Who's Online

We have 572 guests online

Popular

1713 readings
"NAFTA: THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS IN NAFTA AND THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S PUBLISHED INTERPRETATION OF THESE PROVISIONS PDF Print E-mail
Earth News
Posted by Joan Russow
Sunday, 24 March 2013 13:29

 

By Joan Russow  Global Compliance Research Project, Ecological Rights Association*

Prepared for presentation at a panel discussion, organized by the Council of Canadians, on NAFTA

 

 

In all three countries, Canada, Mexico and the U.S.,  citizens and organizations are concerned about

the misplacing of  government priorities,

 the delusion of public process,

 the exploitation of the  labour force,

the inequitable distribution of resources, 

 the disenfranchisement of the many,

 the violation of human rights and

the denigration of social justice

 

In all three countries, citizens and organizations are also concerned about

the unquestioned imperative to grow,

 

the overconsumptive pattern of behavior,

the relentless destruction of the environment, and

the irreversible  loss of ecological heritage

 

These concerned citizens look with justified trepidation at NAFTA

In this talk I will be examining the potential discrepancy between the stated environmental provisions in NAFTA and the Canadian Governments published interpretation of these provisions in the Canadian Environmental Review.  

 

BACKGROUND

 

Within Canada, United States and Mexico there are laws, policies, and regulations in place which appear to conserve, preserve and protect the environment;

yet industry is continually in non-compliance with these environmental provisions, and government is continually remiss in not requiring compliance.

 

The three countries negotiating the NAFTA all enunciate in their national legislation environmental provisions

 

Mexico

 

" Social liberalism therefore proposes a State that promotes and encourages private initiative, but has the capability to firmly regulate economic activity and thus prevent the few from taking advantage of the many; a State that channels attention and resources towards meeting Mexicans' basic needs, is respectful of labor rights and union autonomy, and protects the environment." (Carlos Salinas de Gortare, Social Liberalism: Our Path, Mexico: On the Record. Vol. 1. No. 4 ( March 1992)

 

In March 1988, Mexico enacted its General Law for Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection.  it is a comprehensive statute designed to ensure that there is an adequate legal basis for protecting the environment.  Indeed, the law is based in large part on U.S. law and experience.

A central element of the 1988 law is the requirement for environmental impact assessments to be completed on all new investment projects, in both the public and private sectors.  To ensure they comply with these requirements, many privately owned companies have already created special environmental offices to analyze the environmental impacts of proposed business activities ( U.S.  government publication] Free trade Negotiations with Mexico Environmental matters, p. 3  ) ARMS LENGTH RESEARCH

 

In Canada, the government claims that :

 

Canada's Green Plan is second to none in its comprehensive approach to a full range of environmental challenges, funding, accountability and provision for public involvement ," he [Mr. de Cotret ] added.

Canada's Green Plan offers new policies, programs and standards to clean up, protect and enhance our land, water and air, our renewable resources, the Arctic, parks and wildlife, and to reduce waste generation and energy use.  it also includes measures to maintain global environmental security, foster environmentally responsible decision -making and improve our emergency preparedness....

. (Government of Canada's release " Federal Government releases environmental green plan" December, 1990.)

 

Goal

to ensure that citizens today and tomorrow have clean air, water and land essential to sustaining human health and the environment....p. 1 ....

 

INITIATIVES

• Over the next five years, strengthen federal inspection, information exchange and investigation programs to better enforce environmental regulations ....

In 1991, develop and adopt a comprehensive Code of Environmental Stewardship covering all areas of federal operations and activities.  The Code will be complemented by a list of targets on issues ranging from waste generation to contaminated sites clean-up and emission standards, establishment of an office of Environmental Stewardship and measures to ensure that federal purchasing polices and practices integrate environmental considerations.  Implementation of the code will ensure that the activities and operations of the federal government meed or exceed the standards and practices it is recommending for others.  ( p. 21) Government of Canada's release " Federal Government releases environmental green plan" December, 1990.)

 

In the United States, President Bush stated that

 

We will ensure that our right to safeguard the environment is preserved in the NAFTA

- we will maintain the right to exclude any products that do not meet our health or safety requirements and we will continue to enforce those requirements

- we will maintain our right to impose stringent pesticide, energy conservation, toxic waste, and health and safety standards

-         we will maintain our right , consistent with other international obligations, to limit trade in products controlled by international treaties ( such as treaties on endangered species or protection of the ozone layer). [TWO OF THE VERY FEW INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY THE UNITED STATES

 

• Enhancement and Enforcement of Standards: we will seek a commitment to work together with Mexico to enhance environmental health and safety standards regarding produces and to promote their enforcement

- we will provide for full public and scientific scrutiny of any change to standards before they are implemented.

