David Wilkins yesterday was named as the man needed in Ottawa to smooth "strained" Canada-U.S. relations. Does this mean that Canada is forgiven by the Bush Administration or has Canada become once again a key ingredient to US interests? Do Canadians now forget that the Bush Administration encouraged the rumor that at this time Canadian officials are vexed that 3 1/2 years later, they have not dispelled the groundless claim that Canada was a route for the Sept. 11 hijackers? Let’s not forget the calls of cowards, free loaders, anti-American, cheaters and the Americans that boycotted Canadian business and products.
Most Canadian Businesses are American owned, unlike before the Second World War when they were owned many by British companies. Canadians are frowned on if they ask their employers if they can hang up a Canadian Flag in the office or plant but not if it is an American one! How come one does not find this situation in the United States with these same businesses American divisions? Do these American owned companies support their employees who are Canadian Reservists or the Canadian Military for that matter? I think in most cases you will find the answer to be no.
The previous US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci was particularly critical of Canada’s reluctance to join the war effort in Iraq. He said: “There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada – part of our family.” His implication being that Canada failed to come to the aid of the United States in its time of peril. The reality was that there wasn’t one; they were under no threat from Iraq but quit the opposite. Simply put the United States was not in peril.
Also let’s look back at the points made by President Bush about certain issues as well as some aimed at Canada are up for debate.
Canada’s participation in the Second World War was not pre-emptive as he said but a declaration of war due to defense treaties, plus the United States didn't support Canada, even when Canada and Britain requested their help separately but made profits from selling to both sides of the conflict till Pearl Harbor occurred. The same can be said for the First World War 1914 – 1918. Let’s also take a moment to mention that Canada has never had a large standing military but in WWII with its 11 million population 1.5 million of its population served during this conflict alone.
We were there for the US in Korea but not Vietnam but both sides agree now, we were right on that one.
The UN operates due to the way the United States set it up to operate because at the time it was to their advantage and has done everything in its power to prevent change for the better because it was in its best interests to do so, not in anyone else’s interests. Let’s not forget the UN veto process, that the US has in the past prevented from being change, which is the real reason that the UN is irrelevant.
NORAD was set up to protect the United States from Russian Bombers and missiles landing on American soil not Canada’s as stated by the US Commander of NORAD in the early 1970’s, Canada was not a consideration.
Canada bought F-18 fighter aircraft from the United States to defend Canadian sovereignty and support the NORAD agreement. The U.S. government refused to sell the cockpit High Tech. weapon systems for them. Why? Canada was not a secure ally in the eyes of the United States of America. At this particular time Canada was considered the United States best friend and ally. When a RCAF Pilot won the TOP GUN trophy in the U.S. it was argued that it was unfair that this Pilot was flying a plane in competition that did not have the same equipment.
The U.S. informs its allies but does not consult them. What would be different with the Missile Shield Program? As to the Missile shield program Canada has not been asked to supply any money or land to base missile defense's, but it has agreed to share NORAD data to help the plan. The North American Aerospace Command is a joint U.S.-Canadian military operation, but mainly run by the U.S. Government, that dates back to the Cold War to monitor missiles, aircraft and space objects and warn of threats to the continent. "We think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be in the room to decide what's going to happen when there's an incoming missile," said Ambassador Paul Cellucci. Does anyone really think that with the speed that ICBM’s fly that they are so slow that there is going to be a discussion over whether to shoot it down? I think not! We will be lucky to get a call even if know about it. Let’s face it, the missile, no matter how you calculate it, if detected soon enough to intercept it will be intercepted over Canadian territory and the impact or fall out lands on Canada and the people of Canada. That’s if the system works. Not on the United States of America or on American citizens! So why is it important that Canada signs on or not? For liability, maybe?
NAFTA and the NAFTA dispute board was created by the United States with three Americans sitting on it out of five.
As for international organizations, it will accept their judgments or use their procedures if it wills to do so but not otherwise.
