(Globe and Mail — Roy MacLaren)
In Berlin on June 4, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a joint “summit statement” with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, during her rotation as president-in-office of the European Union. The statement's four pages would not meet British government plain-language requirements for public documents, but close readings of the turgid officialese reveal a range of welcome commitments to better transatlantic co-operation.
But beyond even those welcome commitments, there is one overarching factor that should inform all transatlantic discussion. As early as 1949, Canada called for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to be an economic grouping, as well as a military alliance. In the haste to create the latter, the former was put aside. Now, with the end of the Cold War leaving NATO without even a clear military vocation, a renewed purpose could embrace both aspects. Afghanistan shows the dreary reality of only four of the 25 NATO members being willing to fight — a comprehensive approach to trade and investment, bilateral and multilateral, would go a long way toward reinforcing shared North Atlantic interests.
The Berlin “summit statement” is a good beginning to a more comprehensive Atlantic partnership. Canada and the EU pledge themselves to the free and secure movement of people between them, an undertaking that Quebec Premier Jean Charest has been urging particularly energetically. The language describing planned co-operation in climate change and energy notably fails the test of plain English but, given Mr. Harper's government's skepticism toward Kyoto-like pledges, it was probably as precise as could be expected. It's in trade and investment that elucidation is most needed.
The two leaders undertook to “co-operate on a study to examine the costs and benefits of a closer economic partnership.” This is a cautious statement. No exhilaration of free trade here; merely commitment to yet another study. There are already many such studies, large and small. All have been greeted with reserve as a result of fear that a bilateral agreement might somehow scupper the prized multilateral approach to trade and investment talks and concern that agricultural trade is so hedged by protectionist tariffs and quotas that there simply is no point in talking about free trade.
However, these two supposed obstacles need not detain those conducting such a study.
As for the first of the two misgivings noted above, the Doha Round of global trade negotiations, launched prematurely by an ill-prepared World Trade Organization, is now among the walking dead. The notion that it embodies a lofty multilateral ideal that would be undermined by the conclusion of a transatlantic deal overlooks the fact that both the EU and the United States, while continuing to pay lip service to Doha, are each hastily negotiating bilateral deals that leave Canada far behind.
In recent months, Canada has finally shrugged off its self-imposed protectionism for its largely non-existent shipbuilding industry, to open the way for a free-trade agreement with the remnants of the old European Free Trade Area. Trade and investment with the two leading EFTA countries, Switzerland and Norway, will now become even more substantial, but the deal is also important for demonstrating that a transatlantic pact is practical politics as well as a contribution toward eventual global free trade.
As for the second misgiving, the perennial problem of trade in agricultural products, it too should not be allowed to hold up the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement that would embrace, among other things, trade in services, investment regulation, mutual recognition of standards, labour mobility, competition policy and the environment. Neither the European Union, with its galaxy of farm subsidies, nor Canada, with its anti-consumer “supply-management” protectionism in dairy and poultry products, is ready yet to make the political advances necessary for free trade in all farm produce (as Australia and New Zealand have so successfully done). So let us set aside some agriculture products for the time being and get on with the more promising and pressing trade and investment accords.
As the International Herald Tribune observed several months ago, “You can hear the guffaws. And sense the dismissive hands waving. They're a reflection of the strength of special interest groups, lobbies, nationalists, protectionists, local and international bureaucrats, and eternal negativists.”
Today, however, there is the combined voice of the German Chancellor and the Canadian Prime Minister. A decade ago, Jean Chrétien was in Paris and London, where he called for a transatlantic free-trade agreement. Now, Mr. Harper and Ms. Merkel, in recognizing the major economic benefits that can flow from such an agreement, have given strong voice to a new and dynamic concept for a North Atlantic future.
Roy MacLaren is a former Canadian minister for international trade and co-chair of the Canada-Europe Roundtable for Business.
August 17, 2007
August 16, 2007
CBSA Commercial Vision for 2017
CBSA is in the process of developing a Commercial Vision for 2017. The goal of this exercise is to paint the picture of the collective operating environment ten years from now.In order to develop an inclusive vision that is responsive to the needs of the CBSA and its clients and stakeholders, CBSA is undertaking consultations in order to identify strategic directions and future trends. To that end, CBSA has circulated a consultation document to the members of the Border Commercial Consultative Committee (BCCC), which provides background on the Commercial Vision exercise, and outlines at a high-level some key issues and trends in the commercial environment. The consultation document is available here (pdf format).
August 15, 2007
International Shippers Criticize Scan-All Container Security Law
(American Shipper)
An umbrella organization of international shippers expressed disappointment Thursday with a new U.S. law that requires scanning of all cargo onboard passenger planes within three years and all ocean containers at foreign ports within five years.
The Global Shippers Forum said the measures, included in a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations on homeland security, would harm trade.
