![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldAfter I learned of American discontent with NAFTA, I was a bit surprised to learn via the Canadian press that not only did Obama's economics advisor tell the Canadian consul-general that his NAFTA rhetoric was just for show, but that this indiscretion cost him three of the four states up for grabs ("NAFTA meeting 'misreported'- Obama"). Of course, he's not at fault.
An investigation of the origins of the leak is ongoing, some blaming Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff. Harper did say that the leak was "blatantly unfair" to Obama and quite possibly illegal, but I wouldn't risk betting on whether anything will come for this up in Canada. What I will say is that I think it's fitting that Obama be called up on his politicians' rhetoric, by the often-dismissed Canadian press no less. Voters have gotten a chance to find out that the man who positions himself as being an idealist has turned out to be just as much of a crass politician as the next person.
I am also peeved that Obama's concern for ethical behaviour in public life doesn't extend to auslander like us Canadians. Under Bush, the United States has been reluctant to obey the tribunals created under NAFTA, even though NAFTA--like its successor trade deals--was tilted strongly towards the United States and has contributed to a restructuring of the Canadian economy that has left us much more dependent on the United States. Bush is just one president, hoped to be an anomaly, but if someone like Obama is willing to at least sound as if he'd behave in an even worse way towards his country's trading partners--and this rhetoric can't fairly be blamed on his bad advisors since rhetoric is what Obama does so very well--then I'd have to agree with Nick's argument at The Invisible College that it could seem to the world as if the United States has systematically been making international trade agreements in bad faith for the past decade or two.
That appearance could be very bad for the United States. If the current Bush administration and a future Obama administration are seen at this point about equally as likely to tear up inconvenient international agreements, the main difference being in the type of agreements they would reject as inconvenient, what might this do to the United States' battered image in the world? And with the actual materialization of this spectre, what wouldn't happen to it?
Blame Canada!
Just like the animated characters on South Park, Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that Canadian officials "misreported" details of a meeting with his senior economic adviser now being cited as a key reason he lost Ohio's Democratic presidential primary to Hillary Clinton.
Regrouping after losing three of four nominating contests Tuesday to Clinton, Obama maintained his campaign was not at fault in the "Nafta-gate" controversy and insisted he had no plans to fire economist Austan Goolsbee for his role in the affair.
He's an economist. He's not a politician. So, I think, you know, he's not familiar with how these things get distorted," Obama said in an interview Wednesday with Fox News Channel.
"I'm not going to punish someone for making a innocent decision like that."
Goolsbee got caught in a political maelstrom last week after it emerged he met privately Feb. 8 with Georges Rioux, Canada's consul general in Chicago, and discussed Obama's views on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In a memo leaked to the media last weekend, Canadian diplomats reported Goolsbee said Obama's tough talk on Nafta should be viewed more as "political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
He also reportedly told the Canadians that Obama's protectionist language on Nafta was "more reflective of the political manoeuvring than policy."
Clinton seized on the reports and accused Obama of employing a "wink-wink" strategy - saying one thing about Nafta to voters in economically depressed Ohio, and another to foreign governments.
Exit polls showed a sharp swing of support to Clinton in the final three days before voting, at the height of the publicity surrounding the controversy.
An investigation of the origins of the leak is ongoing, some blaming Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff. Harper did say that the leak was "blatantly unfair" to Obama and quite possibly illegal, but I wouldn't risk betting on whether anything will come for this up in Canada. What I will say is that I think it's fitting that Obama be called up on his politicians' rhetoric, by the often-dismissed Canadian press no less. Voters have gotten a chance to find out that the man who positions himself as being an idealist has turned out to be just as much of a crass politician as the next person.
I am also peeved that Obama's concern for ethical behaviour in public life doesn't extend to auslander like us Canadians. Under Bush, the United States has been reluctant to obey the tribunals created under NAFTA, even though NAFTA--like its successor trade deals--was tilted strongly towards the United States and has contributed to a restructuring of the Canadian economy that has left us much more dependent on the United States. Bush is just one president, hoped to be an anomaly, but if someone like Obama is willing to at least sound as if he'd behave in an even worse way towards his country's trading partners--and this rhetoric can't fairly be blamed on his bad advisors since rhetoric is what Obama does so very well--then I'd have to agree with Nick's argument at The Invisible College that it could seem to the world as if the United States has systematically been making international trade agreements in bad faith for the past decade or two.
That appearance could be very bad for the United States. If the current Bush administration and a future Obama administration are seen at this point about equally as likely to tear up inconvenient international agreements, the main difference being in the type of agreements they would reject as inconvenient, what might this do to the United States' battered image in the world? And with the actual materialization of this spectre, what wouldn't happen to it?
