Talk:United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Facts as to Treaty
Despite the Western Sahara djihad, as a point of fact, the actual bloody text of the Free Trade Agreement studiously avoids mention of "territory" as applied to Morocco. It defines the United States, but not Morocco specifically. Diplomatic positioning aside, as an investor I know of nothing in the treaty that as a matter of law excludes the Western Sahara. I know of nothing in customs rules, duty rules, rules of origin, etc. that would establish a basis for such. Further, again as an investor, as far as I can tell, US Government technical assistance on this very issue (the FTA) in Morocco does not touch on the issue. It is therefore inappropriate and actually directly disinformation to include a categorical statement as to WS being covered, or not. It is best to remain within the legal text, as certainly as a foreign investor, I find nothing in the legal environment created by this treaty that would preclude my investments in disputed territories from benefiting from favourable export provisions to the United States as there are no mechanisms to cover the same. Now unless there is someone with actual legal citation as to the Treaty having exclusions, let's leave the Koavf WS djihad out of this subject and have a proper bloody article. collounsbury 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Text
Do you have a link to the text handy?Why is it not linked from the article...? Anyway, I don't see hot it is inappropriate, as it is relevant, or disinformation, as it came from a credible party with first-hand knowledge (assuming the reliability of my source, of course.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's bloody well linked on the very article page, if you would take a moment to actually bother to inform yourself or read for comprehension (if only for the sheer novelty value) but to be unusually customer friendly: http://www.moroccousafta.com/ftafulltext.htm - take a look at the definitions page as a starter. Utter silence on territory. If there is a legal opinion out there that establishes otherwise, I should very much like to know, impacts me bottom line, but else, according to what I see, and leaving aside American diplos making hand waving sop statements (or not, given I don't see a direct text and no I don't trust your source at all), the FTA is de jure silent. Now you can return to your personal djihad on other pages. collounsbury 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
- In fact, Collounsbury, I think that koavf knows for sure that the FTA between Morocco and the USA does not in practice limit the trade exchange at all to solely Morocco outside WS. The statement that he tries to insert and takes hal the article was done by an American diplomat in answer to (if I remember well) to the question by a stunchly pro-Algeria/Polisario senator Joseph Pitts. So it is merely a calming medicine to some. I am sure, if tomorrow oil is found in WS, it will be exported directly to the US without any problems.--A Jalil 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I just got off the phone with the USTR and they said that the USFTA only applies to the internationally-recognized borders of Morocco, not goods and services from the Sahara, and I was told that the text includes reference to this. As I am not a scholar of international law, nor a lawyer, I am personally combing the text to try to find some reference to this. If you're interested, you can call them yourself: 202-395-3320 -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can even call the White House, it does impression on nobody, as long as you don't go inserting nonsense in the article. If the text includes an explicit mention of WS being excluded from the agreement, refer us to it here in the talk page first.--A Jalil 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am busy mate with real business and not wiki whanking, but please, spare me. You can bloody well search as you bloody fucking like, but if you want to play whanker games, I can direct you to the American Cham. of Commerce Invest. Guide 2007 edit that they're pimping around - with US Guv support. Got me a CD copy meself from an amigo in the mail, shall scan their map that shows your lovely Saharan cities as part of the Moroccan infrastructure. But in any event, I have no fucking need to call up USTR general phone line when I can call Sr diplo peeps me knows personally. But that has fuck all to do with what goes into an encyclo, or can't you grasp the whole no Perso Research bit? Bloody hell, you want to make cited or uncited phone call cites, I can bloody well bury you mate - but that's not the fucking point. The point is objective facts, eh? Now fucking stop being a bloody little whanking obsessive about these issues and get a bit of perspective. (collounsbury 00:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
- Right The United States Chamber of Commerce is not a government agency; how is this relevant? Note also that I said that I would look for a citation within the text; I'm not citing a phone call, Collounsbury. There's no need to spout off like this, especially when you apparently missed the points that I made in the first two sentences. It makes you look a little silly when you tell me to get perspective and make gaffes like those. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Eh mate, their last guide was published with US Guv support and Amb. pimping it officially and personally, and I understand from me amigos sur place the same case this time. Calling up USTR is not worth either your phone call or the time you wasted with your personal djihad. Get some bloody perspective. collounsbury 00:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
- Perspective And you want to talk about low-level? The U.S. has hundreds of ambassadors and ambassador-level positions; one's pimping is actually less important than the perspective of, say, a Representative from Congress, or the personal testimony of someone that was present and involved at the negotiations of the USMFTA. That having been said, I was trying to make a point that was lost in these posts, so this is becoming increasingly off-topic. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am busy mate with real business and not wiki whanking, but please, spare me. You can bloody well search as you bloody fucking like, but if you want to play whanker games, I can direct you to the American Cham. of Commerce Invest. Guide 2007 edit that they're pimping around - with US Guv support. Got me a CD copy meself from an amigo in the mail, shall scan their map that shows your lovely Saharan cities as part of the Moroccan infrastructure. But in any event, I have no fucking need to call up USTR general phone line when I can call Sr diplo peeps me knows personally. But that has fuck all to do with what goes into an encyclo, or can't you grasp the whole no Perso Research bit? Bloody hell, you want to make cited or uncited phone call cites, I can bloody well bury you mate - but that's not the fucking point. The point is objective facts, eh? Now fucking stop being a bloody little whanking obsessive about these issues and get a bit of perspective. (collounsbury 00:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
- You can even call the White House, it does impression on nobody, as long as you don't go inserting nonsense in the article. If the text includes an explicit mention of WS being excluded from the agreement, refer us to it here in the talk page first.--A Jalil 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth I just got off the phone with the USTR and they said that the USFTA only applies to the internationally-recognized borders of Morocco, not goods and services from the Sahara, and I was told that the text includes reference to this. As I am not a scholar of international law, nor a lawyer, I am personally combing the text to try to find some reference to this. If you're interested, you can call them yourself: 202-395-3320 -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, Collounsbury, I think that koavf knows for sure that the FTA between Morocco and the USA does not in practice limit the trade exchange at all to solely Morocco outside WS. The statement that he tries to insert and takes hal the article was done by an American diplomat in answer to (if I remember well) to the question by a stunchly pro-Algeria/Polisario senator Joseph Pitts. So it is merely a calming medicine to some. I am sure, if tomorrow oil is found in WS, it will be exported directly to the US without any problems.--A Jalil 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's bloody well linked on the very article page, if you would take a moment to actually bother to inform yourself or read for comprehension (if only for the sheer novelty value) but to be unusually customer friendly: http://www.moroccousafta.com/ftafulltext.htm - take a look at the definitions page as a starter. Utter silence on territory. If there is a legal opinion out there that establishes otherwise, I should very much like to know, impacts me bottom line, but else, according to what I see, and leaving aside American diplos making hand waving sop statements (or not, given I don't see a direct text and no I don't trust your source at all), the FTA is de jure silent. Now you can return to your personal djihad on other pages. collounsbury 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Whatever, kid, whatever. Just stop bloody vandalising these articles with your ill-informed obsessions. collounsbury 23:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
-
