John Kerry hurts Canada to help the Democrats
Monday, 17 May 2004
Cyril Doll
George W. Bush's reputation as a champion of free markets and globalization isn't worth much in Canada these days. In the barely more than three years he's been president of the United States, the Americans have levied 30 per-cent tariffs on imported steel, closed their borders to Canadian beef and slapped 27 per-cent tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry may not look half bad by comparison. As Senator, he's voted in favour of expanding trade to developing countries and for normalization of trade relations with China. But don't let that fool you. The candidate who seems to straddle two sides of virtually every issue, from Iraq to abortion to his SUV (or is that his "family's" SUV?), may talk a good game on international trade, but he's not likely to make Canadians' lives any easier.
The Massachusetts Democrat, after all, is banking on labour unions to come out and vote Kerry in November, and unions love trade protectionism. Kerry's bipolar position on trade was perhaps best articulated in a Democratic debate last year in South Carolina. "We need to export our capitalism and our democracy," said Kerry. "But we need a president who is prepared to negotiate the tough trade agreements that protect people." In other words, he's in favour of free trade except when he isn't.
An April 7 letter signed by Kerry along with nine other Democratic senators and three Republicans, urged U.S. Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman to keep the American border closed to Canadian live cattle imports. Kerry has also promised to review all of America's trade agreements within 120 days of being elected president to ensure they are friendly to U.S. labour. "The Democratic party is the handmaiden of the unions and so they generally take an anti-trade position," says Dan Ikenson, trade analyst with the U.S.-based Cato Institute, an economic policy think-tank in Washington, D.C.
That means that Canadians could be adversely affected if Americans vote to oust Bush in the next election. (An April 20th poll has Bush leading Kerry 51 per cent to 46 per cent.) One of the biggest variables between them will probably be the way the U.S. proceeds in terms of opening its border to beef, says James G. Robb, agricultural economist with the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Denver, Colo. Though Kerry's April 7 letter blamed Canada for delays, due to what he believes is insufficient testing for BSE on this side of the border, ultimately the issue for Democrats is as much a political one as it is a scientific one, says Robb. "What's going to solve this thing is about one-third politics, one-third science and one-third economics," he says. "All those things are going to have to come together if they're going to open the border." In a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in late April, Bush vowed his commitment to getting the U.S.-Canadian beef trade going again. Ron Glaser, public affairs manager for Alberta Beef Producers, says the President's administration seems genuinely committed to ending the ban on Canadian beef.
On other trade fronts, who's in the Oval Office won't make much difference. Softwood lumber tariffs are the work of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which, according to Ikenson, has an agenda of its own: to protect U.S. exports and U.S. labour. Even though Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans is a Bush cabinet appointee, the President doesn't hold much sway over the department. At the same time, says Ikenson, the U.S. is bound to trade agreements; the World Trade Organization and NAFTA have both ruled in favour of Canada's interests regarding the softwood lumber dispute--though the U.S. routinely appeals their decisions. Bush lifted steel tariffs in December, but many observers agree that he had little choice. The spectre of European trade sanctions made the policy untenable.
Ikenson and Robb agree that because he fashions himself as a champion of unfettered commerce, Bush is the better bet for international markets. Still, the issue will mean far less to the average American voter, concerned more about the Iraqi situation, terrorism and their own economy, than about the health of Canada's beef industry. Kerry hasn't exactly been winning points for clarity on those matters, either. But if he ends up elected, Bush will suddenly start to seem a lot more of a free trader than Canadians ever realized.
Western Standard
Monday, 17 May 2004
Cyril Doll
George W. Bush's reputation as a champion of free markets and globalization isn't worth much in Canada these days. In the barely more than three years he's been president of the United States, the Americans have levied 30 per-cent tariffs on imported steel, closed their borders to Canadian beef and slapped 27 per-cent tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry may not look half bad by comparison. As Senator, he's voted in favour of expanding trade to developing countries and for normalization of trade relations with China. But don't let that fool you. The candidate who seems to straddle two sides of virtually every issue, from Iraq to abortion to his SUV (or is that his "family's" SUV?), may talk a good game on international trade, but he's not likely to make Canadians' lives any easier.
The Massachusetts Democrat, after all, is banking on labour unions to come out and vote Kerry in November, and unions love trade protectionism. Kerry's bipolar position on trade was perhaps best articulated in a Democratic debate last year in South Carolina. "We need to export our capitalism and our democracy," said Kerry. "But we need a president who is prepared to negotiate the tough trade agreements that protect people." In other words, he's in favour of free trade except when he isn't.
An April 7 letter signed by Kerry along with nine other Democratic senators and three Republicans, urged U.S. Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman to keep the American border closed to Canadian live cattle imports. Kerry has also promised to review all of America's trade agreements within 120 days of being elected president to ensure they are friendly to U.S. labour. "The Democratic party is the handmaiden of the unions and so they generally take an anti-trade position," says Dan Ikenson, trade analyst with the U.S.-based Cato Institute, an economic policy think-tank in Washington, D.C.
That means that Canadians could be adversely affected if Americans vote to oust Bush in the next election. (An April 20th poll has Bush leading Kerry 51 per cent to 46 per cent.) One of the biggest variables between them will probably be the way the U.S. proceeds in terms of opening its border to beef, says James G. Robb, agricultural economist with the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Denver, Colo. Though Kerry's April 7 letter blamed Canada for delays, due to what he believes is insufficient testing for BSE on this side of the border, ultimately the issue for Democrats is as much a political one as it is a scientific one, says Robb. "What's going to solve this thing is about one-third politics, one-third science and one-third economics," he says. "All those things are going to have to come together if they're going to open the border." In a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in late April, Bush vowed his commitment to getting the U.S.-Canadian beef trade going again. Ron Glaser, public affairs manager for Alberta Beef Producers, says the President's administration seems genuinely committed to ending the ban on Canadian beef.
On other trade fronts, who's in the Oval Office won't make much difference. Softwood lumber tariffs are the work of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which, according to Ikenson, has an agenda of its own: to protect U.S. exports and U.S. labour. Even though Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans is a Bush cabinet appointee, the President doesn't hold much sway over the department. At the same time, says Ikenson, the U.S. is bound to trade agreements; the World Trade Organization and NAFTA have both ruled in favour of Canada's interests regarding the softwood lumber dispute--though the U.S. routinely appeals their decisions. Bush lifted steel tariffs in December, but many observers agree that he had little choice. The spectre of European trade sanctions made the policy untenable.
Ikenson and Robb agree that because he fashions himself as a champion of unfettered commerce, Bush is the better bet for international markets. Still, the issue will mean far less to the average American voter, concerned more about the Iraqi situation, terrorism and their own economy, than about the health of Canada's beef industry. Kerry hasn't exactly been winning points for clarity on those matters, either. But if he ends up elected, Bush will suddenly start to seem a lot more of a free trader than Canadians ever realized.
Western Standard