So let me get this straight. In order to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade group Canada will have to agree to stop a policy that makes common foods more expensive. I think this has to be the very definition of win-win.
Of course the caveat is that Canada won't have to eliminate supply management immediately. It seems likely that they will be on a "liberalization schedule." Which is diplomatic speech for you don't ever have to really do that. But still it will at least create one pressure to encourage liberalization that will counter the special interest groups that try to stop it.
Showing posts with label International Relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Relations. Show all posts
Death of Gadhafi does not vindicate Libyan campaign
Pundits and politicians are trumpeting the death of Gadhafi as if it is a vindication of NATO’s involvement in the Libyan civil war. Is it a shock to people that a coalition of the richest nations in the world managed to knock over the dictator of one of the poorest nations in the world? I don’t think anyone ever doubted that Gadhafi could be defeated, it is just a question of should it have been a NATO mission to defeat him.
We can dispense with any pretence that this was a mission to protect innocent civilians. Mission creep began almost the second that bombs were launched. The objective was regime change plain and simple. The NATO forces had decided who they wanted to win the Libyan civil war and so, without looking too closely at the horse they backed, they ensured the desired outcome.
It isn’t so much that I object to the Libyan campaign itself, it is just that it is part of a pattern of American and, by extension, NATO policy that is neither sustainable nor beneficial. NATO can not indefinitely operate as the arbiter in every military conflict in every region in the world. The countries that have the real military capacity (i.e. the United States) are going broke and are unable to sustain the level of military spending that will ensure victory anywhere anytime.
Furthermore, this sort of involvement tends to breed resentment especially if the interference inadvertently installs a dictator that is even nastier and more brutal than before.
The unintended consequences of this sort of resentment are already clear. Ultimately the people living in the NATO countries become increasingly drawn into conflicts that are not of their making and have little to do with their interests. Blood and treasury will be spent maintaining a dominance that just barely keeps a lid on an ever growing boiler of violence.
Killing one man does not make these concerns go away.
We can dispense with any pretence that this was a mission to protect innocent civilians. Mission creep began almost the second that bombs were launched. The objective was regime change plain and simple. The NATO forces had decided who they wanted to win the Libyan civil war and so, without looking too closely at the horse they backed, they ensured the desired outcome.
It isn’t so much that I object to the Libyan campaign itself, it is just that it is part of a pattern of American and, by extension, NATO policy that is neither sustainable nor beneficial. NATO can not indefinitely operate as the arbiter in every military conflict in every region in the world. The countries that have the real military capacity (i.e. the United States) are going broke and are unable to sustain the level of military spending that will ensure victory anywhere anytime.
Furthermore, this sort of involvement tends to breed resentment especially if the interference inadvertently installs a dictator that is even nastier and more brutal than before.
The unintended consequences of this sort of resentment are already clear. Ultimately the people living in the NATO countries become increasingly drawn into conflicts that are not of their making and have little to do with their interests. Blood and treasury will be spent maintaining a dominance that just barely keeps a lid on an ever growing boiler of violence.
Killing one man does not make these concerns go away.
Obama's buy America plan not Harper's fault
It is part of the job of the opposition parties in Parliament to criticize the government. To do so effectively they need credibility and you don’t help your credibility when you blame the government for something that is clearly not its fault. A good example of this has come up recently with the Obama administration’s plan to introduce a “buy American” provision with its “jobs” plan. The Liberals and NDP seem to be blaming the Conservatives for this protectionist move.
The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.
The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.
If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.
Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.
The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.
The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.
The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.
If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.
Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.
The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)