Posted on 03/24/2005 10:20:56 AM PST by srm913
Editorial: American pardners
Prime Minister Paul Martin's political critics are forever complaining that Ottawa has squandered credibility with Washington by sitting out the Iraq war, saying No to missile defence and opposing U.S. plans to drill oil in an Alaskan wildlife reserve. But how seriously can that criticism be taken?
Not very, given U.S. President George Bush's comments yesterday on our "stormy" relations.
"I'm amazed that we don't have more ... sharp disagreements, because we're doing a lot together," Bush said during the one-day Canada-U.S.-Mexico summit in Texas. "I think the relationship is very strong and very positive."
Bush's eagerness to "move forward" with a sweeping if vaguely defined Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, despite bilateral irritants, plainly refutes Martin's critics. The U.S. takes for granted that friends can disagree.
With the North American Free Trade Agreement partners now doing $850 billion a year in trade, irritants also inevitably cut both ways.
While Martin noted that our "three sovereign nations ... have formed one of the most successful partnerships in the world," it isn't easy.
Canadians are angry at the needless U.S. ban on Canadian cattle that has cost us $7 billion, and the outrageous American tariffs on lumber that have cost us $4.5 billion more, at a time when we are spending $16 billion more on defence and aid, to bolster U.S. security.
Mexicans have grievances, too. President Vicente Fox pushed for more rights for the 5 million Mexicans who work in the U.S., and bristled at U.S. efforts to seal the border.
Bush offered Martin and Fox no relief on these issues, and no splashy announcements were made.
But the three amigos agreed to resuscitate their strained relationship by adopting common policies to upgrade continental security after 9/11, to facilitate the movement of people and goods, and to make our integrated economies more competitive.
Handled right, that should strengthen Canada's sovereignty, not diminish it, and boost our ability to make a difference in the world.
Officials will now begin to craft common policies to screen travellers and cargo, ease border bottlenecks, protect critical infrastructure, curb protectionism masquerading as regulatory policy, spur energy development and the like.
Understandably, Bush is anxious to formalize this process to make sure it moves forward after Fox is replaced next year when his term expires, and whether or not Martin's minority Liberals remain in power.
There is no appetite in North America for European Union-style political integration. As Martin noted yesterday, "all three sovereign nations are very jealous of their sovereignty." That's healthy.
But after 9/11, there is a need to strengthen border controls. And given growing competition from the Europeans, Chinese and Indians, it makes sense to reduce impediments to the freest possible internal trade.
The tricky part is to do both without sacrificing sovereignty, or the values that make our respective countries unique.
He did mention it.
Bush offered Martin and Fox no relief on these issues, and no splashy announcements were made.
But then he went on to discount its importance.
"...when we are spending $16 billion more on defence and aid, to bolster U.S. security. "
This part did it for me. It shows the twisted, parasitical dependancy-logic of the editorial writer who does not even think highly enough about his/her own country to want to defend it. Canada can spend 2 pennies on defence for all it matters to me. The US can and will do what it needs to protect itself. If the Canadians are determined not to have a seat at the table of North American defence, so be it. Don't come crying later when we ignore your beef and lumber concerns.
Their imported lumber hurts my neck of the woods!
Crying later? We've been voicing our concerns , in the case of lumber , for over 5 years . The US shows no concern there , taxing it's own citizens the tariff on better quality Canadian construction lumber . As for beef we're paying cheaper by half per pound than what you are. When was the last time you bought dollar a pound lean ground ? Canadian beef producers aren't the only ones getting beat on US banning beef imports ? Again the American consumer takes it up the waazzo .
Seems to me , given history and Bomarc in particular , the US protects itself . You already said it, The US can and will do what it needs to protect itself. What else is new?
"As for beef we're paying cheaper by half per pound than what you are"
Sounds like you're in cow heaven there, champ, eat up!. Why should you even care what consumers in the US pay for anything? Like I'm supposed to believe that you care about what I'm paying for a pound of beef. Spare me such foolishness.
If your government wants to get all anti-American, self-rightous, holier-than-thou, more power to 'em. Deal with the consequences.
I don't.
Like I'm supposed to believe that you care about what I'm paying for a pound of beef. Spare me such foolishness.
Like I never said any such thing. That's your foolish assumption.
The point was those concerns affect the American consumer . Go ahead , keep biting your own nose.
We'll be just fine, dude, really. We really don't need any input from our know-it-all, busybody Canadian friends. That was a lot of my original point on this thread - This Canadian strutting and preaching gets old real quick. Americans are listening much closer to it these days and finding little downside in telling you folks to kiss off. You can't even be straight-forward, like the editorial writer, that your motives are completely self-serving. You have to frame your arguements around how it affects the USA, not your own country (like the author pretending that Canadian defense spending only helps the US - and what a terrible thing that is). Kind of pathetic, really.
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.