The United States has signed agreements and the rest of the world expects it to live up to its word, just as the U.S. should and does expect the rest of the world to live up to theirs.
The issue here is that the Byrd Amendment, and some other unilateral actions, have the U.S. not living up to their end of the deals signed. If the Europeans aren't living up to their end, slap trade sanctions on them too. If we in Canada aren't, do the same to us. But we do live up to our word on trade and we expect the U.S. to do likewise.
The United States needs to get out of signed agreements
The United States had no authority to sign those agreements. The constitution is clear that a treaty requires a confirmation by 2/3rd's by the Senate. Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury vs. Madison, stated, "Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void". Read it again: the "law" is VOID.
If you have no respect for the Constitution, or if you believe in a so-called "Living Constitution" (which is no constitution at all), then please enlighten us with your reasoning why your way is better than the principle of binding government officials with the chains of a written constitution. Let me warn you that you have some pretty serious competion, such as the gentleman who wrote these lines:
"On every question of construction [of the constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, 1823)
That's fair and honorable, but Canada is *specifically* violating NAFTA with its rules that limit foreign purchases of Canadian stocks (but not bonds). Too much of the international press is acting as though Canada and the EU have *nothing* to lose and are at no fault; that's probably setting up some expectations that will be brutally dashed in any large-scale trade war of the future (though in all fairness, I doubt it comes to that between Canada and the U.S.).
The basic problem is that the WTO does not appear to be a neutral, objective organization. Almost every time it lays down a judgment, the U.S. seems to get the short end of the stick.
We put up with that sort of unbalanced trade agreements for decades, but we can no longer afford to do so. Indeed it was foolish of us ever to agree to it, because it established unfair practices and bad habits.
"Canada signed the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, which limited exports to the United States from British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario..."
" the agreement has been hard to enforce. Denny Scott, assistant director of the Portland-headquartered Western Council of Industrial Workers, a division of the Carpenters Union, said Canadian lumber companies have circumvented the agreement by calling lumber something else, such as "truss parts" or "pre-manufactured studs for electrical conduits." "They would put a notch in them and call them 'rafters,'" Scott said."
Screw the Peoples Republic of EU! They want to side with China then they do not deserve any submission on our part.
Oh really? Has Canada quit dumping wheat and lumber on the US?