Some sound advice....
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
- George washington
Given Bush's promise to spend another four years "spreading freedom", I think it's high time we follow one of the America's own founders advice. It's time for Canada to pull out of NATO and NORAD and become officially neutral like Switzerland. Given the track record of the current administration, it's far more dangerous for us to be entangled with these military alliances than it is to simply say "trade with everyone, entaglements with noone".
You might think "but America protects Canada!". That's actually untrue. Given a choice between saving Philidelphia or saving Calgary, the American military would, and should, chose to save Philidelphia.
"But what about Canada's weak military"? Switzerland also has a weak military, yet no one complains. Canada has no real enemies at this point, and the only nations that could support the logistics of attacking a vast, relatively remote nation like us happen to be limited to countries like Russia, China, and the USA itself. If China declared war on Canada, there's little we could do to defend ouselves militarily even if we quintupled Canada's military budget. Our best and only defence is to be neutral.
posted by Kyle_From_Ottawa @ 4:04 p.m.
11 comments
11 Comments:
I have to disagree with your analogy. Switzerland has maintained its neutrality largely because of a balance of power in Europe. Britain contended with Russia, France contended with Germany, etc. Switzerland could stand on the sidelines because its neighbours always had to worry about other more powerful neighbours. Canada enjoys no such luxury. For all intents and purposes, there is only one power in North America and we have no choice but to be on their side more often than not. We have long since conceded our sovereignty to the US whether we admit it to ourselves or not. Sure, they keep us on a loose leash and let us choose our on path most of the time, but make no mistake about it, if they really want something from us, they have the leverage to get it. They don't need to send in troops when economic sanctions could deep-six our economy in no time.
That's a rather defeatist attitude.
I'm not saying we should give them the finger, but that we should adopt a pacifist stance. Actually, it might keep us in the American's good books anyway since we don't actually have anything to contribute militarily, and if we're proclaimed pacifists then it gives a non-offensive excuse not to join in their military escapades.
There's nothing defeatist about it, it's simply fact. We have an enormously asymmetrical economic relationship with the US. Sure, we are their biggest trading partner, but remember, they have a trade deficit with us. It is actually not all that bad for them to reduce trade with us, but it is disasterous for us. In truth, the only commodity we have that they desperately want is energy. Good for us Albertans, bad for the Ontario manufacturing sector.
As for taking a pacifist stance, Americans don't want thousands of miles of border with some wobbly, weak-kneed, wannabe Swedes, they want a partner in Fortress America. In the post-9/11 world, security trumps all. If we are not inside the walls, we will find ourselves out in the cold and you can bet the EU has no interest in sheltering us.
In essence, you've described the great Canadian failing.
Throughout our entire history, we've clung to the legs of some great power because we've been to afraid to walk on our own. It gives us safety and security, but our soveriengty is rather marginal.
In fact, based on the latest things going on now it already seems like we're scoping out China as a new host body in case America either collapses or closes itself off.
It's time that we start taking a deep look at ourselves and start adopting a bit of that bold entrepeneurial spirit from our American cousins. Canada has some advantages that many countries would die for: vast resources, energy self sufficency, an advanced banking system, etc. We have no desires to become a world power, but that doesn't mean we need become a complete sycophant either.
We take tentative steps on our own without having to aggravate our powerful neighbor. America doesn't exactly want to rule the world in the sense of Britain or Russia or Rome. America simply doesn't want any obstacles in its path or challengers for world power. As long you're not trying to block their goals (think France) then you have a surprising amount of leeway. We should use it.
I used to be a very meek person, who was always afraid to say no for fear of offending someone. However, over the past several years I've learned to grow a spine without turning into an arrogant s.o.b. You can say no politely, and it doesn't case the end of the world. In fact, it's greatly improved my life. By being friendly but firm, I've done rather well for myself. I make close to $70 000 a year at the age of 27 by averaging a promotion every single year that I've worked, I've recieved the top performance ranking several times for my division, I'm known as a person who's easy to work with and I'm well known up to the VP level at my company. However, I don't usually mention any of that to anyone becuase it sounds arrogant.
Perhaps you should consider another of America's founding fathers before you go the way of Switzerland.
"The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper #11
Kyle, your personal success is admirable, but I don't see it as being particularly relevent to international relations. Canada, as you say, has many natural advantages, not the least of which is its isolation from the political entanglements of the Old World. But we have to deal with the realities of geography. We share a continent with the most powerful nation on earth, and a somewhat paranoid one at that. We have to make accommodation for that. I don't mean to suggest we should bend over and spread our cheeks every time they come to call, but we do need to pick our fights, especially when so much of our prosperity depends on trade with them. China is not a substitute and likely won't be in our lifetimes. Trudeau tried to diversify Canada's trade back in the 70s, it just didn't work. The markets aren't there. Besides, getting too cozy with the Chinese, the world's worst human rights violators by a wide margin, is hardly a path we want to take.
