9th April 2018
Ever since America as a country came into being there has been one thing that has been in their favour and that is superior numbers. From Custer’s 7th Cavalry famous for slaughtering old men, women and children and then getting their comeuppance from actual warriors in Montana to the huge number of men carrying guns in WW1 and WW2 acting a bit like ants; just keep on swarming until the opposition is smothered. Stubborn resistance from the strategic defence in Korea and Vietnam lead to the equalization of those numbers but oh the number of Americans and civilians who were sacrificed in those defeats! Volume again now in nonstop battles around the globe all designed to make the USA the all-powerful self-proclaimed determiner of who should “rule” which country.
So I heard that Donald demanded that the new NAFTA deal be on his desk by 1st May 2018 in at least an MOU. Damn it Donald you told us you were going to scrap it, and I at least fell into the trap of believing a business man of ill repute but extreme wealth who could see the advantages of scrapping NAFTA because of Mexico and their low cost of labour etc., I thought he could see too many changes he could make with Canada to his advantage, and indeed he could, but actually Canada if it was, in fact, an independent, democratic, sovereign country would be only too happy to tell Donald now that he is reneging on his threat that WE give you 6 months and WE are out of NAFTA.
American business can see the financial problems with them not being able to control us and so they too want NAFTA to remain. It amuses me in a sad way that our negotiators believe that they have turned those businesses in Canada’s governmental favour forgetting that they too, just like our politicians’ own handlers are only interested in profit. Mind that I said Canada’s government, because it is their opinion that we should be subservient to Washington and bow their every need.
We the people do not believe that, do we? We believe that our relationship should be with the American people even with all their warts (not that we don’t have them too), and that we can and will get along people to people and business to business without all this chest banging, tribunal challenges and protectionism, with mutual respect. Strangely this could well happen if we could just get the money lenders, politicians and manipulators and toy soldiers out of the way and talk to each other as fellow humans.
The cynics among us will say “not going to happen” and maybe they are right; as long as we have wishy-washy leaders around the world, who change their minds and promises as fast as they change their socks (or at least as often as they are told to) then we will have to do it ourselves.
The first step in my mind is what the Canadian Action Party has promoted for years and that is that NAFTA must be done away with.
The image of the FTA cartoon of the day showing Reagan on a rearing white stallion with Mulroney following on a hobby horse saying “we won” still rings so true today. Trump Towers and the White House against a dilapidated cat urine smelling PM residence allowed to sink into a pathetic symbol of Canada’s long gone democracy and sovereignty.
There is no way The USA will change article 605 of NAFTA, and apparently, no way the Government of Canada is willing to stop those absurd lost profit tribunal claims against us and instead insist that the investor-state claims chapter be kept in place.
So, Donald, shut up or put up because we can’t do it ourselves anymore and NAFTA really should go the way of the dodo bird.
Article 605: Other Export Measures
Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Articles XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:
- the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific energy or basic petrochemical good made available to that other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree;