Ottawa Threatens to Deprive Americans of Oil
Translator's Note: Background - The US has recently refused to pay back over $4 billion in tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber that the dispute-resolution panel of the North American Free Trade Accord ruled were illegally collected. Canada estimates that these tariffs increase the average price of a new home in the US by $1,000. - ljt
Go to Original
Conflict over Softwood Lumber: Ottawa Threatens to Deprive Americans of Oil
By Alec Castonguay
Le Devoir
Saturday 15 October 2005
Ottawa - In the course of a week, the [Canadian] federal government has gone from muscular language to direct threats with regard to the United States, which still refuses to give in on the softwood lumber dispute. "Settle the softwood lumber issue if you want to continue to receive our oil without problem in the future," Ottawa now asserts in substance. A blackmail that strongly risks shocking Washington and which is already annoying Alberta, while setting Canadian business circles' teeth on edge.
The commercial arm-wrestling contest that opposes Ottawa and Washington is taking on an aggressive diplomatic turn while the federal government continues to turn up the volume. The subtle relationships that Prime Minister Paul Martin noted during his last week's trip to New York between softwood lumber, the integrity of NAFTA, and Canadian oil are now a thing of the past. Another threshold has just been crossed by his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pierre Pettigrew.
In an interview accorded to Le Devoir yesterday, the minister launched a message in the form of a threat to Washington. "It's certain that the energy security of the United States is an enormous preoccupation for the Bush administration and that we are a significant card," he maintained. "The United States must know that, if they want to count on Canadian help for their energy security, they must keep Canada happy. Canadians must be in a good mood. Now the soft-wood lumber issue is affecting Canadians' mood."
Pierre Pettigrew confirms that there is a "breach in trust" with regard to trade between the two capitals, as Paul Martin asserted in New York. A climate that could undermine that domain in the future, including in the domain of energy. "From the moment the United States no longer keeps its word, how can we trust it in other domains? And why would they respect our word in the future with regard to other issues? That's it, that's the doubt that now exists."
"We must sort ourselves out so that we're happy on both sides because the United States needs Canada for the continent to remain prosperous," Mr. Pettigrew adds. A message that is not confined to diplomacy, because the Minister of International Commerce, Jim Peterson, also teems with statements to this effect. "I've always said that NAFTA must be respected and that goes for the United States too," he said to Le Devoir when we reached him in Kiev, where he is now on a trade mission. "NAFTA is a contract and they benefit from that contract, it must be remembered. Yes, NAFTA also assures energy supplies. This isn't a threat; it's not blackmail; it's reality. It's in everyone's interest for it to work well."
In New York last week, Prime Minister Martin did not dare go as far as his ministers did yesterday, even though the linkage between softwood lumber and oil was clearly visible. "Let's see what the reality is," he said to the business people who had met to listen to him. "Our country is already your principal supplier of imported energy: almost all your imported hydroelectricity, about 85% of natural gas and close to 16% of imported reserves of crude and refined oil come from Canada. [...] In the context of North America, we must recognize that NAFTA is a framework that is not only applicable to trade merchandise, but also to practically all goods and services, investments and energy. And to guarantee the smooth unfolding of activities, we must be able to trust in the process for resolving differences." It's this mechanism and its verdicts, the veritable heart of NAFTA, which the United States refuses to obey.
A Minister in China
To back up this message, the government sent the Natural Resources Minister, John McCallum, to China, charged with finding new outlets for Canadian oil exports, 99.9% of which flow to the United States. A liberal source close to the minister has confided to Le Devoir that this trip and Ottawa's more aggressive tone are intimately linked. "People are saying to themselves that if certain aspects of the Free Trade Agreement are not respected, as for softwood lumber, there's no guarantee that others will be in the future, for example, energy. We must therefore open new markets," this source maintained.
Yesterday, moreover, Minister McCallum asserted that Chinese and Canadian businessmen estimate that Canada could export close to 400,000 barrels of oil a day to China within the next seven years, which represents about a quarter of the production sent south of our border every day.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister talked for twenty minutes yesterday with President Bush about softwood lumber, a call the Canadian forestry industry had long awaited. Even if no progress occurred, the president could have asserted he had heard plenty about this case in the last week. According to his Ottawa office, Paul Martin promised that he had only begun; all the while reminding Mr. Bush that NAFTA also serves as a framework of understanding for energy. In short, the message sent to the White House and Congress is perfectly clear.
Klein Replies
These muscular tactics, however, are not making everyone happy. In Alberta, Prime Minister Ralph Klein, who plans to build the biggest refinery in North America with a final capacity of 450,000 barrels a day, dryly retorted to Paul Martin. "The Prime Minister may go where he will and say what he wants, but the fact is that natural resources belong to the provinces," Ralph Klein stressed.
To play the energy card before Americans thirsty for oil and worried about their security in this domain is a very risky gamble, the economic milieu believes. "We have to put a little muscle into our relations with the United States because the softwood lumber conflict must be settled. But we have to be very careful, because the balance of power is not in our favor. It's all right as long as it remains confined to a single question, but if it goes further, it's dangerous," deems Daniel Charron, President of the Manufacturers and Exporters of Québec.
The same tune comes from Robert Wolfe, professor at Queen University's School of Policy Studies. "It's horribly risky on our part to play this card," he says. "There's a lot of money going into the development of the bituminous shales in Alberta because, at the end of the road, the United States is open to export. It's for that that these people are investing. You have to be cautious about this kind of blackmail. Is it safe for a company to invest in Canadian oil if the American border could close? And we also need the American market to sell our oil. To export to China is all very well, but it's more expensive and more difficult."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.
-------
Link Here
Cardigan Sweater Doesn’t Fit Bush
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The following article is by Matthew Rothschild, a Columnist for the Progressive.
Bush finally woke up to the energy crisis.
Too bad he slept through it for the first four and a half years of his Presidency.
He and Dick Cheney rejected the idea of energy conservation even as Cheney issued a report in the spring of 2001 that showed the U.S. will be even more dependent on Middle East oil by the year 2020 than it is now.
Cheney derided conservation as a “sign of personal virtue,” adding that “it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy.”
Cheney thought invading Iraq was the basis of a sound energy policy.
At the time, he thought forcing other oil producing nations to favor ExxonMobil was the basis of a sound energy policy.
Then, even after 9/11 drove home the need for conservation as never before, Bush didn’t even stir. He told Americans to keep on shopping and keep on consuming. Not a word about the need to conserve.
When the energy bill was going through Congress just a few months ago, Bush and the Republicans resisted the one thing that would have had the most impact on energy conservation, and that’s raising the miles per gallon requirement for the auto companies.
If you’re a crony capitalist, like oilman Bush, whose chief of staff, Andy Card, is a former Lobbyist for the car companies, you don’t want to do anything to offend Big Oil or Big Auto.
Instead, lay it on the American people.
This prescription outrages Dennis Kucinich.
He said on the U.S House floor on September 27 that the oil companies have made 254 billion dollars in profit in the last five years, and asks: What are we doing here? Drive less? The Administration is asking every American to sacrifice mobility, but not asking the oil companies to sacrifice a dime of their profit. A new poll shows that four out of five Americans support a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, but that’s not in Bush’s plans.
Kucinich added “The problem is not that the American people are driving too much. The problem is that the U.S. oil companies are driving American energy policies, driving up the cost of gasoline, natural gas, and home heating oil at every chance, and driving themselves toward huge profits.”
Bush also urged Americans to use public transportation more, but he has systematically underfunded public transportation.
The U.S. President has continually spent on corporate giveaways and subsidies and ignored mass transit. He has supported the energy and transportation policies that big corporations wanted.
Now Bush is ordering the federal bureaucracy to lessen its own energy use, which is not a bad idea, but it’s a drop in the oil bucket.
Bush is not a man who supports higher fuel efficiency standards, nor does he invests in mass transit, Bush is not moving Americans down the path of energy self-sufficiency.
Bush won’t do those things because he would defend not the American people’s rights but the oil companies.
Link Here
Go to Original
Conflict over Softwood Lumber: Ottawa Threatens to Deprive Americans of Oil
By Alec Castonguay
Le Devoir
Saturday 15 October 2005
Ottawa - In the course of a week, the [Canadian] federal government has gone from muscular language to direct threats with regard to the United States, which still refuses to give in on the softwood lumber dispute. "Settle the softwood lumber issue if you want to continue to receive our oil without problem in the future," Ottawa now asserts in substance. A blackmail that strongly risks shocking Washington and which is already annoying Alberta, while setting Canadian business circles' teeth on edge.
The commercial arm-wrestling contest that opposes Ottawa and Washington is taking on an aggressive diplomatic turn while the federal government continues to turn up the volume. The subtle relationships that Prime Minister Paul Martin noted during his last week's trip to New York between softwood lumber, the integrity of NAFTA, and Canadian oil are now a thing of the past. Another threshold has just been crossed by his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pierre Pettigrew.
In an interview accorded to Le Devoir yesterday, the minister launched a message in the form of a threat to Washington. "It's certain that the energy security of the United States is an enormous preoccupation for the Bush administration and that we are a significant card," he maintained. "The United States must know that, if they want to count on Canadian help for their energy security, they must keep Canada happy. Canadians must be in a good mood. Now the soft-wood lumber issue is affecting Canadians' mood."
Pierre Pettigrew confirms that there is a "breach in trust" with regard to trade between the two capitals, as Paul Martin asserted in New York. A climate that could undermine that domain in the future, including in the domain of energy. "From the moment the United States no longer keeps its word, how can we trust it in other domains? And why would they respect our word in the future with regard to other issues? That's it, that's the doubt that now exists."
"We must sort ourselves out so that we're happy on both sides because the United States needs Canada for the continent to remain prosperous," Mr. Pettigrew adds. A message that is not confined to diplomacy, because the Minister of International Commerce, Jim Peterson, also teems with statements to this effect. "I've always said that NAFTA must be respected and that goes for the United States too," he said to Le Devoir when we reached him in Kiev, where he is now on a trade mission. "NAFTA is a contract and they benefit from that contract, it must be remembered. Yes, NAFTA also assures energy supplies. This isn't a threat; it's not blackmail; it's reality. It's in everyone's interest for it to work well."
In New York last week, Prime Minister Martin did not dare go as far as his ministers did yesterday, even though the linkage between softwood lumber and oil was clearly visible. "Let's see what the reality is," he said to the business people who had met to listen to him. "Our country is already your principal supplier of imported energy: almost all your imported hydroelectricity, about 85% of natural gas and close to 16% of imported reserves of crude and refined oil come from Canada. [...] In the context of North America, we must recognize that NAFTA is a framework that is not only applicable to trade merchandise, but also to practically all goods and services, investments and energy. And to guarantee the smooth unfolding of activities, we must be able to trust in the process for resolving differences." It's this mechanism and its verdicts, the veritable heart of NAFTA, which the United States refuses to obey.
A Minister in China
To back up this message, the government sent the Natural Resources Minister, John McCallum, to China, charged with finding new outlets for Canadian oil exports, 99.9% of which flow to the United States. A liberal source close to the minister has confided to Le Devoir that this trip and Ottawa's more aggressive tone are intimately linked. "People are saying to themselves that if certain aspects of the Free Trade Agreement are not respected, as for softwood lumber, there's no guarantee that others will be in the future, for example, energy. We must therefore open new markets," this source maintained.
Yesterday, moreover, Minister McCallum asserted that Chinese and Canadian businessmen estimate that Canada could export close to 400,000 barrels of oil a day to China within the next seven years, which represents about a quarter of the production sent south of our border every day.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister talked for twenty minutes yesterday with President Bush about softwood lumber, a call the Canadian forestry industry had long awaited. Even if no progress occurred, the president could have asserted he had heard plenty about this case in the last week. According to his Ottawa office, Paul Martin promised that he had only begun; all the while reminding Mr. Bush that NAFTA also serves as a framework of understanding for energy. In short, the message sent to the White House and Congress is perfectly clear.
Klein Replies
These muscular tactics, however, are not making everyone happy. In Alberta, Prime Minister Ralph Klein, who plans to build the biggest refinery in North America with a final capacity of 450,000 barrels a day, dryly retorted to Paul Martin. "The Prime Minister may go where he will and say what he wants, but the fact is that natural resources belong to the provinces," Ralph Klein stressed.
To play the energy card before Americans thirsty for oil and worried about their security in this domain is a very risky gamble, the economic milieu believes. "We have to put a little muscle into our relations with the United States because the softwood lumber conflict must be settled. But we have to be very careful, because the balance of power is not in our favor. It's all right as long as it remains confined to a single question, but if it goes further, it's dangerous," deems Daniel Charron, President of the Manufacturers and Exporters of Québec.
The same tune comes from Robert Wolfe, professor at Queen University's School of Policy Studies. "It's horribly risky on our part to play this card," he says. "There's a lot of money going into the development of the bituminous shales in Alberta because, at the end of the road, the United States is open to export. It's for that that these people are investing. You have to be cautious about this kind of blackmail. Is it safe for a company to invest in Canadian oil if the American border could close? And we also need the American market to sell our oil. To export to China is all very well, but it's more expensive and more difficult."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.
-------
Link Here
Cardigan Sweater Doesn’t Fit Bush
Tuesday October 18, 2005
The following article is by Matthew Rothschild, a Columnist for the Progressive.
Bush finally woke up to the energy crisis.
Too bad he slept through it for the first four and a half years of his Presidency.
He and Dick Cheney rejected the idea of energy conservation even as Cheney issued a report in the spring of 2001 that showed the U.S. will be even more dependent on Middle East oil by the year 2020 than it is now.
Cheney derided conservation as a “sign of personal virtue,” adding that “it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy.”
Cheney thought invading Iraq was the basis of a sound energy policy.
At the time, he thought forcing other oil producing nations to favor ExxonMobil was the basis of a sound energy policy.
Then, even after 9/11 drove home the need for conservation as never before, Bush didn’t even stir. He told Americans to keep on shopping and keep on consuming. Not a word about the need to conserve.
When the energy bill was going through Congress just a few months ago, Bush and the Republicans resisted the one thing that would have had the most impact on energy conservation, and that’s raising the miles per gallon requirement for the auto companies.
If you’re a crony capitalist, like oilman Bush, whose chief of staff, Andy Card, is a former Lobbyist for the car companies, you don’t want to do anything to offend Big Oil or Big Auto.
Instead, lay it on the American people.
This prescription outrages Dennis Kucinich.
He said on the U.S House floor on September 27 that the oil companies have made 254 billion dollars in profit in the last five years, and asks: What are we doing here? Drive less? The Administration is asking every American to sacrifice mobility, but not asking the oil companies to sacrifice a dime of their profit. A new poll shows that four out of five Americans support a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, but that’s not in Bush’s plans.
Kucinich added “The problem is not that the American people are driving too much. The problem is that the U.S. oil companies are driving American energy policies, driving up the cost of gasoline, natural gas, and home heating oil at every chance, and driving themselves toward huge profits.”
Bush also urged Americans to use public transportation more, but he has systematically underfunded public transportation.
The U.S. President has continually spent on corporate giveaways and subsidies and ignored mass transit. He has supported the energy and transportation policies that big corporations wanted.
Now Bush is ordering the federal bureaucracy to lessen its own energy use, which is not a bad idea, but it’s a drop in the oil bucket.
Bush is not a man who supports higher fuel efficiency standards, nor does he invests in mass transit, Bush is not moving Americans down the path of energy self-sufficiency.
Bush won’t do those things because he would defend not the American people’s rights but the oil companies.
Link Here
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 2:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home