Hi Lawry,
Yes, it was me that was wondering if Canada has lost its
way. I'm no longer wondering. If we haven't lost it yet, I'm pretty sure we are
on our way to doing so. I fear that in the next few years we are going to become
increasingly insular, with major attention being given to patching up
federal/provincial differences, which widened significantly under the Chretien
government during the past few years. Chretien's attitude on matters of federal
support to the provinces was to put matters on a largely non-negotiable,
take it or leave it basis. The result was growing discord and alienation between
the federal and provincial governments. The incoming PM, Paul Martin, has given
ever so many signals that he wants to turn this around and to bring about a much
friendlier level of interaction with the provinces and cities.
All this seems well and good. On first appearances, it
would seem nice to see the various parts of the country pull together. But it
raises the question of who will do the pulling. In any country, the farther you
get from the topmost level of government and the closer you get to the ground
level, the more you have to give up higher morality and principles and the more
you have to pay attention to gut-level bread and butter issues. At the topmost
level you can think, like Trudeau did, about Canada being a bilingual country,
about a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and about the inherent rights of
Aboriginal people. Or, like Pearson, you can think of Canada's role in the world
and making Canada a leader in peacekeeping. However, the more you move toward
the bottom, the more you have to give priority to British Columbia's concerns
about softwood lumber exports, Alberta's concerns about oil and gas and beef
exports, Ontario's concerns about remaining a vital part of the automotive
industry, Toronto’s and Montreal’s ties with continental financial markets, and
ever so many other bread and butter issues. And, our economy being what it is,
the more you have to recognize a large correlation between Canadian regional and
local interests and the need to remain friends with the US. Economically, we are
very dependent on American goodwill. And as the US has demonstrated in softwood
lumber and other cases, it can hurt us if it feels we are not playing ball to
the extent that we should.
Having put himself forward as a listener, negotiator and
joint problem solver, Martin’s role is not going to be an easy one. The
provinces will be after him to take up their causes and solve their problems.
And since ever so many of these problems are trade related, good relations with
the US will be a prime requirement, no matter who heads up the Administration
and no matter what that Administration does. For the next few years, I don't
really see much hope of Canada taking much of an independent stand on major
global issues. The Romeo Dallaires of this world can point to the horrors
underway in the Congo, and suggest that we could stop that bloodbath and others
by sending in a few thousand troops, but if it's not on, meaning if it's not an
American priority like Afghanistan and Iraq, forget it.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:06
PM
Subject: Toward a spiritual renaissance
(was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little beaver for Uncle Sam!)
Yes,
good point. I would guess that the differences in values within the US is
greater than those between, collectively, the US and
Canada.
Someone earlier (Ed?) wondered whether Canada was losing its own way.
(Sorry for the lack of precise attribution: I have been for the last two weeks
embroiled in complicated and time-consuming negotiations and and skipping
lightly on my list-reading...) I hope this isn't happening. The West,
generally, is in my growing opinion in deep trouble, morally, culturally. We
very much need a place or places where this degradation is not happening, both
to serve as a haven for those who do not wish to remain part of the
degradation, and to serve eventually as a resource through which the West can
rebuild itself.
I
can think of no more important a priority than this.
Lawry
The current issue of the Economist contains a
review of the US that suggests rather wide ranging differences and growing
divergences in values there as well.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:12
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Be a good
little beaver for Uncle Sam!
Further to this you may be interested in the book:
Fire and Ice: The United States and Canada and the Myth of
Converging Values by Michael Adams.
Adams runs Environics, a polling firm of some repute in
Canada. His sampling of opinion (over a very wide range of
values/issues) shows the differing values between Canadians and Americans
and within the US itself where there are surprisingly wide regional
spreads.
arthur
Lawry:
Times are very difficult, and require a surer, more granular, and
more disciplined treatment than is normally the case. Missteps at this
time can create very bad results. I would hope that Canada's historical
ability to see the moral light and policy essentials will again prevail,
and that Canada may be able to help the US learn what it must, but by
ignoring the US's mistakes, but by guiding the US to their
resolution.