Canada went down the road to peacekeeping because the United States said the next War would be nuclear war fought with ICBM’s and they would defend North America not Canada. Yet, now the U.S. condemns Canada for the size of its military.
President Bush condemns Canada for not supporting the United States, not having a military force large enough to fight a war, not trading on a level playing field and not benign friendly.
Lets remember that the United States Of America has walked away over the recent past decade from, worked against or failed to support a long list of international agreements supported by Canada and the overwhelming majority of countries - the Land Mines Treaty, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the agreement to provide lower cost drugs to developing countries battling AIDS and other diseases, the International Criminal Court, the U.N. protocol on Developing, Producing or Stockpiling Biological or Toxic Weapons, the Small Arms Treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child supported by 191 countries, but not the U.S. or Somalia.
When people feel indebted to others they tend to forget or don't speak of slits that have been done to them previously. That still does not mean that it didn't occur. Let’s not forget that Canada leaped to America’s aid immediately on September 11, 2001 without being asked, without caring where the threat came from, knowing that our neighbour’s to the south of us were in peril. Why? It’s our Canadian social responsibility and common good attitude that drives us to do it. As time goes on Canada and Canadian’s maintain if not hold more the same values as well as more shared values with the European Union then with the United States of America.
Canada as well as Canadians has accommodated the United States in the past to a nationally detrimental point.
Trade between Canada and the United States has developed to the point that Canadians are hard pressed to find anything in Canada that is 100% made in Canada that Canadians can buy. Everything is either made from materials made in the US, assembled in the US, manufactured in the US or can't be made without tools made in the US. Do you believe that this type of situation would be tolerated in the United States? NO!
I strongly believe in free trade and a level playing field but at the same time I feel that a level playing field means totally something different to the US then it does to the rest of us in the free world.
Susan Esserman, a member of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office during the Clinton administration and now a Washington trade lawyer, indicated the United States did not like the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism and noted it has not been included in any U.S. bilateral trade agreement since. Larry Herman, a Canadian trade lawyer, said "the United States would like to forget Chapter 19 and bury it." But from their viewpoint, the American approach may be rational. One Washington trade lawyer noted, "The United States regards Canadians as wimps and expects them to fold." Indeed, it's hard to see what Paul Tellier and Gordon Ritchie, recently appointed as mediators by Ottawa, are expected to do if it is not to find some way for the Americans to "win" this case.
A recent released Credit Suisse First Boston report noting continued U.S. losses at trade panels. The U.S. Department of Commerce "understands that the laws and treaties make it impossible for Canada to `win' in the real world, even if they win every time in court. It takes years to get through the courts, and by the time you do, the tariffs, duties and quotas the U.S. has imposed have completely wrecked the targeted industry in Canada. So who cares what the courts say."
Americans should be reminded that millions of American jobs depend on their exports to Canada, that as every year goes by you will become increasingly dependent on imports of Canadian resources, that for 46 years in a row Canada has been the leading export market in the world for U.S. goods and services, that your exports to Canada every year are greater than your exports to all fifteen European Union countries combined, greater than your exports to Japan, the United Kingdom and Germany put together and more than to all of Latin America and the Caribbean countries combined.
The United States dictates the rules of any agreement it signs. When things go in their favour the rules are fine. When US producers start to feel as though they are losing something, whether real or not, then the agreement must be renegotiated. The real issue is that the US has too great of a hand in framing international trade rules, which it uses to ensure that its own producers are somehow insulated from the tough realities that it recommends for others. It is in the end it is a commitment to getting other countries to give American producers access to their markets and the US reciprocates when it is convenient. This is due to a lack of checks and balances that other countries in the world have to entice them to keep an even keel on their trade agreements.
Even with all this condemnation from our only true friend, the load cries of anti-Americanism, I have only found Canadians feelings toward Americans disagreeable is when individual Americans and American Companies / Corporations take a anti-Canadian attitude of retaliatory action against Canadians outside of their own governments action.
