Posted on 10/14/2003 6:05:19 AM PDT by Loyalist
Here are two propositions that will startle most Canadians: Canada's destiny lies in political union with the United States. And far from being the end of the Canadian identity, such a union could begin a golden age in which our values and ideas spread around the globe. Union we believe to be inevitable, within 25 years. The critical question will be what form the union takes. That depends on Canadians' realism when facing our future.
Why inevitable? Borders are constantly evolving, often as states merge. Two examples: Led by Prussia, Germany became a unified nation state only in the late 1800s and is now merging into a European superstate. Britain is the union of two formerly sovereign kingdoms, England and Scotland (plus Wales and Northern Ireland). If the means to that union were sometimes bloody, the ends for the Scots were prosperity and global influence, while at home they retained their national identity -- an example for Canadians to consider.
When Europeans settled in North America, there were hundreds of native nation-states. The Europeans forced them into larger colonies, which coalesced into today's three nation states. Now, Canada and the U.S. are moving toward union, and Mexico may join later.
What drives unification? Since the industrial revolution, the goal in every democracy has been economic growth. New technologies drive growth, intensifying the struggle for markets and resources and making larger states logical. Railways and telegraphs in the 19th century made Canada and the U.S. possible. Now, businesses are structured on a continental, even global, basis for greater efficiency.
Part of this process has been the integration of the Canadian and U.S. economies. In Canada, government after government has tried to slow the process, without success. Admitting that its measures failed to reduce our dependence on the U.S. market, Pierre Trudeau's government reversed direction and proposed continental free trade in some sectors. The U.S. said no. Prime minister Brian Mulroney opted for full free trade only after it was recommended by a Trudeau-appointed royal commission.
Since then, the free-trade agreement and NAFTA have accelerated continental integration. The value of cross-border trade now far exceeds interprovincial trade; our two economies are increasingly a single entity. A continental common market agreement will be the next logical step. It will be resisted, but less strongly than before, because many sectors of Canadian society are already effectively continental. Think of professional sports, mass entertainment and continental defence.
When there is effectively one continental economy, how can there be two regulators with different goals? Most Canadians think of political union in terms of hauling down the Maple Leaf flag, and losing Medicare. It could happen that way -- if we simply drift until union is forced upon us by circumstances. But other forms of union may be possible.
If Canada gradually breaks up, as it almost did in 1995, individual provinces may seek a Puerto Rico-style association with the U.S. It's not hard to imagine the U.S. accepting Alberta and its oil and gas reserves, or Quebec with its hydro power. More desirable would be a country-to-country deal in which Canada becomes a partner in a United States of North American, electing representatives in Washington, enjoying joint citizenship and an open border, yet retaining control of social and cultural policy. Too good to be true?
Here, the example of British union is instructive. With the Treaty of Union in 1707, the Scots ceased their struggle for political independence. They retained control of their church and banks, a superior system of education and, to some extent, laws. After a tough transition, union's benefits became increasingly evident, especially after the middle of the 18th century, when there was an astonishing burst of progress. Scotland entered the 18th century as one of Europe's poorest independent countries and ended it as one of the richest and most innovative.
It was luck that the union occurred just when an expanding British Empire provided opportunities for enterprise. But much of the credit rested with the pragmatic Scots, who took advantage of new opportunities without losing an awareness of their national identity.
Union provided Scots with two ways of defining their national allegiance, Scottish or British. Many readily accepted the duality, mixing national definitions in ways that foreshadow 21st-century values. Could Canadians travel the same route?
Pollster Michael Adams, in his book Fire and Ice, shows how, despite economic integration, Canadian and American cultural values have diverged over the past decade. Accelerated integration need not cause the disappearance of Canadians' defining characteristics; indeed, the opposite could happen, with "postmodern" Canadian values exerting a powerful impact throughout the U.S. "empire," just as Scottish values did after union.
Neither Canada nor the U.S. is now interested in union, and probably won't be until some critical development occurs to force new thinking. The fragmentation of Confederation remains a possibility, forcing provinces to consider whether their best interests would lie with the U.S., or in a shaky Canada. More terrorist attacks could cause Washington to so tighten border security that Canada would have to decide whether it wished to be inside or outside Fortress America. If terrorists attacked the U.S. from Canada, the U.S. might demand the right to control security at Canada's borders (remember, for half a century the U.S. has been in charge of our air defence).
Within 20 years, China is forecast to have an economy rivalling that of the U.S., and no doubt armed forces to match. For a worried U.S., Canada would appear a valuable reinforcement, and Canada would be looking to the U.S. for defence. Or a continent-wide environmental crisis -- perhaps a water shortage in the U.S. -- would require a continental response.
Suppose there is no crisis -- union may still emerge from a thousand non-critical events, appearing not at all radical, but simply commonsensical. Should we wait upon events, or take charge and move toward the sort of North American union that best suits our needs?
Mark Lovewell, an economist, is co-publisher of the Literary Review of Canada. Anthony Westell, former Ottawa bureau chief of The Globe and Mail, is author of the Couchiching Conference paper Continentalism: What's in it for us.
"... This is a wonderful description of what Free Republic really is. It is a living and evolving Life Form to battle the left wingers and those who would destroy this country!
The Free Republic Life Form enables us to discover the truth about what is happening. We can avoid the spin of the major mediots as they work 24/7 to weaken this country. We come to the Free Republic Life Form to find the truth! ...
Free Republic needs a constant infusion of cash to keep the Free Republic Life Form alive, viable and to grow. If we believe in Free Republic, we must donate each month or quarterly to keep this incredible life form alive...
Good stewardship is what this world needs, not good intentions. Good conservative stewards will insure that the Free Republic Life Form continues to grow, be viable and thrives!"
With the Treaty of Union in 1707, the Scots ceased their struggle for political independence
Really. The writers need to review the history of Scotland. Especially the part about the Jacobites and the 'Highland Clearances' . That was a real fun time on the road to Union.
And are we to assume that Mexico is included in this little get together. Does it follow , as the writers say, Now, Canada and the U.S. are moving toward union, and Mexico may join later.
English Canada has her French problem , English US an increasing Spanish problem. Only an idiot would believe the three would politically survive together?
Uhmerikin Columbia
I'll take British Columbia and Alberta, eh?
there are certain Canadian Privinces that the United States wouldn't want on a bet
Quebec and the maritimes come to mind, eh?
I have only one problem with getting Quebec, especially if we get their hydro power: where to send the Quebecois.
The Maritime provinces are probably too small the become individual states (Prince Edward Island has 100,000 or so people). You'd probably see about 6 new states- British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Sasketoba (Manitoba + Sasketchewan) and combined Maritime State. Canada is about 1/10th the size of the US, population-wise, so creating 5-6 states probably is about right.
Pompous, arrogant ambition of the political class everseeking greater control over the masses?
Whoa! You're not going to accuse the English of starting the Clearances are you?
50 is a nice round number, but it doesn't really mean anything. We haven't added a state since 1959. Personally, I would have been in favor of adding Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philipines as States when we got them from the Spanish in 1898. Who says the US needs to stop expanding?
As an ex-patriate Canadian, I probably agree. The country might fall apart and a couple of provinces might join the US, but I don't see a merger.
"Pompous, arrogant ambition of the political class everseeking greater control over the masses?"
Bingo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.