Morton, Peter

English

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Canada-United States Law JournalVolume 26 | Issue Article 26January 2000Meet the Press: How Does the Press View theHandling of Canada/U.S. DisputesPeter MortonFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cusljThis Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons.It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School ofLaw Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationPeter Morton, Meet the Press: How Does the Press View the Handling of Canada/U.S. Disputes, 26 Can.-U.S. L.J. 143 (2000)Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol26/iss/26MEET THE PRESS: HOW DOES THE PRESS VIEW THEHANDLING OF CANADA/U.S. DISPUTES?Peter Morton*First to answer Mr. Blanchard, I like to believe we do interfere. It is ourjob to interfere, to make it as miserable for you guys as much as possible, toscrew up the negotiations that are supposedly behind closed doors, but, asyou know, rarely, rarely, are. A long time ago, Courtney and I used to sharea couple of jokes about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and theNAFTA negotiations. We got the first from the Canadian side. The perfecttrade deal was one that was negotiated in secret and was never made public.The second joke is that there are only two headlines in trade stories,' Trade War Looms, Deal Near." That is basically all we know. It is never'more complicated than that. No one ever wants to see the details afterwards.We only want to know when the war is actually looming. When it starts,yeah, well, whatever, you know! I think back to the only time there actuallywas a trade war between Canada and the United States. That was oversomething as amazing as beer.1 I am sure many of you remember that one.Jules Katz, the former U.S. trade negotiator, was really upset about that onemore than anything else. She was not upset about softwood limber, wheat,culture, or any of the other big issues. She was upset because Budweisercould not come into Canada. You know, it was just the big thing.But anyway, I am going to move ahead a bit, because the state of what wecover and what you guys do has changed so very much in the past year and ahalf or so. I would not say it is because of Seattle. It really goes back to theMultilateral Agreement on Investment. You recall that deal. TheOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development was trying to cutsome sort of quiet little arrangement, and suddenly the non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) came screaming onto the scene. When we first startedcovering trade, it was really only two sets of people who were involved in thetalks. It was the negotiators and the media. Then this third component startedcreeping in and playing a broader and broader role.* Morton bio.United States - Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages (1991-92), 39SB.I.S.D. 206.1Morton: Meet the Press: How Does the Press View the Handling of Canada/U.Published by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons, 2000CANADA-UNITED STATES LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 26:143 2000]Canadians, of course, know Maude Barlow and her role very well. 2 1 wasin Seattle, and I have seen a sea change concerning the question of whatglobalization is. The boring stuff is gone in the trade agenda, you know, non-tariff barriers, tariffs, steel plates, all that sort of stuff. Now we are into issuesof people. There is a sense, unlike Mr. Blanchard's view, that, regrettably,you have to include people in talks now. It is pretty unfortunate, I know, butthey have to be there somehow. The trick is that no one has quite figured outhow to do it yet. The NGOs, who do they really represent? I saw them inSeattle, and it was just a little bit like Kent State. There were kids fighting fora cause, but they did not quite know what it was. Many of them, I am sure,did not even know what the WTO was. I talked to some of them, and theyjust talked broadly about cutting down trees and poor people, but they did notreally have a sense of it. In Washington, they are a little bit sharper. They areaware of the depth of poor countries, the bureaucracies of the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank, which are truly, truly stunning.There are 10,000 at the World Bank alone. Things do not move very quicklythere.My role has now changed. One of my big cues was getting the entireNAFTA agreement before the governments were prepared to release it. Thegovernments just flipped. I mean, it was not that big of a deal. Everybodyknew what was in it. But the fact that I had seen this precious documentbothered them. They write the numbers in the corners so everybody knowswho leaked what to whom and when. It was a big deal. We were so narrowlyfocused on the detail of it. Now substance does not mean anything any more.It is completely gone. It is all dramatic, stunning.I was over just listening to James Wolfensohn, the President of the WorldBank; the other day, when he had his inaugural news conference for meetingsno one ever covers. We have ignored them for years because the World Bankand the IMF were going to reform. So he was there. I actually felt kind ofbad for him because he was saying that the 10,000 people who work for theseorganizations actually do try to help developing countries. A third of themare out in the field all the time. They are doing their best. Then 30,000 kidsdescend on D.C. to say, "Let's tear down the institutions." So there is clearlya problem. It is not only trade. We saw Seattle. All of these internationalinstitutions are not getting the message out to the people. You cannot hidebehind the doors anymore. Those days are gone. They went out withNAFTA. The Uruguay Round was probably the last chance you could do thesecret deals and then dump it on people, and say, "There it is, what do youthink, boys?"2 Maude Barlow is the chairperson for the Council of Canadians, Canada's largestcitizen's rights group.2Canada-United States Law Journal, Vol. 26 [2000], Iss. , Art. 26https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol26/iss/26Morton-MEET THE PRESS 145With the WTO, there were other sorts of more systemic problems, but thebackdrop of all of this intense mistrust is changing the way the tradebureaucratm are going to have to deal with things. They are going to have tomove out of their shells a bit and try to communicate with this group outthere who are searching for a cause, quite Frankly. I do not think they arequite aware what they are looking for yet. But if they do find it, watch out,because they are formidable.I know I am not dealing with bilateral issues a lot, because right now,other than the softwood lumber issue, they are basically dormant. We are intoa remarkably quiet period in Canada-U.S. trade relations, so I lose my onlytwo stories, "Trade War Looms, Deal Near," so we have nothing untilsoftwood lumber comes back. That is going to be fun, let me tell you. We aredesperately looking forward to that one. So I will just leave it at that.3Morton: Meet the Press: How Does the Press View the Handling of Canada/U.Published by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons, 20004Canada-United States Law Journal, Vol. 26 [2000], Iss. , Art. 26https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol26/iss/26

Meet the Press: How Does the Press View the Handling of Canada/U.S. Disputes

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1485&amp;context=cuslj

Meet the Press: How Does the Press View the Handling of Canada/U.S. Disputes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Case Western Reserve University School of Law

bepress Legal Repository