The Senate Banking Subcommittee considering new legisla- tion to combat the Arab boycott has before it a Canadian proposal for an international “protective shield” for business and industry in all countries affected by the Arab movement to disrupt free international trade.
The proposal was presented by McGill University Prof. Irwin Cotler on behalf of the Commission on Economic Coercion and Discrimination, a private group of lawyers who have been investigating the effects of the boycott in Canada and on Canadians.
In a statement given the subcommittee as it concluded two days of hearings yesterday, the Commission said: “What is so necessary now is not only legislation within Canada that would put all Canadian firms on an equally competitive basis and enjoying equal protection of the laws but a common front between countries that would put all countries–and firms within them–on the same competitive basis and enjoying a similar protective shield.”
Cotler had pointed out in his testimony which included a 123-page report by the Commission of which he is chairman, that the Canadian government’s policy to oppose the boycott “stands to be undermined” unless it is buttressed by legislation In the absence of laws in Canada, he observed, Canadian companies complying with the boycott will enjoy a competitive advantage over companies which refuse to comply.
The Canadian government’s first policy ever with regard to the boycott, Cotler’s statement said, was announced last Oc. 21 by the Minister for External Affairs, Don Jamieson. The Canadian’s suggestion was paralleled in a broad aspect by Americans testifying before the subcommittee yesterday. Some pointed out that the anti-boycott statutes adopted by six states are uneven and work hardships on companies which compete for overseas trade with concerns unaffected by the state laws.
OPPOSITION BY BUSINESS GROUPS
The New York Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America with affiliates in 22 U.S. ports; Maryland Attorney General Francis R. Burch; and the American Association of Port Authorities composed of port authority officials at virtually every American port of foreign entry all testified yesterday in favor of uniform national legislation that would preempt any state law.
W. Gregory Halpin, chairman of the AAPA who is also Deputy Administrator of Maryland’s Port Administration declared “the AAPA wants all ports to be an equal factor in this matter.” Maryland, California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Illinois and New York have anti-boycott statutes with varying penalties.
New federal legislation was strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other industry and business groups on the grounds, among others, that it would impede U.S. diplomatic efforts for a Middle East settlement.
On behalf of the NAM, Ingersoll Rand chairman William L. Wearly testified that the proposed new laws are “largely unnecessary and could prove counter-productive to negotiation of a longer-term diplomatic solution of the Middle East political conflict” which he said offers “the only real viable solution” to the boycott.
Taking a similar position, the Chamber’s chief economist, Jack Carlson, said that both the Stevenson and Proxmire-Williams bills before the subcommittee “could be either potentially ineffective or harmful because, in some respects, they do not fully recognize the rights and power of other nations.”
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