-we will provide for consultations on enhancing enforcement capability, inspection training, monitoring and verification ( Response of the Administration to issues raised in connection with the negotiation of a north American Free trade agreement. May 1, 1991)p.p. 4, 5)

Response of the Administration to issues raised in connection with the negotiation of a north American Free trade agreement. May 1, 1991)

- we will consult on national environmental standards and regulations, and will provide an opportunity for the public to submit data on alleged non-compliance. (Response of the Administration to issues raised in connection with the negotiation of a north American Free trade agreement. May 1, 1991, p. 5)

 

 

YET the moment that either one of the three states attempts to "enhance" environmental protection the others call forth the spectre of the trade agreement GATT:

 

Each one of the three states involved has attempted to object to the other state's enhancing  environmental standards and in each case GATT has supported the state seeking to object to high standards:

In Canada,

 

"The Canadian pulp and paper industry has urged Canada to challenge U.S. laws requiring the use of recycled fibre in newsprint. ( Shrybman, 1991, p. 13) The Canadian government has argued that a U.S. environmental Protection Agency rule banning the use of all forms of asbestos violates the U.S. Canada FTA and GATT( Eric Christensen, "Pesticide Regulations and International Trade", Environment, Vol. 32. No. 9, November, 1990, p 45)

 

In the U.S.

 

The U.S. recently proposed in GATT negotiations that nations be prevented from adopting domestic pesticide standards more stringent than international standards. (Eric Christensen, "Pesticide Regulation and International Trade", Mark Ritchie, "GATT, Agriculture and the Environment: The US Double Zero Plan, " The Ecologist, Vol. 20, No. 6, November, 1990, p. 214.)

 

The U.S. based Non-Ferrous Metals Producers Committee is using the U.S.- Canada FTA to support its challenge to Canadian federal and provincial pollution control programs intended to reduce emissions from the Canadian smelting industry. ( Shrybman "Selling the Environment Short: an environmental assessment of the first two years of free trade between Canada and the United States", Canadian Environmental Law Association, January, 1991, p. 13)

(cited in Rolfe, Chris Environmental considerations regarding a possible Mexico-Canada Free trade Agreement for the West Coast environmental law association, February, 1991).

 

And  in Mexico ...

 

When in 1990 the US. placed and embargo upon tuna products from Mexico, "Mexico complained that the tuna embargo was inconsistent with obligations owed to Mexico under GATT. The September 1991 report of a three-member panel of experts established pursuant to the third-party dispute settlement procedures of GATT determined that the American embargo on Mexican tuna, even though designed to conserve dolphins [s} was inconsistent with the GATT ( McDorman,  T. 1991, p. 2)

 

It would appear that, in all three countries (including states and provinces) there is not the political will required to seriously address the urgency of the environmental crisis.

 

Will the NAFTA perpetuate the current  North American environmental situation of strong but not-enforceable legislation and regulations,

will the NAFTA worsen the current  North American environmental situation

or could an alternative to the NAFTA lead to stronger enforcement of environmental legislation

 

From the press release on Friday May 21, it would appear that the three day talks on the side environmental accords failed because the U.S. negotiator demanded the standards be enforceable through trade sanctions.

 

In the absence of any further information about the current discussion about the parallel accord related to the environment, I will only be able to refer to the actual NAFTA agreement itself. A representative from the Ministry of Environment, who was part of the parallel accord information loop, indicated that the purpose of the parallel accord was primarily to clarify some of the environmental provisions, and address some of the concerns expressed about some of these provisions.

 

 

"NAFTA: THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS IN NAFTA AND THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S PUBLISHED INTERPRETATION OF THESE PROVISIONS

Joan Russow Ecological Rights Associations

 

Presentation on NAFTA,  in 1993, on a panel with David Barrett; Panel organized by the Council of Canadians, Victoria BC

 

To make a comparison between the environmental provisions of NAFTA and the Canadian Government's published interpretation, I have extracted and compiled in this diagram, the provisions in the NAFTA related to the environment (see NAFTA GRAPH) and linked them to the statements published by the Canadian Government in their publication NAFTA: Canadian Environmental Review, Oct. 1992.

 

In this diagram I have attempted to document five categories of statements:

1. statements in the NAFTA related to the environment

2. Statements by the Canadian Government in the Canadian  Environmental Review, October, 1992. Re: the environmental implications of the NAFTA

3. Focal points to pursue related to statements in the NAFTA

4. Focal points to pursue related to statements made by the Canadian Government

5. Systemic  "whereases" and "notwithstandings"  within the documents that would prevent the implementation of environmental measures.

