http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.wclinton28/BNStory/usElection2008/
ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE: INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Clinton ready to walk away from NAFTA, adviser warns
Tough talk on trade comes as Democrats turn their focus to
Pennsylvania primary
HEATHER SCOFFIELD
ECONOMICS REPORTER; With a report from John Ibbitson in Washington
March 28, 2008
OTTAWA -- Hillary Clinton's threat to pull the United States out of
NAFTA is a negotiating tactic to extract changes in the trade deal,
but is a threat she'll make good on if she doesn't get her way, her
top economic adviser says.
In comments after a speech near Parliament Hill yesterday, Gene
Sperling clarified the position of the Democratic presidential
candidate on the North American free-trade agreement - just weeks
before she faces off against Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, where the
next primary in the tight race will be held.
"She is very serious about this, and she's a tough leader, a tough
negotiator. And she means what she says, and says what she means,"
Mr. Sperling said.
"She's made very clear that she would reopen and renegotiate the
agreement to try to strengthen NAFTA. And she's said she is very
confident that she would be successful," he explained. "When she was
asked if that means she'd be willing to walk away if that was not
successful, she said yes."
Clinton ready to walk away from NAFTA
Clinton Ready To Walk Away From NAFTA, Adviser Warns
Posted on Saturday, March 29 at 09:43 by Janet M EatonContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
What I'm afraid about is that this is nothing more than a posturing blackmail, forcing Canada's and Mexico's politicians on the payroll to sell off their countries completely, not quite yet accomplished with NAFTA, with our foreign and domestic controlled mega corporations fully supporting it, as they have forced on the original sellouts under the FTA, NAFTA, WTO, etc.
Ask Tom d'Aquino and Manley which way Canada should go ?
Ed Deak.
This morning on CBC Radio's The House Kathleen Purdy interviewed Clinton’s economic advisor
Gene Sperling who said the following :
" what she laid out in our campaign was that she felt that:
1. Labour and Environmental standards were not strong enough
2. that there needed to be stronger enforcement within the agreement
3. that she was very concerned about what's called Chapter 13 - or the
tribunals and whether they have a negative impact on our ability to
set our own environmental standards
4. And forth - which is more of a US issue - is that she wanted a
process for review
And I think at least three of those four things require renegotiation of NAFTA
and she’s been forth right about that and she has said what she meant
and meant what she said.
I just transcribed this from the podcast and will shortly post it."
Janet Eaton
Regardless of her promises, there are people and corporations who are investing hundreds of millions of bucks in her campaign, especially if she becomes a candidate.
What I would like to know is what she's promising them ? Higher labour and environmental standards, when, at least many of them, are dreaming of the free movement of imported Mexican labour ? Where does she stand on the SPP and NAU ?
Regardless of what some of our friends on this blog think and say, higher standards aren't going down very well with "wealth creation", which is nothing more than more and more energy control demanded by the stockmarkets where stocks fall with every penny raise in wages, or employment numbers and especially the loss of unhindered resource extraction.
Cheers, Ed Ed Deak.
But the problem with negotiating with the elephant is that the elephant always wins. I would just be happy if we didn't keep piling more agreements on top of NAFTA, making it some sort of Frankenstein's monster of acronyms, all of which make things worse for working people.
Re Obama and Clinton, it does seem like the Harper govt would prefer Clinton over Obama if the memo leak on NAFTA was any indication. What I do mainly hope is that as this becomes an election issue south of the border, it becomes more likely we can make it an election issue HERE.
(BTW great to see you posting to the site Janet! Keep posting more!)
Do people honestly think that the US will walk away from a trade agreement while it is sitting around the table with the global community trying to resolve the Doha mess? What signal does it send to the rest of the world in trade negotiations when the largest and most important country on the planet abrogates a treaty with its two largest trading partners?
Its political posturing for the primaries. Even if she becomes President, her promise will be as sound as when the Liberals promised to renegotiate in 1993.
Besides, didn't you know Clinton is a Bilderberg? She can't disappoint her masters who have fixed the election anyways! lol
Obama's position has long been that trade is good, but the deal has to be good for that to happen. Clinton, well she's basically been pushed into taking the same position. Given the current situation in the US, I don't think she'll be able to back away from it so easily though.
In the end, if there were any "renegotiations," they would essentially be meaningless - forming a nonbinding committee to study environmental and labour standards and all that - and wouldn't change much of the deal.
But Canada is not the target of this anyways. My guess is that a good number of Americans - I don't know, maybe a third - don't even know Canada is part of NAFTA. Americans generally associate NAFTA with Mexico.
Wanna borrow some filters, Toro? You'd be amazed what happens when you start to see things in another light.
Good for you Blair. Just saw my ophthalmologist, my eyes are strengthening. I see fine.
by Henry
age 9
Capitalism is better than not-Capitalism because capitalists make jobs and funnel excess profits to the owners instead of all the people who work in a company. It's also better because companies can use their profits to influence government and to bribe officials. Capitalism is better because they get natural resources from the government at lots less than their real value so the companies get more profits so they can influence more governments and bribe more officials. Finally, capitalism pollutes the environment meaning they don't have to pay to clean up their mess like I do when I spill something but anyway they pay less and so they get more profits so they can influence more governments and bribe more officials.
Oh. Wait a minute.