From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: US-Canada Beer Dispute ... I thought it was over?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:14:33 GMT

In article <BrwyCq.zn@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> msharder@napier.waterloo.edu (Mathew Harder) writes:
>   I think that it is a stretch to say that the FTA is "working the way it
>is supposed to".  The FTA allows us to present our case on alleged unfair
>practices to non-binding arbitration by a bilateral panel.  But is this
>"recourse to harassment" of any value if the panel's decisions are
>ignored?  To me, this is the same as having no recourse at all.  I feel
>that in any NAFTA the dispute-resolution process will have to be much
>stronger than that in the FTA.  (Is binding arbitration a good idea?)
>

The binational panel is really a form of binding arbitration and the US
has to abide by the decisions...the problem is that a lot of the current
disputes have yet to make it through the binational dispute settlement
process.  The problem is that in most of the instances, the US is
bringing pretty bogus cases, and using the dispute resolution process
to delay fair access to the US market.  In most of the current disputes,
if the GATT rules, or the FTA dispute settlement mechanism are followed
through to the bitter time-consuming end, we will win most of the
current cases.

In the current beer dispute, the US is violating the GATT.

>   Without the FTA, Canada would surely be worse-off with regards to US
>markets.  But to date, the FTA has not been an effective weapon in the
>battle against US protectionism.  I think that the problem comes from a
>schism in US politics.  On the one hand the executive branch is
>negotiating treaties for freer trade, and preaching to other countries the
>glories of open markets.  On the other hand the congress and several
>states are enacting protectionist laws and pointing fingers at everyone
>else over unfair trading practices.  Unfortunately for us, it seems as
>though the protectionist sentiment is dominant south of the border at the
>moment.
>

The FTA is working, but it is struggling because the US is not
living up to the spirit of the accord with all these bogus cases
which they will eventually lose.

>   We may have to face the fact that Canada's market is not a sufficiently
>important fish to entice the States to open thier market to us.  I think
>it wise to look farther afield, and see what other prospects there are
>(this applies even if Canada does enter into the NAFTA with the
>US&Mexico).  Is there a possibility of a mutual openning of markets
>between Canada and the EEC?  What about Eastern Europe and the CIS?
>Australia?  Japan, Taiwan and other countries of the far east?  Latin 
>America?  There are a multitude of economic possibilities out there.  
>

The problem is not that our market is not important to the US, but
that they think they can have their cake and eat it too, and are
trying to bully us...we have to demonstrate a little eventemperedness
and resolve and show we cannot be bullied.

We should still agressively pursue the GATT, but it is foolish to
think that the US will not continue to be our most important market.

The Pacific Rim will slowly become more important to us...and the
rest of the Americas which is why a properly negotiated NAFTA is
important to Canada, so we don't end up being one of the spokes
on a US hub and spoke strategy.

Gerald
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36169 alt.politics.elections:9246