This is rather a wandering article. Cameron does not say exactly what the US has decided and is trying to impose through the SPP. It combines talk of the SPP with the UN millenium developments goals. There is also a part about the failure of the US to pay its fair share of border security. The article would have been more effective if it had made some more detailed criticisms of the SPP.
Mowing the border
Our government exhibits indifference to the UN Millennium Development Goals yet, if they knew more about them, Canadians would actively support reaching the nine objectives.
>by Duncan Cameron
July 11, 2007
Canada has developed a new international personality. We sign up, and then do not show up. Our failure to establish a plan to meet our Kyoto obligations on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is well known. Our government exhibits indifference to the UN Millennium Development Goals yet, if they knew more about them, Canadians would actively support reaching the nine objectives.
From goal one, halving extreme poverty; to goal nine, developing a global partnership for development; UN members have agreed to deliver results by 2015. Canada is nowhere to be seen.
Instead of looking out at the world and asking, “what can Canada contribute to peace and development?” the last four prime ministers, two Conservatives, two Liberals, have looked across the border, and said, “what can we do to placate the U.S.?”
The current answer is to sign on to the poorly-conceived, inaptly-named Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a White House led, corporate driven process for bringing Canada and Mexico into a North American Union, to be run for the benefit of Washington. It would be nice if Canadians would revolt at the prospect. Despite the remoteness of the revolutionary option, Canadians are being nonetheless kept in the dark by their government on what is at stake in the SPP.
We do know that from Aug. 20 to 21 in Montebello, Que., Prime Minister Stephen Harper will welcome U.S. President George W. Bush and President of Mexico Felipe Calderón for further plotting about North American “deep” integration.
The SSP is not about the U.S. maintaining security on our joint border. The Wall Street Journal reports that Canada has complained the U.S. has defaulted on its financial obligations to maintain an equal contribution to the International Boundary Commission.
Under the 1923 Treaty of Washington the two countries are supposed to share the cost of maintaining the border. The U.S. currently pays only $1.4 million, or one-half of its share according to Canada, says the Journal story by Barry Newman, which provides an hilarious account of the failed attempts being made on the U.S. side, first to find, and then mow the border.
The SPP is a poorly disguised attempt to remove economic decisions from public view and democratic oversight. Security does not mean improving pensions, or providing health care for all. Prosperity does not mean alleviating poverty, or improving access to public services. And partnership does not mean partnership.
It means whatever the U.S. decides, goes.
Imagine if instead of courting two leaders who obtained high office only through fraud — in order to please corporations who are at war with citizens across the globe — a Canadian prime minister would ask Canadians what we should be doing to meet the UN Millennium Goals. Is it all that hard to envisage a Canadian foreign policy initiative on world peace and development?
Think of a Canadian foreign policy that focuses on dialogue with China, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, and India about how to best reach these development goals.
Instead, these countries are either supposed to be our competitors, or represent market opportunities, depending on whether Canadians are being told to tighten our belts, or look forward to a rosy future.
The U.S. expects Canada and Mexico to play minor roles in the main production where the U.S. gets to continue as the dominant player in the world. Canada should refuse to sign on, and start showing up for meaningful discussions about what kind of future is possible, post-American hegemony.
Duncan Cameron is associate publisher of rabble.ca. He writes from Vancouver.
Showing posts with label Duncan Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duncan Cameron. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The Stephen Harper Effect
I have no idea why Cameron is optimistic about Stephan Dion. He was after all an important figure in the Martin govt. The Liberal party is almost equally a home for big capital as the Conservatives. The most one could hope for is that a coalition NDP and Liberal government would be somewhat less reactionary than a continuing Harper government.
I am sure that military suppliers do not see the expenditures in Afghanistan in terms of the alternative uses to which the money could be put. Harper's govt. is a great boon for those for whom the present minister of defence used to lobby.
The Stephen Harper effect
People who do not like to see their money wasted are not going to like it when they find out the costs of the Afghanistan adventure are going to exceed $20 billion, before the day in 2009 the mission is supposed to end.
>by Duncan Cameron
May 30, 2007
First rule of electoral politics: Governments are defeated, not elected.
Second rule of electoral politics: when your political opponents are busy getting themselves in trouble — leave them alone.
Third rule of electoral politics: the first two rules do not always apply.
It is imperative that the Conservatives not form a majority government in the next election, and best that they lose power altogether. So, it is consoling to think that Harper — though he now claims to be keeping his options open — is perceived to be on the wrong side of the environmental issue, now in the forefront of pre-occupations in Canada.
With climate change a concern around the world, Harper, in preparing for the G8 summit, June 6-8 at a Baltic seaside resort, is still expected to align Canada with George W. Bush, while the host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel attempts to get the U.S. to agree to specific commitments to reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
Abroad, in front of special invited G8 guests China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, Harper like Bush will expound on the need for neo-liberal reforms, and the war on terrorism.
At home, Harper's own plan for a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 has critics mad enough to sue, encouraging others to get even come election time.
Many Canadians will be distressed to learn that feeding the American energy habit puts rapid exploitation of the Alberta Tar Sands ahead of energy conservation, environmental protection, or keeping the Canadian dollar from rising so high on the back of energy exports, as to close down all remaining manufacturing operations.
People who do not like to see their money wasted are not going to like it when they find out the costs of the Afghanistan adventure are going to exceed $20 billion, before the day in 2009 the mission is supposed to end.
Germans protesting against the use of the German Air Force in the bombing of Southern Afghanistan are organizing to disrupt G8 proceedings. As pressure builds to maintain a Canadian military presence after 2009, the Canadian Afghanistan veterans are going to start telling their story of what the Canadian mission is really about.