And that brings me to another, less tangible pitfall of neutrality. It forces you to deal with the devil. When you refuse to take sides, what you are saying is that all sides in a dispute are morally equivalent. Sometimes, that may be true, but often it is not. Look what happened to the Swiss in WWII, they became Hitler's bankers. They contributed to the Holocaust by serving as a repository for billions of dollars of wealth stolen from European Jewry.
Well this certainly started some debate.
Now, as for Canada's military, I do suggest huge changes, but that'll be in another of my "As PM" posts. As for how my personal story fits in, nations act a lot like the people within them. If Canadians in general develop a little more self assurance, then our nation will too. Maybe some of those Americans moving here because of Fearless Leader might import a bit of that American gumption that we tend to lack (yes, I know that this is a debatable subject too).
I'm certainly not suggesting getting into to bed with China, I was warning against it.
We don't need to pick fights with the Americans at all. If we start to slowly let go of our big brother to our south without resorting to the equivalent of teenage mood swings I think the Americans will actually welcome it. They wouldn't need us to participate in Fortress America if they didn't feel like we're the drafty attic of North America. They don't necessarily want us clinging to their leg.
What is the bad approach is the childlike "you're not the boss of me!". That's the one that'll piss of Washington in a hurry.
"Maybe some of those Americans moving here because of Fearless Leader might import a bit of that American gumption that we tend to lack (yes, I know that this is a debatable subject too)."
I hate to tell you, but the people moving there are by and large the farthest left America has to offer. They despise spending money on military, and love every other government program ever conceived.
These people believe that there is nothing worth fighting for, and unfortunately the reality is that they can only believe that because others are willing to do what they are not.
These are the people who believe they are safe from criminals because they don't provoke criminals, and that if confronted they can negotiate with their would-be killer.
I didn't mean we should or should not pick fights with the Americans, I meant we should not resort to knee-jerk resistance to the Americans at every turn. For example, we angered the Americans by choosing not to become involved in Iraq, however, I think that was a wise decision and worth the fallout. But now, we face the issue of continental missile defense. Sure, most Canadians are opposed to it, but if you ask them why, the reasons seem pretty weak. It ultimately comes down to reflexive opposition to George Bush. The Americans don't want much from us. They don't want to deploy missiles on Canadian soil, they don't want us to pay for the program, all they want is to integrate the NORAD defense grid into missile defense (which, depending on who you ask, we may have already done). We shouldn't make ourselves appear obstructionist out of spite for Bush, the Canada-US relationship is bigger than any one leader.
Rob: I think the whole cause of our knee-jerk opposition is because of our dependence on the states. It's usually the least self-confident people who resort to these kinds of actions. With a little more a little more self confidence, Canada could debate the real issues in a logical manner instead of going "no, I don't wanna!....oh, ok, if I haaave to...."
Veritas: There's 2 groups coming northward, "liberals" and gay couples. In a bizaare bit of irony, blue states also tend to be the rich states whereas red states tend to be poorer. So, whatever their politics they do seem to have business acumen. Look at Micheal Moore, I can guess what you think of him but you can't deny that he understands the power of money. The gay couples coming northward can have either right or left politics, but they also tend to have a lot of money and entrprenureship, which is also fine by me.
Note to all: I'm cutting off discussions of the morality of homosexuality before they begin. This is not a topic that's relevant to my blog and any comments on that subject will be deleted. I don't think that morals are relative, but I also don't think they have anything to do with politics. Morality is the domain of the church, not the state.
"Veritas: There's 2 groups coming northward, "liberals" and gay couples. In a bizaare bit of irony, blue states also tend to be the rich states whereas red states tend to be poorer. So, whatever their politics they do seem to have business acumen. Look at Micheal Moore, I can guess what you think of him but you can't deny that he understands the power of money. The gay couples coming northward can have either right or left politics, but they also tend to have a lot of money and entrprenureship, which is also fine by me."
Kinda shoots the "Republicans are for the rich" argument heard ad nauseam from Democrat sheep, hugh?
In reality, I don't think the statement saying that most blue states tend to be rich has any real meaning. The truth is that the blue states seem to have the most rich people, and the most poor people, whereas red states are more balanced from top to bottom.
Post a Comment
<< Home