 

The diagram was then divided into key areas that are interrelated "standards-related measures" ,"technical regulations,"  "relation to other documents that protect and preserve the environment,"  "Risk assessment and appropriate levels of protection," investment: performance requirements.

 

It would appear that the NAFTA does have in writing provisions to protect the environment

The NAFTA appears to involve a series of discrepancies

            I will attempt to examine the discrepancies within the NAFTA and the interpretation of these discrepancies by the Canadian government in its "Canadian Environmental Review" of NAFTA along with the interpretation, by the Canadian government in the Canada U.S. Free Trade Agreement

 

1. RELATION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS AND OBJECTIVES

 

The discrepancy between  Environmental provisions which limit economic pursuits in the preamble and economic pursuits in the objectives which ignore the environment

Compare preamble to Objectives

 

PREAMBLE

 

The Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America, resolve to:

 

STRENGTHEN the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among their nations;

 

CONTRIBUTE to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a catalyst to broader international cooperation;

 

CREATE an expanded and secure market for the goods and services produced in their territories;

 

REDUCE distortions to trade;

 

ESTABLISH clear and mutually advantageous rules governing their trade;

 

ENSURE a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment;

 

BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other multilateral and bilateral instruments of cooperation;

 

ENHANCE the competitiveness of their firms in global markets;

 

FOSTER creativity and innovation, and promote trade in goods and services that are the subject of intellectual property rights;

 

CREATE new employment opportunities and improve working conditions and living standards in their respective territories;

 

UNDERTAKE each of the preceding in a manner consistent with environmental protection and conservation;

 

PRESERVE their flexibility to safeguard the public welfare;

 

PROMOTE sustainable development;

 

STRENGTHEN the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations; and

 

PROTECT, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights;

 

HAVE AGREED as follows:

 

Article 102:    Objectives

 

1.         The objectives of this Agreement, as elaborated more specifically through its principles and rules, including national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment and transparency, are to:

 

(a)        eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods and services between the territories of the Parties;

 

(b)       promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;

 

(c)        increase substantially investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;

 

(d)       provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in each Party's territory;

 

(e)        create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this Agreement, for its joint administration and for the resolution of disputes; and

 

(f)        establish a framework for further trilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.

 

2.         The Parties shall interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement in the light of its objectives set out in paragraph 1 and in accordance with applicable rules of international law.

 

Canadian interpretation of the preamble and objectives

In the introduction to the Canadian Environmental Review

the following statement is made, which suggests that the environmental provisions are part of the objective section of the NAFTA:

 

Environmental objectives addressed during the negotiations included the identification of sustainable development and environmental protection and conservation as fundamental objectives of the NAFTA

 

 

In the Canadian Government document, the Canada/ US Free Trade Agreement Synopsis, the Canadian government indicates the important role of the preamble

 

The preamble states the political commitment ...in entering into the Agreement.  It records the shared aspirations of the two countries in concluding the Agreement and summarizes their aims and objectives.  In other words, it is an agreed statement of intent which will guide the countries in implementing the provisions of the Agreement and in resolving disputes. ...the object and purpose of the Agreement (13)

 

ACTION: to require that to fully express the intent of the document the government should call for the inclusion of environmental provisions in the Objectives section

 

 

2.INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS AND STANDARDS

 

There is a discrepancy between the "retention of rights in other documents" (even though NAFTA, in the case of inconsistency unless otherwise indicate, prevails) and the Canadian Government unqualified assertion that Canada has "preserved these rights in agreements"

 

Article 103 of NAFTA states that NAFTA shall prevail in the event of an inconsistency between NAFTA and other international agreements (unless other wise provided)

 

Article 103

1. the Parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the GATT and other agreement to which such Parties are party.

[note exceptions related to the environment in GATT  Article XX(b) include environmental measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and GATT Article XXg applies to measures relating to the conservation of living and non-living exhaustible natural resources]

2. in the event of any inconsistency between this agreement and such other agreements, this Agreement shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency, except as other wise provided in this agreement

 

However, in Article 903, it would appear that "rights in other documents" are retained:

 

Article 903 Affirmation of Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and Other agreements

Further to Article 103, the Parties affirm with respect to each other their existing rights and obligations relating to standards-related measures under GATT and all other international agreements including environmental and conservation agreements to which those Parties are party.