People who see exorbitant bills for the military action, and who are denied government funding for festivals in Quebec, Canadian studies research, cultural programs, recreation, social housing, urban transit, student bursaries, court challenges, women's shelters, and child care, are going to support someone other than the Conservatives in the next election.
But, we still must deal with the Harper effect: incumbency, the aura of a Prime Minister, the media chill, and the big business support all bear heavily on Conservative prospects in an eventual election.
The CBC is taking Harper seriously. They have given his old boss, Preston Manning a daily radio show:This I believe. I believe he got the show in a shameless effort to stave off the budget cuts that are coming, or if Harper gets a majority, privatization of the CBC. I also believe turning over the CBC Radio morning show in Ottawa (and the weekly show The House) to a former regular host from the Newsworld Calgary studio is a weak attempt to make the Harpers, and their Western Conservatives feel more at home in Ottawa, as they pull their boots on in the morning.
We should fully expect the Canwest Global, CTV Bell media conglomerates to continue to mislead and ill inform Canadians on the issues of the day, as needed to help keep Harper in power.
If Harper falters, Stéphane Dion is the likely beneficiary. A Liberal minority government with the NDP holding the balance of power, would be the next best thing to Tommy Douglas's New Jerusalem, especially when compared to a Harper majority.
For business leaders, and those who tell them what to think, Dion represents danger: he has yet to show he is coachable. Wait until word gets around that he has an unforgivable habit — he thinks for himself. Then, expect support to flow to Harper, as if we were in 1988, and the free trade debate was threatening to block business plans for this big continent. That is when the normal rules of electoral politics no longer apply, and democracy itself needs to be protected.
Climate change represents a big business opportunity, not just an environmental danger. All that is needed is for political leaders to buy into business thinking, as Harper is doing, and we are all going to pay, again, and again.
Duncan Cameron is associate publisher of rabble.ca. He writes from Vancouver.
I am sure that military suppliers do not see the expenditures in Afghanistan in terms of the alternative uses to which the money could be put. Harper's govt. is a great boon for those for whom the present minister of defence used to lobby.
The Stephen Harper effect
People who do not like to see their money wasted are not going to like it when they find out the costs of the Afghanistan adventure are going to exceed $20 billion, before the day in 2009 the mission is supposed to end.
>by Duncan Cameron
May 30, 2007
First rule of electoral politics: Governments are defeated, not elected.
Second rule of electoral politics: when your political opponents are busy getting themselves in trouble — leave them alone.
Third rule of electoral politics: the first two rules do not always apply.
It is imperative that the Conservatives not form a majority government in the next election, and best that they lose power altogether. So, it is consoling to think that Harper — though he now claims to be keeping his options open — is perceived to be on the wrong side of the environmental issue, now in the forefront of pre-occupations in Canada.
With climate change a concern around the world, Harper, in preparing for the G8 summit, June 6-8 at a Baltic seaside resort, is still expected to align Canada with George W. Bush, while the host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel attempts to get the U.S. to agree to specific commitments to reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
Abroad, in front of special invited G8 guests China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, Harper like Bush will expound on the need for neo-liberal reforms, and the war on terrorism.
At home, Harper's own plan for a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 has critics mad enough to sue, encouraging others to get even come election time.
Many Canadians will be distressed to learn that feeding the American energy habit puts rapid exploitation of the Alberta Tar Sands ahead of energy conservation, environmental protection, or keeping the Canadian dollar from rising so high on the back of energy exports, as to close down all remaining manufacturing operations.
People who do not like to see their money wasted are not going to like it when they find out the costs of the Afghanistan adventure are going to exceed $20 billion, before the day in 2009 the mission is supposed to end.
Germans protesting against the use of the German Air Force in the bombing of Southern Afghanistan are organizing to disrupt G8 proceedings. As pressure builds to maintain a Canadian military presence after 2009, the Canadian Afghanistan veterans are going to start telling their story of what the Canadian mission is really about.
People who see exorbitant bills for the military action, and who are denied government funding for festivals in Quebec, Canadian studies research, cultural programs, recreation, social housing, urban transit, student bursaries, court challenges, women's shelters, and child care, are going to support someone other than the Conservatives in the next election.
But, we still must deal with the Harper effect: incumbency, the aura of a Prime Minister, the media chill, and the big business support all bear heavily on Conservative prospects in an eventual election.
The CBC is taking Harper seriously. They have given his old boss, Preston Manning a daily radio show:This I believe. I believe he got the show in a shameless effort to stave off the budget cuts that are coming, or if Harper gets a majority, privatization of the CBC. I also believe turning over the CBC Radio morning show in Ottawa (and the weekly show The House) to a former regular host from the Newsworld Calgary studio is a weak attempt to make the Harpers, and their Western Conservatives feel more at home in Ottawa, as they pull their boots on in the morning.
We should fully expect the Canwest Global, CTV Bell media conglomerates to continue to mislead and ill inform Canadians on the issues of the day, as needed to help keep Harper in power.
If Harper falters, Stéphane Dion is the likely beneficiary. A Liberal minority government with the NDP holding the balance of power, would be the next best thing to Tommy Douglas's New Jerusalem, especially when compared to a Harper majority.
For business leaders, and those who tell them what to think, Dion represents danger: he has yet to show he is coachable. Wait until word gets around that he has an unforgivable habit — he thinks for himself. Then, expect support to flow to Harper, as if we were in 1988, and the free trade debate was threatening to block business plans for this big continent. That is when the normal rules of electoral politics no longer apply, and democracy itself needs to be protected.
Climate change represents a big business opportunity, not just an environmental danger. All that is needed is for political leaders to buy into business thinking, as Harper is doing, and we are all going to pay, again, and again.
Duncan Cameron is associate publisher of rabble.ca. He writes from Vancouver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)