Grrr...

[bcholmes]

Dear United States,

You make such a big deal about other countries violating these international agreements. What is it with you guys and softwood lumber? How many different international organizations have to tell you that you're in violation of treaty?

And why are you just staring blankly as if you have no idea what I'm talking about?

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I know the answer to the last question. It's because we're run by a bunch of hypocrites who think international law means "I'm bigger than you so I can do what I want" except when it means the other guy can do what he wants.

[deepforestowl.livejournal.com]

um...I DO have no idea what you are talking about. What's going on?

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

This is one of those things, like the Japanese embargo on US beef, that Americans don't even notice.

Canada and the US have been arguing over softwood lumber since 1982, but it's gotten far, far worse in the Bush years.

During the 80s, Canada and the US signed a "Free Trade Agreement" that stated (in essence) that Canada wouldn't apply tariffs on US imports and the US wouldn't apply tariffs to Canadian imports. The US claimed to like the Free Trade Agreement, and that ultimately spawned the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, to include Mexico) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA, to include countries in Central America).

But the US has never kept its side of the bargain. It imposes duties on Canadian softwood lumber, mostly on Ontario and the West Coast. We've had any number of rulings that say that the US is breaking our agreements. The organization that hears NAFTA complaints said so in August of 2003. The World Trade Organization said so two weeks later.

Another appeal by the US was rejected last week. The NAFTA organization had an "extraordinary challenge panel" which, once again, said that the US is in the wrong. (And remember, this is an organization that the US agreed to respect). Washington's response: oh well, we don't care. Canada had to budge, 'cause we're not.

15,000 lumber workers in British Columbia have lost their jobs because of this matter.

This dispute has been repeated on Canadian news every few months for the last five years. On the American news: nada.

[deepforestowl.livejournal.com]

Yet another reason to hate my country, the Bush administration, and the American news media. We don't have any coverage of this at all here, just like the beef embargo. Thank you for telling me this. I like to know what America is doing without the knowledge of the American people. I am running two classes in the Fall that deals with American myths (the melting pot, gender, family, work, etc). Would it be ok if I print out your concise breakdown and use it in class?

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that the blank stare means so muh, "I have no idea what you're talking about?" as, "What are you going to do about it?" or, "Why do you persist in thinking I care?"

Re: Grrr...

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

<rant>

ever since i moved out here and looked at the situation closely, i've been with those who want to see a complete ban (without the existing loopholes) on selling raw logs to the US. we shouldn't waste our natural resources like that, we should be making value-added products from said lumber, and sell those; the more value added the better. yes, stumpage fees ought to be assessed in a more transparent manner; i'm not actually in disagreement with that. but when reading most US complaints i just retch -- it's pure protectionism; they're criticising the western provinces for the very same things they do themselves in their western forests. i would actually like to see the large timber empires broken up; i think we need tenure reform very badly. and i want to see us establish regional timber markets. what good do other reforms do for small businesses if they have to keep selling to a limited number of large, privileged distributors anyway? free market, my hairy white ass. none of this even addresses the environmental issues (BC in specific does not have sufficient regulations to protect small fish-bearing streams and happily ignores federal legislation). and i myself am woefully ignorant of aboriginal rights. ghod, there is so much wrong with this industry; the dispute with the US is only the tip of the iceberg.

and yeah, americans on the whole are even less informed about this than they are about the salmon. but that's not new. americans know precious little about the rest of the world, and i don't think that one can blame that on the bush regime in particular. heck, there only is a bush regime because so many americans are willfully ignorant.

</rant>

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

Actually, I've heard about the softwood lumber dispute on American news. You just have to know which outlets to go to. It's certainly not anything on cable or network television, though. As for the larger question, I bring you the following message from our "esteemed" leader:

"Deer Mz. Homes,

My name is George Dubya Bush, and I just wanna say that the rules are fer ever'one else but us Americans. And we only are dumping our wood (didja no I own a wood company? I din't untill that Kerry guy tol' me at the talkin' thingy last fall.) becuz it's good for America, and what is good for America is good for the whirled.

So, to recap, rules are for ever'one else. What's good for America is good for ever'one, anyhow.

Thank u for u're consern,

George Dubya Bush (my name is so hard to spell!)
President of the United States

P.S. - Presidentin' is hard work!"

(You have no idea how hard it was to type that message from the President. Can I spork my brain out now?)

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

Comes up on NPR -- not all the time, but I'm pretty sure I've heard of it at least twice in the past year. I seem to recall that we're also not lifting our ban on your beef for non-medical reasons.

NPR also dutifully reports on a similar number of cases where we're getting shafted by Europe or Japan and they're not listening to the trade courts. I presume that everyone's doing it for the same reason: in a democracy you don't get re-elected by dissing your own voters to the benefit of some company in another country, treaty or no treaty. You probably need to go to softwood lumber consumers in the US and force them to release a "Our widgets would be more sensibly priced if we didn't have to pay unsound import tarriffs" press barrage, which seemed to have great effect over the steel tarriff brouhaha last year.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

Hell, simply by claiming that we are a Christian nation puts us in violation of a treaty...