Yes, I hear the calls of anti-Americanism from the United States when Canadians stand up for their rights or express themselves rightfully or not. Yes even the firing of people in Canada for doing it. It is on every American Broadcast Station in the U.S., Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, and Jack Cafferty as examples. What I don't hear is Americans denouncing American Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Ambassadors, Broadcasters, and Announcers etc. for trashing, attacking or justifying Americans retaliating against Canadians and Canadian Businesses as anti-Canadian and detrimental to American foreign relations. Canada with its population of 9% of that of the United States of America is of no threat to American sovereignty by any means.
The question at the end of the day is; has Canada lost its sovereignty over its foreign and domestic affairs as to international trade due to its close trading relationship with the United States? That Canada can not exercise its democratic rights and move freely without fear because it has not gotten approval from and risking offending our neighbour / friend / family to the south of us. Have Canadian producers and suppliers become so tied to the high profits margins in the US that it is no longer profitable to look after Canada’s own domestic market? Do Canadians really need to give up their privacy without legal protection and recourse in US courts? Are we to integrate all of Canada's recourses with the United States to the point that we will lose control over our national recourses and systems because we have a smaller population then the US as well as a means to support US security?
The matter of Canada/US relations the Canadian people have been the losers and their wishes for their country have rarely been followed by those entrusted to express those wishes. It seems to suggest, too, that US leaders have always had, and expressed, a clear interest in subordinating Canadian wealth and freedom to the needs and wants of the USA.
This anti-Canadian attitude in the United States is awakening Canadians to the fact that Canada can not exercise its democratic rights and operate freely without fear because it has not gotten approval from and risking offending our neighbour / friend / family to the south of us.
Canadians will soon be demanding Canadian producers and suppliers start to look after their own domestic markets and needs as well as processing its own raw materials.
It is now becoming clear that looking after our own domestic markets first as well as having a diversified foreign trade with other countries other then the United States, will Canada be able to enforce a level playing field with outside markets and free trade agreements with the United States.
The world is now changing from a multi-national attitude to a uni-lateral attitude or economical fortresses. It is time that Canada changes as well in its national and international thinking. Our neighbour to the south of us that had once encouraged Canada to come to be depend on them are now less eager to be there for us unless it requires Canada to accommodate to a nationally detrimental point of undermining Canadian sovereignty and independence.
Most Canadian Businesses are American owned, unlike before the Second World War when they were owned many by British companies. Canadians are frowned on if they ask their employers if they can hang up a Canadian Flag in the office or plant but not if it is an American one! How come one does not find this situation in the United States with these same businesses American divisions? Do these American owned companies support their employees who are Canadian Reservists or the Canadian Military for that matter? I think in most cases you will find the answer to be no.
The previous US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci was particularly critical of Canada’s reluctance to join the war effort in Iraq. He said: “There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada – part of our family.” His implication being that Canada failed to come to the aid of the United States in its time of peril. The reality was that there wasn’t one; they were under no threat from Iraq but quit the opposite. Simply put the United States was not in peril.
Also let’s look back at the points made by President Bush about certain issues as well as some aimed at Canada are up for debate.
Canada’s participation in the Second World War was not pre-emptive as he said but a declaration of war due to defense treaties, plus the United States didn't support Canada, even when Canada and Britain requested their help separately but made profits from selling to both sides of the conflict till Pearl Harbor occurred. The same can be said for the First World War 1914 – 1918. Let’s also take a moment to mention that Canada has never had a large standing military but in WWII with its 11 million population 1.5 million of its population served during this conflict alone.
We were there for the US in Korea but not Vietnam but both sides agree now, we were right on that one.
The UN operates due to the way the United States set it up to operate because at the time it was to their advantage and has done everything in its power to prevent change for the better because it was in its best interests to do so, not in anyone else’s interests. Let’s not forget the UN veto process, that the US has in the past prevented from being change, which is the real reason that the UN is irrelevant.
NORAD was set up to protect the United States from Russian Bombers and missiles landing on American soil not Canada’s as stated by the US Commander of NORAD in the early 1970’s, Canada was not a consideration.
