Old Dog, New Tricks

[farmers_son]

What goes round comes round.

It looks as if there is a new tool in the box of tricks of protectionist countries and everyone is getting into the act. The courts are being used to block competing imports and circumvent international trade agreements.

While officially the importing country expresses regret at the courts lack of understanding of trade, little is done to correct the problem and the respective government body is slow to appeal the courts uninformed decision. Meanwhile the importing country diverts the blame for their protectionist agenda to the courts and the producer organization of the day.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=5106

"An Australian judge has banned the import of pork products into Australia from the United States, Canada and Denmark because of the alleged risks of Post Weaning Multi-systemic Wasting Disease. This ruling came despite a risk analysis by the Australian government that concluded the introduction of the disease through pork imports was very small.

Australia Pork Ltd. filed the suit against the Agriculture Ministry, claiming that the risk analysis was flawed and unscientific. The group argued that any perceivable risk was too much. The government has not decided whether to appeal and will discuss alternatives to a trade ban to protect the native herd.

"We are disappointed that an Australian judge has chosen to ignore sound science in favor of protectionism for a small group of producers," said AMI President and CEO Patrick Boyle. "We hope the Australian government will be able to resolve this issue quickly."

It is unclear whether pork products in the pipeline will be accepted by Australia.

According to the Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S pork exports to Australia were valued at $3.2 million in 2004. As of Jan. 2005, the Australian- U.S. Free Trade Agreement enabled the United States to export chilled and frozen pork products, as well as cooked, to Australia. In the first quarter of this year, the United States exported $12.9 million of pork products to Australia. This translates into the potential annual loss of a $51.5 million pork export market."

[kpb]

farmers_son, it has occurred to me before that we should use our courts as a tool to pressure the U.S. After all we are the largest customer for the U.S. on the international stage. So why couldn't we pick a product that is imported into Canada from the U.S., make up a complaint against that product (I'm sure I could come up with one) and get an injunction against the importation of said product? I know it sounds frivilous but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and I suspect the U.S. exporters of such a product might have something to say to their legislators.


kpb

[FarmRanger]

One of the contributing factors of the great depression was protectionism. I think its best not to start that war. Like tossing a handgrenade at your roommate, the satisfaction is shortlived.

[FarmRanger]

Wise words FarmRanger. Nobody wins in this type of war, and the person initiating it has to see it through to the end, and likely spend a bundle of money in the process .

[farmers_son]

Kph: Regarding a tool to pressure the U.S., the Government of Canada announced that affective May 1, 2005, Canada will impose a 15% surtax on U.S. live swine, cigarettes, oysters and certain specialty fish. This announcement follows extensive consultations with domestic stakeholders and is in retaliation against the United States in light of its failure to comply with the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on the Byrd Amendment.

Stopping trade is like attempting to stop the tide, the water is eventually going to come in. But governments like the U.S. and now Australia are using the courts to bolster their domestic agricultural sectors in the short term.

I found it interesting to note that a coalition partner like Australia is blocking U.S. pork and before that U.S. beef. No honour among thieves. When it comes to protectionism, other countries are learning to emulate U.S. dirty tricks. Monkey see, monkey do.

The point I was hoping to make is not that we should block trade like the Americans have, rather in my opinion the Bush administration and the USDA are not innocent victims of Judge Cebull and R-Calf. The U.S. and now Australia are using their court system as a scapegoat to block competing imports while publicly saying they support free trade. In my opinion the USDA, the Bush Administration and these federally appointed judges are working in lock step to keep out Canadian live cattle until the Americans have achieved their policy goals.

If my view of the situation is correct we will not see a favourable ruling from either Judge Cebull or the Appeal Court until the U.S. has achieved their policy goals. Those goals may involve trade in beef with Japan, missile defense with Canada, border security and so on.

Emrald1: Re no one wins this type of war, I would say that the U.S. is benefiting from this war or they would not be doing it. And by war, it could mean the trade wars with Canada or the war in Iraq. They benefit U.S. interests.

[Cattleman]

Farmers_son re winning the war. The US is benefitting now, but you take a long term view of what can happen, and everyone loses. I am more concerned about longterm versus some little short term blip of gains.