us into the ground.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:40 am |
|
Overtaxing? What?
The only people overtaxed by the U.S. are U.S. citizens and corporations. And, no the U.S. doesn't run the world, but the world also doesn't run the U.S.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:59 am |
|
If the US is wanting to tax other county's goods so their own companies can compete with the prices, then that is fine with me. Other countries should be allowed to do the same right back. Just don't complain when any other country in the world does the same.
|
|
|
Curtis
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Posts: 14903
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:29 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | If the US is wanting to tax other county's goods so their own companies can compete with the prices, then that is fine with me. Other countries should be allowed to do the same right back. Just don't complain when any other country in the world does the same. |
I agree, what comes around goes around  (Darn Bsuh ).
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:59 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Thats a bad attitude to take. The US needs to listen to the needs of other countries too, in the interests of peace. |
the interest of peace? the us goes to anyones adi just like that *snaps fingers* but when we ask for it everyone backs out...
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Nov 26, 2004 5:18 pm |
|
Give some examples of countries asking the US to help them and why it was? (I know there is some, just can't think of some at the moment)
|
|
|
Curtis
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 29 Sep 2001
Posts: 14903
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:39 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Thats a bad attitude to take. The US needs to listen to the needs of other countries too, in the interests of peace. |
Indeed, peace should be the key for everybody.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:03 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Give some examples of countries asking the US to help them and why it was? (I know there is some, just can't think of some at the moment) |
Prime example: France in WWII. They were kinda' gettin' slaughtered without us, they needed our help, and we came. We were there in WWI, too. My, my...weren't they helpful in the U.N. when we needed 'em? And, of course, we helped Germany during their times of trouble...whether they formally "asked" or not, I believe it was pretty obvious they wanted help during the rule of the USSR. Oh, yeeeees...they were the OTHER supportive party in the U.N.! That's right! ... /sarcasm\
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:38 pm |
|
Didn't America join the war because of Pearl Harbour? I mean, France was in a bad situation long before it, and the American public still didn't want to go to war. That's what I've read anyway.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:56 pm |
|
Yes, we joined because of pearl harbor, but France only asked, as far as I know, after the Germans started to invade. They didn't think we came soon enough, granted...WWII was really the beginning of the U.S. involvement in the rest of the world, though.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:11 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: |
Prime example: France in WWII. They were kinda' gettin' slaughtered without us, they needed our help, and we came. We were there in WWI, too. My, my...weren't they helpful in the U.N. when we needed 'em? And, of course, we helped Germany during their times of trouble...whether they formally "asked" or not, I believe it was pretty obvious they wanted help during the rule of the USSR. Oh, yeeeees...they were the OTHER supportive party in the U.N.! That's right! ... /sarcasm\ |
In WWII, The US was going to stay isolated. That was the policy until until Pearl Harbor happened. We did not go to help France out, we went to defend ourselves and take care of those who attacked us.
If you look at both WWI and WWII, it took us getting attacked before we decided to join the war. We were defending our country.
Also, France was not the only one to ask, Britian asked the US hundreds of times to help them. As did many other countries. The US stuck by its Isolationist policy.
As history shows, When a war is needed, then countries will turn to their allies. But when War isn't needed, Prime Example: Iraq, No one will help because they know that war is not needed.
|
|
|
Republican_Man2
Ensign
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 61
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:14 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Why should the U.S. comply with "World Organizations"... Hell, the U.S. is responsible for most of them existing, then they try to bully us.
We've been screwed over too many times to care anymore. |
EXCELLENT point.
| Founder wrote: | | If you call doing everything they say listening "to their needs" then you need to think about that..... |
Good point.
You guys are saying enough for me...
-------signature-------
Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith May 19th!
Go see it!
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:53 pm |
|
^^Or the reason that no one would help us take out Iraq is perhaps because they were all doing under the table operations making money off of oil for food eh? Why help the US take out someone we are making money off of?
|
|
|
Republican_Man2
Ensign
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 61
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:07 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | ^^Or the reason that no one would help us take out Iraq is perhaps because they were all doing under the table operations making money off of oil for food eh? Why help the US take out someone we are making money off of? |
EXACTLY. That discusses the claims about going into Iraq for oil. We could have gotten TONS of oil through the scandal!
-------signature-------
Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith May 19th!
Go see it!
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:10 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | ^^Or the reason that no one would help us take out Iraq is perhaps because they were all doing under the table operations making money off of oil for food eh? Why help the US take out someone we are making money off of? |
Well said. I can't understand why no one else sees this. Everyone else is like "But the UN is the source of all good in the World! They didn't go into Iraq because it was wrong!"
Whatever helps you sleep at night.....
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
