President Obama

Published: 5 Nov 08 11:15 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/15472/20081105/

Amid the excitement in Sweden over Barack Obama’s victory, there remains real concern among members of the political and business establishment over how the US president-elect will approach the issue of free trade.

* Sweden welcomes Obama (5 Nov 08)

“Our hope is that he doesn’t follow through on what he’s said about free trade,” Moderate party secretary Per Schlingmann told The Local.

In the course of his campaign, Obama made a number of statements which raise questions about his support for free trade.

“If we continue to let our trade policy be dictated by special interests, then American workers will continue to be undermined,” he told an audience at a campaign rally in Michigan in June.

“Allowing subsidized and unfairly traded products to flood our markets is not free trade.”

Among other things, Obama also called for trade agreements with tougher labour and environmental protections, as well as a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) linking the US with Mexico and Canada, the benefits of which he said had been “oversold” to the American public.

Obama’s positions worry free trade advocates who fear the president-elect’s less than enthusiastic support of free trade may portend a more protectionist attitude on the part of the United States.[...]

A Message to Canada’s Political Leaders: Stop Ducking Obama's NAFTA Challenge

Posted September 30, 2008 in [Trade]

As Canadian civil society organizations, we hereby call upon Canada’s political leaders during this (Canadian) general election campaign to respond clearly and unequivocally to US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s challenge to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While some of Canada’s leaders have spoken out for and against renegotiation, it’s high time that all federal political parties declared their positions and plans concerning the renegotiation of NAFTA within the current election campaign.

Senator Obama issued this challenge during the US primary race, declaring that NAFTA is not functioning well for the majority of working people and the environment in the US. As a result, the platform of the Democratic party convention promises “to work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works for all three” countries.

For Canada, there are plenty of good reasons for renegotiating NAFTA after almost 15 years. Chief among them is the energy chapter which includes the “proportionality clause” that compels Canada to continue exporting this country’s oil and natural gas resources to the United States, even if these exports result in domestic shortages here at home.

Canada has less than 13 years of conventional oil reserves and only 8.9 years of natural gas supplies available at current rates of production. Any decision by a Canadian province or federal government to cut back on oil and gas exports for the sake of conservation, greenhouse gas emission reductions, the creation of jobs in the petrochemical industry or diversion of petroleum to eastern provinces could be forbidden by NAFTA’s proportional sharing obligations.

The proportionality clause would compel Canada to continue its oil and natural gas sales to the US at the same rate as they were exported over the previous three years. Currently this means that Canada would be obliged to make two-thirds of our domestic oil production and 63% of our natural gas production available for export to the U.S.

Not only is Canada’s energy security at risk, but so are this country’s freshwater resources. Today, there are rapidly growing water shortages emerging in the Southwest, Midwest, and Southeast states of the US. By 2015, almost a quarter of America’s medium sized cities and nearly one-fifth of its largest cities are expected to be facing serious water shortages. If one or more Canadian provinces turn on the tap to export freshwater to the US, the proportionality clause will automatically be activated, guaranteeing a continuous, uninterrupted flow. [...]

The changing times mean Canada must focus on finding shelter from a wave of protectionism expected in Congress, persuading Washington's new power brokers that U.S. and Canadian jobs are linked, and possibly, selling Canada as a path to reducing U.S. dependency on Middle East and Venezuelan oil, analysts say.

With opinion polls predicting that Mr. Obama, the Illinois Democratic Senator, would easily triumph over Arizona Republican John McCain, capitals around the world have been preparing for an Obama administration.

For Canada and Mr. Harper's government, it opens an opportunity similar to pressing a reset button on Canada-U.S. relations. But it also means vying for the attention of a new president facing a daunting mix of international and economic problems.

"There isn't much of a track record of interest on the part of Obama," said Allan Gotlieb, Canada's ambassador to Washington from 1981 to 1989. "The challenge will be to engage him in the Canada-U.S. file."

Mr. Obama is from a northern state, Illinois, that trades heavily with Canada, but unlike Mr. McCain, did not visit Canada to burnish his foreign-policy credentials, he noted.

Some of the issues that earned credit with Mr. Bush's administration, such as increased military spending, and Canada's role as a staunch NATO ally in Afghanistan, will still be appreciated in Washington, as Mr. Obama has pledged to make that mission a priority.

But a bigger Canadian concern will be a Democratic president backed by a heavily Democratic Congress riding a wave of protectionism fuelled by economic recession. The question is how Canada manages it, many analysts say.[...]