Obama, Clinton err on NAFTA

Obama, Clinton err on NAFTA TheStar.com – comment – Obama, Clinton err on NAFTA

February 29, 2008

Blame Canada. It’s an old American political game, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are at it again in their scramble for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination. Under George Bush’s regime, it has been about security. This time, it’s about trade.

In a debate in Ohio this week, Clinton bluntly vowed to tell “Canada and Mexico that we will opt out (of the North American Free Trade Agreement) unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.” Not to be outdone, Obama quickly echoed her: “I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right.”

This may, of course, just be campaign rhetoric, as both candidates have been supportive of NAFTA in the past. Clinton praised business at the Davos summit in 1998 for mounting a “very effective” effort on behalf of NAFTA. And in 2004, Obama urged more NAFTA-type deals. Both are now pandering shamelessly to anti-NAFTA voters in Ohio as they compete in that state’s primary next Tuesday. And both are targeting Canada, even though NAFTA’s American critics worry more about jobs fleeing to Mexico than here.

But as Prime Minister Stephen Harper rightly told Parliament yesterday, U.S. politicians who want to reopen NAFTA need to consider that Canadians have issues we’d like to raise.

Back in 1993 Jean Chrétien won a huge majority partly on a pledge to renegotiate the unpopular pact. He wanted something we’d still like to have: an effective dispute resolution mechanism to shield us from U.S. bullying on issues like softwood lumber. He also sought for Canada the right Mexico has to cut oil and gas exports if a continental energy shortage occurs. And he wanted anti-dumping and subsidies codes. (Though Chrétien had public support, he didn’t follow through.)

A U.S. push to reopen NAFTA now would invite Canada to use its leverage as the biggest fuel supplier to the U.S. to bargain for better terms. That would not be in the interest of U.S. consumers and jobs.

The prospect alarms business. “That would be a disaster for American jobs,” warns Frank Vargo, from the National Association of Manufacturers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the Democratic candidates’ remarks “troubling.”

Business insists NAFTA has been a success. Merchandise trade among the three partners tripled to almost $900 billion between 1993, just before the pact was in effect, and 2006. Economic growth and job growth have been stronger since NAFTA than in the years before. Yet, like some Americans, many Canadians are ambivalent about the trade pact and its effects on us. We would like changes to NAFTA, too. Clinton and Obama ought to be careful about what they ask for.

Lebanon takes issue with Gulf states’ travel warning

By Ferry Biedermann in Beirut

Published: February 29 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 29 2008 02:00

function floatContent(){var paraNum = “3” paraNum = paraNum – 1;var tb = document.getElementById(‘floating-con’);var nl = document.getElementById(‘floating-target’);if(tb.getElementsByTagName(“div”).length> 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[0]);}}}}

Travel advisories issued by Saudi Arabia and two other Gulf countries warning their citizens not to visit Lebanon could have a serious impact on the Lebanese economy, the country’s minister of finance told the Financial Times yesterday.

“Targeting them is not an innocent action,” Jihad Azour said about visitors from the Gulf countries. “I suspect that this could also be to increase the pressure on the Lebanese economy.”

He was speaking in his bureau in the heavily fortified prime minister’s office in central Beirut. Mr Azour and several other ministers have been operating from the relative security of the PM’s office for about a year, since political tensions escalated with the opposition, which is led by the proSyrian and pro-Iranian Hizbollah movement.

The minister said he had requested information on the nature of the threat against Saudi citizens as well as against those of Kuwait and Bahrain, which have also issued travel advisories for the troubled Mediterranean country over the past week. “I didn’t get hard facts showing that those threats are real threats,” he said, but added that for the economy perception counted more than the actual threat level.

Other political sources have said that the Gulf governments are in fact worried about a new confrontation between Hizbollah and Israel. The two sides fought a devastating war in 2006 and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s leader, has sworn revenge against Israel after the killing of top commander Imad Moughniyeh in Damascus two weeks ago. Israel denies involvement in the killing but has increased its level of preparedness.

Saudi Arabian officials have linked the travel advisory to a spike in violent clashes in Lebanon at the beginning of the year, although the violence has abated over the past week, despite continuing political tensions.

Saudi Arabia is a main backer of Lebanon and its anti-Syrian government. Saudi and other Gulf investors are important to the economy, as are tourists from the region.