Canada bought F-18 fighter aircraft from the United States to defend Canadian sovereignty and support the NORAD agreement. The U.S. government refused to sell the cockpit High Tech. weapon systems for them. Why? Canada was not a secure ally in the eyes of the United States of America. At this particular time Canada was considered the United States best friend and ally. When a RCAF Pilot won the TOP GUN trophy in the U.S. it was argued that it was unfair that this Pilot was flying a plane in competition that did not have the same equipment.
The U.S. informs its allies but does not consult them. What would be different with the Missile Shield Program? As to the Missile shield program Canada has not been asked to supply any money or land to base missile defense's, but it has agreed to share NORAD data to help the plan. The North American Aerospace Command is a joint U.S.-Canadian military operation, but mainly run by the U.S. Government, that dates back to the Cold War to monitor missiles, aircraft and space objects and warn of threats to the continent. "We think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be in the room to decide what's going to happen when there's an incoming missile," said Ambassador Paul Cellucci. Does anyone really think that with the speed that ICBM’s fly that they are so slow that there is going to be a discussion over whether to shoot it down? I think not! We will be lucky to get a call even if know about it. Let’s face it, the missile, no matter how you calculate it, if detected soon enough to intercept it will be intercepted over Canadian territory and the impact or fall out lands on Canada and the people of Canada. That’s if the system works. Not on the United States of America or on American citizens! So why is it important that Canada signs on or not? For liability, maybe?
NAFTA and the NAFTA dispute board was created by the United States with three Americans sitting on it out of five.
As for international organizations, it will accept their judgments or use their procedures if it wills to do so but not otherwise.
Canada went down the road to peacekeeping because the United States said the next War would be nuclear war fought with ICBM’s and they would defend North America not Canada. Yet, now the U.S. condemns Canada for the size of its military.
President Bush condemns Canada for not supporting the United States, not having a military force large enough to fight a war, not trading on a level playing field and not benign friendly.
Lets remember that the United States Of America has walked away over the recent past decade from, worked against or failed to support a long list of international agreements supported by Canada and the overwhelming majority of countries - the Land Mines Treaty, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the agreement to provide lower cost drugs to developing countries battling AIDS and other diseases, the International Criminal Court, the U.N. protocol on Developing, Producing or Stockpiling Biological or Toxic Weapons, the Small Arms Treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child supported by 191 countries, but not the U.S. or Somalia.
When people feel indebted to others they tend to forget or don't speak of slits that have been done to them previously. That still does not mean that it didn't occur. Let’s not forget that Canada leaped to America’s aid immediately on September 11, 2001 without being asked, without caring where the threat came from, knowing that our neighbour’s to the south of us were in peril. Why? It’s our Canadian social responsibility and common good attitude that drives us to do it. As time goes on Canada and Canadian’s maintain if not hold more the same values as well as more shared values with the European Union then with the United States of America.
Canada as well as Canadians has accommodated the United States in the past to a nationally detrimental point.
Trade between Canada and the United States has developed to the point that Canadians are hard pressed to find anything in Canada that is 100% made in Canada that Canadians can buy. Everything is either made from materials made in the US, assembled in the US, manufactured in the US or can't be made without tools made in the US. Do you believe that this type of situation would be tolerated in the United States? NO!
I strongly believe in free trade and a level playing field but at the same time I feel that a level playing field means totally something different to the US then it does to the rest of us in the free world.
Susan Esserman, a member of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office during the Clinton administration and now a Washington trade lawyer, indicated the United States did not like the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism and noted it has not been included in any U.S. bilateral trade agreement since. Larry Herman, a Canadian trade lawyer, said "the United States would like to forget Chapter 19 and bury it." But from their viewpoint, the American approach may be rational. One Washington trade lawyer noted, "The United States regards Canadians as wimps and expects them to fold." Indeed, it's hard to see what Paul Tellier and Gordon Ritchie, recently appointed as mediators by Ottawa, are expected to do if it is not to find some way for the Americans to "win" this case.