 

the Canadian government  in its Canadian Environmental Review has indicated the following

 

During the NAFTA negotiations, all three countries expressed the wish to retain their existing rights and obligations under those multilateral environmental and conservation agreements to which they have chosen to belong.  The retention of these rights was also assigned a high priority by the Canadian environmental organization in both their written and oral submissions to the government. Canada has preserved these rights in the NAFTA

 

ACTION: IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEMAND TO KNOW IF THE RETENTION OF RIGHTS IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NAFTA PREVAILING OVER THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED.

 

[NOTE: it is important to recognize the distinction between "standard"  and "technical regulation"

Standard means a document approved by a recognized body that provides for common and repeated use, rules guidelines or characteristics for goods or related processes or production methods or for services or related operating methods, with which compliance is not mandatory

 

whereas, a "technical regulation" means a document which lays down goods or related processes or production methods or for services or related operating methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which compliance is mandatory]

 

3. EXTENT  TO WHICH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS WILL PREVAIL

 

There is a discrepancy between the extent to which international agreements prevail as mentioned in the NAFTA and the extent to which the Canadian government indicates these agreements will prevail

 

In the NAFTA, the following is stated:

 

Article 104.1  obligations will prevail in

convention on International Trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ( 1973)

the Montreal Protocol (1990)

Basel convention on the Control of transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal (1989)

 

Annex 104-1 Bilateral and Other Environmental and conservation Agreements

1. The agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the U.S. concerning the transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, signed at Ottawa, October 18, 1986

2. The agreement between the U.S and Mexico on cooperation for the Protection and improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, 1983.

 

Article 104.1. (f) Any subsequent international environmental or conservation agreement that the Parties agree shall be included, the international agreement will prevail

 

The Canadian government through its Canadian Environmental Review indicated:

 

the prevalence, in the event of inconsistency, of trade obligations set out in international environmental and conservation agreements over the NAFTA trade disciplines (Intro, CER)

 

In other words these international environmental or conservation agreements will take precedence over the NAFTA (CER find page ref)

 

ACTION: THAT CANADA INSIST IN HAVING ALL THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS RATIFIED BY CANADA INCLUDED IN WHATEVER AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE AND THAT THESE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE ANY NORTH AMERICAN AGREEMENT [UNLESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS IN THE NAFTA ARE STRONGER]  AS STATED IN THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION  OF NAFTA. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE MORAL COMMITMENTS ARISING OUT OF INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS SUCH AS UN CONVENTION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL (1972),  AND UNCED DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THE RIO DECLARATION AND AGENDA 21 IN WHICH THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY AGREED TO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES SUCH AS THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, THE NON-TRANSFERENCE OF HARMFUL SUBSTANCES OR ACTIVITIES AND THE REQUIREMENT OF A FULL LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANCES AND ACTIVITIES.

 

 

4.  STANDARDS-RELATED MEASURES

Discrepancy between "shall work jointly to enhance" and "shall  to the greatest extent practicable make compatible" in the NAFTA, and "forbids downward harmonization," "mandate upward harmonization" in the Canadian government's interpretation of NAFTA

 

Article 906 Compatibility and Equivalence

1. Recognizing the crucial role of standards-related measures in achieving legitimate objectives, the Parties shall, in accordance with this Chapter, work jointly to enhance the level of safety and of protection of human, animal and plant life and health, the environment and consumers.

Note "legitimate objectives" have been defined in article 9.5 as

a) safety

b) protection of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers

c) sustainable development

 

ARTICLE 906 Compatibility and Equivalence

2. Without reducing the level of safety or of protection of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers, without prejudice to the rights of any Party under this Chapter, and taking into account international standardization activities, the Parties shall to the greatest extent practical, make compatible their respective standards-related measures

 

In the Canadian Government publication "Canadian Environmental Review" it is stated:

 

 Standards enhancement

 NAFTA would do more than forbid downward harmonization it obligates Parties to work towards upward harmonization (CER, 19)

 

Environmental objectives addressed during the negotiations included...co-operation, on a continental basis, on the enhancement of environmental standards and their enforcement (Intro, CER)

 

Significant as it would in effect establish the highest current standards of the three parties (CER, 19)

 

ACTION: to call upon the Canadian government to have incorporated in the NAFTA the "forbidding of downward harmonization" and the "obligating to work towards upward harmonization"

 

 

5. ALLOCATION OF BURDEN  IN RELATION TO STANDARDS

 

Discrepancy between burden of establishing inconsistence within a chapter as indicated in NAFTA and The placement of the burden of proof

in the whole document on the nation challenging an environmental standard of another country as indicated in the Canadian interpretation of the document.

