Emerging Trade Confrontations

The United States of America has a new president whose evaluated potential has Americans and the international community wildly guessing at the changes that may take place in that country's administration of internal and external affairs. While the American public - at least those who voted with their heartstrings for the promised change, responding to the promise that together they can effect needed social change in that country - anticipate a more balanced and fair society that may provide equal opportunities to all its citizens, the international community wonders what other changes may eventuate.

The incoming administration under president-elect Barack Obama has much to focus on. This extraordinary election with its amazing result that has brought to the head of government an unknown political entity with the immense promise of a fair and just society sings of opportunities long denied its racial underbelly. But long before anything constructive can come about to attempt to effectively turn around tired social mores, the new Democratic administration has to begin to shift the Atlas-weighted problems left to it by the outgoing administration.

The collapse of its mighty financial engine is its first and most pressing problem to be addressed. Emergency measures to cope with the economic disaster facing millions of Americans have thus far - and these are early days yet - done nothing to reassure a public facing enormous job losses and the insecurity and demoralization that comes with loss of income. In the face of ongoing industry closures of a magnitude never before seen in that country, with huge industrial interests faltering.

And in the face of that immense and disheartening task, having to reassure and bring along with it to present an allied attempt throughout the world in an interrelated economic relationship, a common strategy whereby all affected countries will attempt to buoy their failing financial institutions and the economic infrastructure they all require to govern well and wisely. One might say the financial collapse is a prime example of government lapses in oversight, complacent with their countries' financial markets' lack of due diligence, embracing greed instead of practical management.

So in the face of those clear and present disasters, where all the financial experts the world over are flummoxed over how best to respond, whether governments should indeed intervene in propping up failed financial institutions, and desperate corporations on the brink of bankruptcy, or sit back and let the market eventually right itself, here is Canada, nervously eyeing her largest trading partner. Although Canada is herself in relatively healthy financial status, when the United States ails, Canada finds itself hospitalized as well.

If the United States is no longer in a strong position to buy Canadian products, we feel the pinch. We too are bleeding jobs as long-established companies shutter their factories and head off to other locations boasting cheaper labour costs. And when our base products and our resources no longer see a ready market across the border, we too begin to slump and lose the opportunity to grow and to advance. Canada is fortunate; still a low unemployment rate overall, with construction still strong.

But apprehensive about what may lie ahead in confronting the reality of a Democratic government next door, which has traditionally been more labour-protective of its own than Republicans, and more given to protectionism across the board. For one thing it is quite likely that the North American Trade Agreement will be renegotiated. While NAFTA has been a positive initiative for all three countries - Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, there have always been trade irritants, and since the U.S. Congress always places U.S. interests first and foremost, fairness has not always resulted.

Canada will be in a position to bargain for more leverage in some areas, particularly energy. And when the three countries go back to the bargaining table, it would be really good if Canada stood fast and insisted that some elements of the current NAFTA deal be taken off the table. That if Canada feels an American company is exporting harmful chemicals to this country, for example, that company will no longer have the right to take the government of this country to court.

And that would work, needless to say, in reverse. Nor would Canadians ever want to be in a position where our fresh water is in danger of being exported to the United States, perennially short of water, particularly in states like California, which is itself environmentally conscious and active, but hasn't yet taught its residents that water is too precious in a dry state, to be used for innumerable backyard swimming pools.

To be fair, negotiators from any of the involved countries have an obligation to see to the well-being of their own populations. But in so doing it should never translate to impoverishing or placing the other trade partner at a distinct disadvantage. In that respect the U.S. has been a trade bully. So perhaps that too can be renegotiated.