A recent released Credit Suisse First Boston report noting continued U.S. losses at trade panels. The U.S. Department of Commerce "understands that the laws and treaties make it impossible for Canada to `win' in the real world, even if they win every time in court. It takes years to get through the courts, and by the time you do, the tariffs, duties and quotas the U.S. has imposed have completely wrecked the targeted industry in Canada. So who cares what the courts say."
Americans should be reminded that millions of American jobs depend on their exports to Canada, that as every year goes by you will become increasingly dependent on imports of Canadian resources, that for 46 years in a row Canada has been the leading export market in the world for U.S. goods and services, that your exports to Canada every year are greater than your exports to all fifteen European Union countries combined, greater than your exports to Japan, the United Kingdom and Germany put together and more than to all of Latin America and the Caribbean countries combined.
The United States dictates the rules of any agreement it signs. When things go in their favour the rules are fine. When US producers start to feel as though they are losing something, whether real or not, then the agreement must be renegotiated. The real issue is that the US has too great of a hand in framing international trade rules, which it uses to ensure that its own producers are somehow insulated from the tough realities that it recommends for others. It is in the end it is a commitment to getting other countries to give American producers access to their markets and the US reciprocates when it is convenient. This is due to a lack of checks and balances that other countries in the world have to entice them to keep an even keel on their trade agreements.
Even with all this condemnation from our only true friend, the load cries of anti-Americanism, I have only found Canadians feelings toward Americans disagreeable is when individual Americans and American Companies / Corporations take a anti-Canadian attitude of retaliatory action against Canadians outside of their own governments action.
Yes, I hear the calls of anti-Americanism from the United States when Canadians stand up for their rights or express themselves rightfully or not. Yes even the firing of people in Canada for doing it. It is on every American Broadcast Station in the U.S., Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, and Jack Cafferty as examples. What I don't hear is Americans denouncing American Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Ambassadors, Broadcasters, and Announcers etc. for trashing, attacking or justifying Americans retaliating against Canadians and Canadian Businesses as anti-Canadian and detrimental to American foreign relations. Canada with its population of 9% of that of the United States of America is of no threat to American sovereignty by any means.
The question at the end of the day is; has Canada lost its sovereignty over its foreign and domestic affairs as to international trade due to its close trading relationship with the United States? That Canada can not exercise its democratic rights and move freely without fear because it has not gotten approval from and risking offending our neighbour / friend / family to the south of us. Have Canadian producers and suppliers become so tied to the high profits margins in the US that it is no longer profitable to look after Canada’s own domestic market? Do Canadians really need to give up their privacy without legal protection and recourse in US courts? Are we to integrate all of Canada's recourses with the United States to the point that we will lose control over our national recourses and systems because we have a smaller population then the US as well as a means to support US security?
The matter of Canada/US relations the Canadian people have been the losers and their wishes for their country have rarely been followed by those entrusted to express those wishes. It seems to suggest, too, that US leaders have always had, and expressed, a clear interest in subordinating Canadian wealth and freedom to the needs and wants of the USA.
This anti-Canadian attitude in the United States is awakening Canadians to the fact that Canada can not exercise its democratic rights and operate freely without fear because it has not gotten approval from and risking offending our neighbour / friend / family to the south of us.
Canadians will soon be demanding Canadian producers and suppliers start to look after their own domestic markets and needs as well as processing its own raw materials.
It is now becoming clear that looking after our own domestic markets first as well as having a diversified foreign trade with other countries other then the United States, will Canada be able to enforce a level playing field with outside markets and free trade agreements with the United States.
The world is now changing from a multi-national attitude to a uni-lateral attitude or economical fortresses. It is time that Canada changes as well in its national and international thinking. Our neighbour to the south of us that had once encouraged Canada to come to be depend on them are now less eager to be there for us unless it requires Canada to accommodate to a nationally detrimental point of undermining Canadian sovereignty and independence.