Mr Azour confirmed that Lebanon had asked Saudi Arabia to deposit another $1bn (£503m, €659m) in the central bank in Beirut in addition to the $1bn that the kingdom deposited during the 2006 war to stabilise Lebanon’s finances. Saudi Arabia had agreed to the request but the details were still being worked out, said the minister.

The request was meant to reassure foreign investors and to address limitations on foreign borrowing, he said. Foreign borrowing needs authorisation from parliament, which is not able to hold regular sessions owing to the political deadlock.

Clinton raises $35 million in February

AP: Clinton raises $35 million in February

• Story Highlights
• Sen. Hillary Clinton more than doubles amount raised in January
• Amount would be New York senator’s best month to date
• Obama spokesman: “We’ve raised considerably more than that”
• Campaigns spending millions before Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rebounding from weak fundraising in January, Sen. Hillary Clinton is expected to raise $35 million in February — a figure rival Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign said it would surpass, a campaign official said Thursday.

The $35 million would be Clinton’s biggest fundraising mark yet and represents a remarkable recovery for her campaign.

Obama’s campaign reacted promptly, promising an even higher number, but divulging no totals.

“We’ve raised considerably more than that,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

Obama told reporters on his campaign plane Thursday, “I have no idea how much money we’ve raised, but we’ve been paying our bills. Right now, I believe we’re doing very good.”

That would make February an astounding fundraising month for the Democrats. At that rate, both candidates would break records for contestants in a primary fight.

Clinton has been struggling to recover from weak fundraising in January. She raised nearly $14 million in January to Obama‘s $36 million.

The Clinton official spoke on condition of anonymity because the figure was to be formally announced later in the day. The official said almost all the money raised in February was for the primary election. The campaign averaged about a $1 million a day online alone.

Despite her increased fundraising, Obama is still outspending her in the crucial March 4 primary states of Ohio and Texas.

As of Tuesday, Obama had spent a total of $7.5 million in advertising in the two states. Clinton had spent $4.6 million.

Obama also was getting help from labor unions. The Service Employees International Union began spending $1.4 million in ads in support of Obama in Ohio and Texas. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union was spending nearly $200,000 in ads in Ohio.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

U.S. Navy ships move closer to Lebanon

• Story Highlights
• U.S. Navy makes move amid a political standoff over Lebanon’s presidency
• The presence is important,” says chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Lebanon’s pro-Western majority in parliament struggles with pro-Syrian opposition

From Mike Mount
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. Navy has moved the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole and other ships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The deployment comes amid a political standoff over Lebanon’s presidency, but the Navy would not say whether the events are linked.

“It’s a group of ships that will operate in the vicinity for a while and as the ships in our Navy do, the presence is important,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday.

“It isn’t meant to send any stronger signal than that,” he said. “But it does signal that we’re engaged and we are going to be in the vicinity, and that’s a very important part of the world.”

The Cole was badly damaged by an al Qaeda bombing during a port call in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 sailors. It returned to service in 2002.

The destroyer and two support ships are close to Lebanon but out of visual range of the coast, Pentagon officials said. Another six vessels, led by the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, are close to Italy and steaming toward the other three, the officials said.

Mullen would not say whether the deployment has anything to do with the upcoming Lebanese parliamentary vote on a new president, which was postponed for a 15th time earlier this week. But he said the vote was “important,” and Washington was waiting for it to take place.

And a Bush administration official told CNN the decision to move ships to the region was a message to neighboringSyria that “the U.S. is concerned about the situation in Lebanon, and we want to see the situation resolved.”

“We are sending a clear message for the need for stability,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak for publication. The ships “should be there a while,” the official added.

Lebanon’s pro-Western majority in parliament and the pro-Syrian opposition have battled for power over the last three years. The country has been without a president since November, when pro-Syrian leader Emile Lahoud’s term expired and parliament was unable to agree on a replacement.

Despite general agreement among the factions to award the post to army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman, disagreements over how to share power in a future Cabinet have kept the issue from coming up for a vote.

Parliament speaker Nabih Berri’s office announced Tuesday that the next planned session has been pushed back to March 11. Berri’s office said the Arab League needed more time to break the deadlock.

Lebanon has been wracked by a sometimes-violent power struggle since the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, whose supporters blamed Damascus for his killing. The resulting outcry eventually drove Syrian forces out of Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the 1970s.