Nicolette van der Jagt, secretary general of the European Shippers’ Council (ESC) said, “Business will be paying the lion’s share of providing the equipment, but I suspect the biggest cost to shippers will be the costs of delays: we already have the prospect of worsening congestion in many of the world’s container ports as volumes grow year on year. One can only imagine the huge queues that will form when every container has to run through radiation and image scanners. We regret that the U.S. has acted unilaterally and did not await the results of the pilot actions the EU and U.S. customs are about to launch before pressing ahead with this piece of legislation.”
CBP and the European Union will soon begin a demonstration program at the Port of Southampton in the United Kingdom to test the integrated scanning and radiation detection technology at inbound truck gates.
John Lu, chairman of the Asian Shippers’ Council said: “Being the main exporter to the U.S., Asia will be the hardest hit. The enforcement of this ruling will slow down cargo and cause a gridlock at ports and airports. Shippers are likely to bear the brunt of increased costs as carriers exploit their position of strength over shippers in this region of the world.”
Peter Gatti, executive vice president of the Arlington, Va.-based National Industrial Transportation League, said the “scan-all container amendment contradicts many of the goals and objectives of the 9/11 Commission and would divert vital funding from other programs that in combination to 'screening' and 'scanning' have proven effective in thwarting attacks on seaborne commerce.
“This legislation represents a very worrying development that could have disastrous consequences for trade between the United States and its major trading partners. Currently, there is no scanner that we know about that can do the job the law demands.
“We also have serious doubts whether all the identified ports which handle containers bound for the U.S. will be able to have the scanners required, or have the space needed to facilitate scanners, with all the holding areas required, and areas needed to place those containers that cause an alarm. In the final analysis the needed technology must be a practical tool which helps and does not hinder the very supply chains we are seeking to protect.”
The NIT League was one of many business groups that fought to defeat the inspection amendments. The Global Shippers Forum raised the possibility that the bill is actually a barrier to free trade.
An umbrella organization of international shippers expressed disappointment Thursday with a new U.S. law that requires scanning of all cargo onboard passenger planes within three years and all ocean containers at foreign ports within five years.
The Global Shippers Forum said the measures, included in a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations on homeland security, would harm trade.
Nicolette van der Jagt, secretary general of the European Shippers’ Council (ESC) said, “Business will be paying the lion’s share of providing the equipment, but I suspect the biggest cost to shippers will be the costs of delays: we already have the prospect of worsening congestion in many of the world’s container ports as volumes grow year on year. One can only imagine the huge queues that will form when every container has to run through radiation and image scanners. We regret that the U.S. has acted unilaterally and did not await the results of the pilot actions the EU and U.S. customs are about to launch before pressing ahead with this piece of legislation.”
CBP and the European Union will soon begin a demonstration program at the Port of Southampton in the United Kingdom to test the integrated scanning and radiation detection technology at inbound truck gates.
John Lu, chairman of the Asian Shippers’ Council said: “Being the main exporter to the U.S., Asia will be the hardest hit. The enforcement of this ruling will slow down cargo and cause a gridlock at ports and airports. Shippers are likely to bear the brunt of increased costs as carriers exploit their position of strength over shippers in this region of the world.”
Peter Gatti, executive vice president of the Arlington, Va.-based National Industrial Transportation League, said the “scan-all container amendment contradicts many of the goals and objectives of the 9/11 Commission and would divert vital funding from other programs that in combination to 'screening' and 'scanning' have proven effective in thwarting attacks on seaborne commerce.
“This legislation represents a very worrying development that could have disastrous consequences for trade between the United States and its major trading partners. Currently, there is no scanner that we know about that can do the job the law demands.
“We also have serious doubts whether all the identified ports which handle containers bound for the U.S. will be able to have the scanners required, or have the space needed to facilitate scanners, with all the holding areas required, and areas needed to place those containers that cause an alarm. In the final analysis the needed technology must be a practical tool which helps and does not hinder the very supply chains we are seeking to protect.”
The NIT League was one of many business groups that fought to defeat the inspection amendments. The Global Shippers Forum raised the possibility that the bill is actually a barrier to free trade.
E-Manifest Enforcement Clarification
(U.S. Customs and Border Protection)
The purpose of this announcement is to provide the most current information on e-Manifest enforcement. Enforcement plans for six ACE e-Manifest groups have been published and include information about regulatory exceptions and administrative exceptions to filing e-Manifests. Changes to the administrative exceptions are made as additional release types and conditions are identified and must be accommodated.
There has also been confusion over the applicability of the Section 321 exemption when shipments eligible for the exception are loaded on the same truck as other shipments that require the use of an e-Manifest. All mixed-loads not covered by the exceptions articulated below require an e-Manifest.
Beginning on September 1, 2007, a permit to proceed into the U.S. will be denied to a truck entering ports in Washington, Arizona, eastern North Dakota, Texas, New Mexico, California, New York and Michigan, when no attempt is made to transmit all applicable shipments via the e-Manifest. In the remaining ports, Phase 2 enforcement will begin on the dates previously published.