My fear, Lawry,
is that Canada may also have lost its way and that our moral light has
faded since Pearson and Trudeau were Prime Ministers. Chretien,
who is about to leave the scene, is a very bright man, but
a pragmatist, not an idealist. To his credit, he kept us
out of the "coalition of the willing", but he has not offered anything
as an alternative except the rather tired idea that if the UN goes along
with it, we'll go too, knowing full-well that the UN would not. I
read Martin, the incoming Prime Minister, as a neo-con whose major
concern will be keeping the deficit down and improving the economy,
including trade relations with the US. And to improve trade
relations with the US we have to pretend to support what the US
Administration is doing, don't we?
The light of
higher purpose still shines on in Canada, but you increasingly have to
look for it. One sees it in people like Romeo Dallaire, the
general who almost single-handedly tried to stop the blood bath in
Rwanda, but I'm afraid we're not going to find it in our
politicians.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003
10:24 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Be a
good little beaver for Uncle Sam!
Good morning, Ed,
The single most important task that lies ahead for the US is to
learn what it must learn so as to be able to start playing a positive
and helpful role in the world. At this point, we are doing the very
opposite, so the learnings will have to be profound and cognitively
revolutionary. Any reassurances that those who are the present
creators of the US's current policies receive, whether they come from
other US citizens or from foreign sources, will only serve to delay
those learnings and ensure a continuation of the present
policies.
I do not believe that is in the interests of anybody, whether
US citizen or citizen of some other country, for anyone to engage in
behavior that allows the current US policy-makers to believe that they
have done right.
Times are very difficult, and require a surer, more granular,
and more disciplined treatment than is normally the case. Missteps at
this time can create very bad results. I would hope that Canada's
historical ability to see the moral light and policy essentials will
again prevail, and that Canada may be able to help the US learn what
it must, but by ignoring the US's mistakes, but by guiding the US to
their resolution.
Many of us here in the US remember the help of Canada with the
hostages and Americans in Iran. We remember Canada's sterling record
in peace-keeping, and international development assistance. We
remember the contributions of Canadians to the arts and domestic life
in the US. Canada has a great standing in the eyes of US citizens, and
it would be wonderful if Canada could use some of this standing to
help the US find its way to becoming that better citizen of the
world.
Cheers,
Lawry
There are times when, as a Canadian, I feel a little less than
proud of my country's political leaders. This is one of
them.
I see by today’s local paper, the Ottawa Citizen, that Canadian
Federal opposition members are demanding that Prime Minister-to-be
Paul Martin's first order of business this week must be to phone
U.S. President George W. Bush to arrange a meeting that will begin
the process of repairing badly damaged Canada-U.S. relations. The
softwood lumber crisis, mad cow disease and the Iraq war are just
three issues he should address with Mr. Bush immediately, not to
mention establishing a good personal relationship, they say. Tory
leader Peter MacKay said Mr. Martin should not wait for Mr. Bush to
call and congratulate him on winning the Liberal leadership, but
should pick up the phone first and do so this week. And, says
Alliance MP Deb Grey: "He needs to prove what he says about mending
relations with the U.S. -- on BSE, get the borders open, deal with
softwood lumber. We didn't want to get involved in Iraq -- so what
are we going to do on that front?"
Yes, what indeed? What might Bush want in return to favoring us
with a pat on the head? Well, he could grant us the privilege of
joining the US in sinking into the Iraqi quagmire. The Americans
certainly need help there. According to this morning’s Power and
Interest News Report (PINR) dispatch,
"… if the White House is able to corral a greater number of
countries into committing troops to Iraq, the president and his
administration -- specifically the likes of Vice President Dick
Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul
Wolfowitz -- will appear vindicated on charges of unilateralism and
anti-internationalism, which is one of the most widespread and
accepted criticisms of this White House's foreign policy. It would
be both an international and domestic political victory over their
critics if the Bush administration were able to create a true
coalition of military forces sharing constabulary duties in
Iraq."
Question for my fellow Canadians: Do we really want to help these
guys out even if it does mean getting a few more cows over the US
border?
Ed Weick
|
