An open (but not necessarily "free") question...

Hello all! Sorry I've been remiss in my entries - ah, the distractions of life. I'll do my best to update this blog more often in the future, but, as always, I can make no promises or guarantees in that regard. I post when I post, simple as that. Sometimes I can't get any good inspiration even if it came up and kicked my teeth in. Hopefully, my reader(s) have been able to control their cravings for my little musings... :-)

Anyway, down to today's topic. I'll keep it short - I promise! ;-) Recently in the news, you may have heard that the main NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) investigative/judicial body issued a ruling concerning the controversial Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute. I won't bore you with the backstory explaining this issue - I'm sure there's plenty on the Web available to any interested party wanting to fill in the gaps. Suffice it to say that the Americans have been complaining for years that we unfairly subsidize our softwood lumber exports, and they've imposed punitive duties and tariffs accordingly. Anyway, the ruling came down in favour of the Canadian government: the panel concluded that, upon review, Canadian softwood lumber is not unfairly subsidized and that Washington is not justified in its imposition of the aforementioned punitive tariffs, taxes, levies, etc. They recommended that these monies be refunded to Ottawa. This decision reinforces a similar ruling in Canada's favour by the World Trade Organization (WTO) a few years ago. However, the Bush administration has rejected both rulings and continues to demand further negotiations; the tariffs remain in place for the time being. So, my question is this:

With such clear and unequivocal rulings from the two benchmark free trade-promoting organizations (which Bush and the U.S. government have traditionally championed and supported enthusiastically), to what extent (if any) is the USA truly committed to the principle of free trade?

I mean, c'mon - many Republicans and Democrats alike have always been loudly in favour of free trade. Most previous administrations in the White House have generally supported the concept. Were things like the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the newly-created Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) just a bunch of pink smoke Dubya was blowing up our asses (pardon the expression)? Much money and effort was spent on these, as well as on NAFTA and the WTO - pretty expensive smoke... Is their adherence to the idea legit & sincere, or is it simply a political expedient (i.e. they're for it only as long as it benefits them directly and exclusively)?

Corollary: Is the concept of free trade even viable?

Your thoughts, comments, observations, remarks, rantings, ravings, etc. would be greatly appreciated.