The following shipments are currently exempt by regulation from the advance electronic filing requirement for incoming cargo:
• Cargo in transit from point to point in the United States after transiting Canada or Mexico
Certain informal entries:
• Merchandise which may be informally entered on Customs and Border Protection Form (CBPF) 368 or 368A (cash collection or receipt);
• Merchandise unconditionally or conditionally free, not exceeding $2,000 in value, eligible for entry on CBPF 7523
• Products of the United States being returned, for which entry is prescribed on CBPF 3311.
The following shipment types are not specifically exempted by the regulation but use of eManifest is not currently required for:
• Trips consisting solely of merchandise that is subject to the provisions of 19 USC 1321 (Sec. 321 releases). If a trip is made up of Section 321 eligible shipments and shipments requiring an entry or in-bond move, all shipments on that trip must be manifested.
• Empty trucks and truck cabs may be reported via e-Manifest but are not currently required.
• These shipment types are not currently able to be reported on an e-Manifest and are therefore not required even when an e-Manifest has been filed.
• Shipments consisting solely of Instruments of International Traffic (IIT) eligible for release under 19 CFR 10.41(a). IIT can be reported on an e- Manifest as associated to a conveyance or shipment but cannot be used as a shipment release type.
• International mail shipments moving via a contract carrier from a foreign postal service to the US Postal Service.
• Carnets.
• A delivery ticket (CBPF 6043) for movement to a CBP bonded warehouse or a direct Foreign Trade Zone admission on a CBPF 214.
• Shipments imported for the Department of Defense using 19 CFR 10.102/103 as a release mechanism.
All other shipments are required to provide advance electronic cargo information via an eManifest including personal effects using form CBP 3299.
Questions regarding this notice should be referred to a Cargo Supervisor at 518-298-8337 or via email to the Cargo Chief, Erik Hipko at http://www.importers.ca/ietoday/aug_07/Erik.Hipko@dhs.gov.
The purpose of this announcement is to provide the most current information on e-Manifest enforcement. Enforcement plans for six ACE e-Manifest groups have been published and include information about regulatory exceptions and administrative exceptions to filing e-Manifests. Changes to the administrative exceptions are made as additional release types and conditions are identified and must be accommodated.
There has also been confusion over the applicability of the Section 321 exemption when shipments eligible for the exception are loaded on the same truck as other shipments that require the use of an e-Manifest. All mixed-loads not covered by the exceptions articulated below require an e-Manifest.
Beginning on September 1, 2007, a permit to proceed into the U.S. will be denied to a truck entering ports in Washington, Arizona, eastern North Dakota, Texas, New Mexico, California, New York and Michigan, when no attempt is made to transmit all applicable shipments via the e-Manifest. In the remaining ports, Phase 2 enforcement will begin on the dates previously published.
The following shipments are currently exempt by regulation from the advance electronic filing requirement for incoming cargo:
• Cargo in transit from point to point in the United States after transiting Canada or Mexico
Certain informal entries:
• Merchandise which may be informally entered on Customs and Border Protection Form (CBPF) 368 or 368A (cash collection or receipt);
• Merchandise unconditionally or conditionally free, not exceeding $2,000 in value, eligible for entry on CBPF 7523
• Products of the United States being returned, for which entry is prescribed on CBPF 3311.
The following shipment types are not specifically exempted by the regulation but use of eManifest is not currently required for:
• Trips consisting solely of merchandise that is subject to the provisions of 19 USC 1321 (Sec. 321 releases). If a trip is made up of Section 321 eligible shipments and shipments requiring an entry or in-bond move, all shipments on that trip must be manifested.
• Empty trucks and truck cabs may be reported via e-Manifest but are not currently required.
• These shipment types are not currently able to be reported on an e-Manifest and are therefore not required even when an e-Manifest has been filed.
• Shipments consisting solely of Instruments of International Traffic (IIT) eligible for release under 19 CFR 10.41(a). IIT can be reported on an e- Manifest as associated to a conveyance or shipment but cannot be used as a shipment release type.
• International mail shipments moving via a contract carrier from a foreign postal service to the US Postal Service.
• Carnets.
• A delivery ticket (CBPF 6043) for movement to a CBP bonded warehouse or a direct Foreign Trade Zone admission on a CBPF 214.
• Shipments imported for the Department of Defense using 19 CFR 10.102/103 as a release mechanism.
All other shipments are required to provide advance electronic cargo information via an eManifest including personal effects using form CBP 3299.
Questions regarding this notice should be referred to a Cargo Supervisor at 518-298-8337 or via email to the Cargo Chief, Erik Hipko at http://www.importers.ca/ietoday/aug_07/Erik.Hipko@dhs.gov.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)