Your view is that this represents a policy decision. Mine is that it does not. Your view is that it is an action sanctioned and
sponsored by the American government. My view is that it reflects an internal debate (including lobbying) that has caused
America to back off from compliance with, and enforcement of NAFTA. That is, the American government, and the American
people, are re-examining the adequacy of these bilateral trade mechanisms; while that happens, compliance is weakening. In my
view, there is still hope. In your view, the war is "on".
The war sure as hell is on here. Some of our lumbering communities are going to look bombed out damn soon.
If it looks like a skunk,
Walks like a skunk,
Smells like a skunk...
Then it probably ain't a chipmunk.
Your view is that it is an action sanctioned and sponsored by the American government.
Let me guess, the US Commerce department is run by Bosnians? Of course it's the US government! It's not the Algerian or German government.
There is an unwritten policy in force. And that is: private interests can use the US government to shit on their neighbours. (Actually it's not unwritten, but leave that for now).
Lots of countries have this policy and it's not usually too bothersome. But when the world's only super power has it, they are creating problems where none need exist. Follow this line of thought beyond the softwood dispute into a wider domain.
There is a problem of trust. Objectively, the world can usually trust the US on the really big things (except ag policy) but the little things...oooh!
But objective is not what counts. It's subjective that counts and there's only a few really big things and lots of little things and it's the double crosses on the little things that add up.
No one expects a government to be as pure as Caesar's wife, but they don't expect a real government to be standing on the corner, either. |
