More Than Backpedaling on NAFTA

[Orwellian_Ghost]

More Than Backpedaling on NAFTA

Manuel Pérez-Rocha | October 29, 2009

A bizarre meeting on the "Future of North America" was scheduled to take place on November 2 and 3. Members of the newly created, self-appointed "Commission on North American Prosperity" would have gathered in Toronto. Amazingly, the meeting was considered a "summit," even though none of the presidents slated to lead it are sitting presidents. There was George H.W. Bush representing the United States, Vicente Fox standing in for Mexico, Jean Chretien for Canada, and Ricardo Lagos from Chile. All of a sudden this "summit" has been cancelled.

The cancellation remains unexplained. And the intention to carry on with this type of business-led forums, along the lines of the North American Forum that recently concluded in Ottawa, raises many questions: Are we going back to the future? Why are these former leaders "representing" countries they don't run any more? Is their purpose to dictate to our actual presidents what to do to build North America? Why was ex president Lagos from Chile invited at all?

Since presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox, as well as Prime Minister Paul Martin, created the obscure Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in 2005 (only to be silently dismissed by President Barack Obama), efforts to boost North American corporate integration have eluded public and legislative scrutiny.

In the meantime, Obama has backpedaled from his campaign commitments to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) so that it would emphasize fair trade, workers' rights, and limits to investors' privileges. Instead, the government is still expanding the accord to remove even more checks and balances on the exchange of capital, services, and goods.

...

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6534

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. Obama backpedaling on campaign commitments? There's a shocker.

NOT! :evilgrin:

[Barack_America]

2. So you're upset George Bush won't be representing our country again?

:shrug:

That sounds like it would have been one of the most bizarre and useless meetings ever.

As for NAFTA itself, honestly, I don't think it's our biggest problem trade-wise. Obama has already made some progress with the source of our main trade inequity, China. Not enough progress, to be sure, but it's a start.

[HamdenRice]

5. The OPer definitely seems to be a big fan of the Bush family

Not sure why he is. Seems to me all the OP says is that Bush was having a meeting about NAFTA, and then it tries to shoehorn that onto the current administration.

Your analysis is spot on.

But he's taken lots of neo-con/ultra-conservative/regressive/fake-leftist positions in the past.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

8. Geez Hammy

Lies, slander and Orwellian doublespeak all in one. Not too many even pay attention to you except to know that whatever you say it's almost exactly the opposite which is true.

Hamy suggests FPIF is pushing a pro-Bush agenda so as to avoid reading the article that speaks facts on the Obama NAFTA backpedaling. What a surprise.

[HamdenRice]

10. OK, Bwana, maybe you're not a neo-con

but definitely "neo-Confederate," which is much, much worse!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

As others have pointed out, the OP clearly pines for the days when Bush represented the country.

[atreides1]

7. It's a start

Those words mean so much. Like change we can believe in, or transparency in government!!

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. How Orwellian!!!11!

:popcorn:

[MadHound]

4. More of that "change" that we can believe in.

The only thing that has changed is which of our corporate masters are benefiting the most.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. +1 nt

[Barack_America]

9. Which part? Not allowing Bush to represent our country?

Or not making NAFTA his top priority?

[MadHound]

11. Backing off of his promise to reform NAFTA for the better

Frankly we should just scrap NAFTA completely, but I was willing to give the man a chance to try and reform it. Sadly it looks like his NAFTA reforms are going to be about as effective as his healthcare reforms, skewed heavily in favor of his corporate masters, and screwing we the people even more.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

12. Did you not read the article?

You must have some level of reading skills so this bit from the article may have escaped your reactionary purposes:

Why are these former leaders "representing" countries they don't run any more? Is their purpose to dictate to our actual presidents what to do to build North America? Why was ex president Lagos from Chile invited at all?

So you see the author of the piece is in fact questioning how it is these "ex-leaders" even have a right to conjur such a meeting yet you seem to have missed that. It seems there can be only two possible explanations. One possibility, is that you lack the reading skills to even make it to the second paragraph (but still feel qualified to comment).

The other possibility is that you are purposefully using the tactic of disinformation and distraction to avoid the topic altogether. In either case it is pretty transparent. Not even a junior high discussion group would allow for such obfuscation and illogical histrionics.

[Barack_America]

13. Yes, the author is upset both that the meeting was scheduled...

...and that it has been suddenly canceled.

That is ridiculous.

The author also provides no evidence NAFTA would have even been the prime topic of such a meeting, raising the question of why the meeting was even included in the piece at all, other than a "transparent" attempt to connect Bush with Obama. "In the meantime", what the hell kind of connection is that? How does that prove there is any connection between Bush's current activities and the Obama's policies? It doesn't. Same for the imagined link between Obama's "top trade officials" and Bush's SPP. Here the author doesn't even attempt to elaborate a connection, but hopes that placing the paragraphs back-to-back will compel the reader to make one. And H1N1 being the fault of NAFTA/SPP (which the author now uses interchangeably)? Pathetic. Is NAFTA to be blamed for the previous H1N1 outbreaks in 1918 and the mid 50's?

So yes, I snarked it. Some articles aren't worth a serious rebuttal, but since you asked...