Article 914 Technical consultations

4. The Parties confirm that a Party asserting that a standards-related measure of another Party is inconsistent with this Chapter shall have the burden of establishing the inconsistency

 

The Canadian Government in its Canadian Environmental Review stated:

 

Environmental objectives addressed during the negotiations included...placement of the burden of proof in a dispute on any nation challenging an environmental standard of another country. (Intro, CER)

 

and reaffirmed in the body of the text

"Furthermore, should Canada adopt an environmental standard under these international agreement, the burden of proof would be with any country challenging the provision (CER, 14)

 

It is only on page 22 that the actual text is presented

 

ACTION: TO ENSURE THAT IN ANY DOCUMENT RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENT, THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHOULD LIE NOT ONLY ON THE COUNTRY THAT OBJECTS TO THE HIGHER STANDARD, BUT ALSO TO THE INDUSTRY THAT SEEKS TO INTRUDE INTO THE ECOLOGICAL COMMONS

 

 

6.  RELATION BETWEEN  ACTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES AND INVESTMENT

 

The discrepancy between "recognizing inappropriateness” should not waive" "may request consultations"  as indicated in the NAFTA and "a commitment to refrain" in the Canadian government's analysis of the document

 

In the NAFTA  Article 1114 (2) discourages the relaxing of environmental measures

In Article 1114 (2), Environmental Measures, the NAFTA states:

The Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing domestic health, safety or environmental measures. Accordingly, a Party should not waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, such measures as an encouragement for the establishment, acquisition, expansion or retention in its territory of an investment of an investor.  If a Party considers that another Party has offered such an encouragement, it may request consultations with the other Party and the tow Parties shall consult with a view to avoiding any such encouragement

 

 

In the Intro of the Canadian Governments, "Canadian Environment Review", the environmental objectives is presented as being" a commitment to refrain"

 

Environmental objectives addressed during the negotiations included acceptance of a commitment that government refrain from offering derogations from generally applicable environmental measures for the purpose of encouraging an investment

 

ACTION : CALL UPON THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TO DEMONSTRATE TRUE COMMITMENT BY CHANGING "SHOULD" TO "SHALL"

 

 

Because of all these potential discrepancies between the NAFTA and the Canadian Governments interpretation of NAFTA, I would like to make the following recommendation

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

GIVEN:

 

EITHER THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS MISINTERPRETED  OR MISREPRESENTED ENVIRONMENTAL SECTIONS IN NAFTA, IN THEIR OCTOBER, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, OR THE NAFTA HAS CHANGED AND IN THAT CASE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HAVE ANOTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF NAFTA

 

THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT NOT RATIFY THE DOCUMENT UNTIL THE STRONGER INTERPRETATION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE CANADIAN PUBLIC THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCUMENT BECOME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT

 

THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT NOT RATIFY THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE IT FALLS SHORT OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCUMENT.

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

GIVEN THAT THE TWO OF THE HEADS OF STATE THAT NEGOTIATED THE NAFTA ARE NO LONGER IN POWER,

GIVEN THAT THERE WILL BE AN ELECTION IN MEXICO IN JULY 1994

 

AND GIVEN THAT THE NAFTA  HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE FOR FULL PUBLIC SCRUTINY PRIOR TO NEGOTIATION

 

GIVEN THAT THE NAFTA HAS BEEN MISREPRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CURRENT NAFTA BE DISCARDED, AND THAT AN AGREEMENT THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS

 

In all three countries, Canada, Mexico and the U.S.,  citizens and organizations are concerned about

the misplacing of  government priorities,

 the delusion of public process,

 the exploitation of the  labour force,

the inequitable distribution of resources, 

 the disenfranchisement of the many,

 the violation of human rights and

the denigration of social justice

 

In all three countries, citizens and organizations are also concerned about

the unquestioned imperative to grow,

 the overconsumptive pattern of behavior,

the relentless destruction of the environment, and

the irreversible  loss of ecological heritage

 

THIS NEW AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT BE FULLY RATIFIED BY ANY OF THE THREE COUNTRIES  UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION IN MEXICO

AND UNTIL THE AGREEMENT HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS IN ALL THREE COUNTRIES (see diagram B.)

 

*File:U.S. Navy Boatswain's Mate 3rd Class Wesley Malcher guides a Royal Canadian Navy CH-124 Sea King helicopter for landing on the guided missile frigate USS Ford (FFG 54) during Exercise Trident Fury 2013 130513-N-QY316-028.jpg

Last Updated on Saturday, 30 November 2013 13:11
 

Latest News