Mexican Truckers File $6 Billion Claim Against U.S. in Nafta Spat

[OhioChick]

JUNE 2, 2009

MEXICO CITY -- A Mexican trade association representing more than 4,500 trucking companies is seeking $6 billion in damages from the U.S. government because of Washington's refusal to allow Mexican trucks to carry cargo over U.S. roads.

The group, Canacar, filed a demand for arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. State Department in April, but didn't publicize the move until Monday.

"We want reciprocity," said Pedro Ojeda, a lawyer for Canacar. "The U.S. has notoriously not kept its commitments." Mr. Ojeda said the complaint is the largest such demand made under Nafta, as the 1993 pact is known.

Deborah Mesloh, a spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, said Monday that, "We take our trade obligations very seriously and this is an issue we've been working on for a couple months." A State Department spokesman said the claim is "being studied."

The arbitration demand is the latest fallout from legislation signed earlier this year by President Barack Obama canceling a pilot program that had allowed Mexican trucks to carry cargo on U.S. roads. In March, the Mexican government retaliated by slapping tariffs on $2.4 billion of U.S. goods.

Affected U.S. industries, many facing import duties of 10% to 20% of a product's value, have been urging the administration to resolve the spat. "During this time of historical job loss, we should be doing everything we can as a country to ensure commerce and trade flow as freely as possible," said Scott Openshaw, a Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman.

Canacar said its members have lost money and missed business opportunities because Mexican truckers have been restricted to operating within 25 miles of the border on the U.S. side. Mexico City's position is that this restriction violates Nafta.

Nafta called for creating a trans-border trucking program by 2000. But it never materialized mainly because of opposition from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its allies in Congress, who have argued that Mexican trucks are unsafe, that some drivers don't know English, and that Mexican authorities don't keep adequate safety records on drivers.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been working with members of Congress, industry officials and union representatives to craft a new program that would satisfy safety concerns and reopen the roads to Mexican-based truckers.

Mr. LaHood said on May 21 that his proposal contains "good metrics" for testing the safety of Mexican trucks and assuring that drivers are properly licensed.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.) inserted the language that killed the cross-border trucking program into a spending bill this year. A spokesman declined to comment on the issue Monday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124390544386374905.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. Do we not have good truck drivers in america, like out of work ones?

With families to feed?

:shrug:

Someone, please explain.

[votingupstart]

3. i don't think it has to do with US truck drivers

from what i understand (and i could be wrong) the problem lies with the Mexican government and our (US gov)lack of trust in them. as far as i can tell the Mex gov has no real track of who is and who is not a truck driver, although there are laws in MEX that stipulate who can be and who cant - no one really follows them, and the Mex gov enforcement agencies and databases are virtually non existent in addition to being ripe with corruption. So the teamsters and other trucking and logistics businesses have pushed this in with a general "security concerns" platform that has stalled the implementation of the provisions of the treaty.

[Angleae]

6. It's not just the truckers, it's the trucks too.

Safety standards, emission standards, maintenance standards, etc. only exist (at best) on paper in Mexico.

[zeos3]

4. Here's the scary part that goes unnoticed

Because of NAFTA, if any of our pesky laws get in the way of a corporation (or in this case the Mexican truckers) making a profit, they can sue the government. The only part I'm not clear on is if we would have to get rid of the offending regulations (or offer the corporation a waiver) or pay them some sort of restitution, or both.

[msongs]

2. there are many reasons in Mexico why its most valuable export is.....people nt

[Quantess]

5. To U.S. We hear you're paying out cashola and we want a piece of the action.

[Fumesucker]

7. The Law is the Law.. No es verdad?

This is the law as much as it is illegal to torture.

Thank you Bill Clinton.

[pampango]

10. Es verdad. We negotiated and ratified this agreement with Mexico and Canada.

We later found a provision that we didn't like. (My guess is that Canada and Mexico have found provisions they don't like since the agreement went into effect.) Rather than renegotiate the agreement, we decided to unilaterally cancel the provision that we don't like.

Good luck negotiating with Iran or Hamas or anyone else, if we get the reputation of not living up to the agreements we sign with other countries. Why should they concessions to us to reach an agreement if they believe we will not live up to the concessions that we make? I would hope that we will live up to our commitments until we renegotiate it with Canada and Mexico or formally withdraw from it, otherwise why even bother to reach agreements with other countries?

[B Calm]

8. NAFTA was introduced by the republican party, voted in by 100%

of the republicans, a hand full of blue dog democrats, and signed into law by a democratic president! It's time to get out of NAFTA!

[OhioChick]

9. Morning kick. n/t

[anonymous171]

11. Sovereignty is bad for profits. nt

[Badgerman]

12. The headline SHOULD read...

'Mexican truckers broke down on the side of the road or pulled over for safety and overloads, organize!'

;)