Sunday, December 27, 2009

North American security perimeter ... again

Yet another article PR piece telling us how the Canada-US border can become 'wafer thin' again, if only we just agree to get inside a North American security perimeter ...

reads the Star headline while supplying no evidence to support it.

Apparently, however, "the more knowledgeable watchers of the cross-border condition suggest Canadians are ready".
Like the director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, concern-trolling about Canada's pig-headed insistance on remaining Canada :
"Perimeter is no longer a dirty word. It's beginning to come up again, at least in academic circles," says David Biette
... whose 'academic circle' includes fellow University of Calgary academic advisor Robert Pastor, Vice Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations 2005 Task Force on the Future of North America:

"The Task Force's central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."

Falling a little behind on that 2010 schedule, aren't we?

Back to Biette in The Star :

"Canada has done so well by NAFTA and we are seeing the emergence of a new generation of more confident, culturally secure Canadians. The old Toronto nationalists of the 1960s were essential to building the idea of a postmodern Canada, but now they're starting to die off."
Former US ambassador to Canada Gordon Giffin, whose"one security perimeter" proposal met a very chilly reception in Canada in 1999, also gets trotted out :
"Those old Canadian worries now sound soooo 20th-century, says Giffin.
"Those old cultural arguments sound like dinosaur-speak today. The world just sort of passed them by," Giffin told the Star.
Whereas by comparison, the deep integration fans are just bristling with fun new ideas.

"Being different from the United States for the sake of being different is irresponsible and an abdication of the national interest. Letting foreign policy be driven by public opinion (particularly when public opinion is an emotional reaction to whatever George W. Bush does) shows a lack of leadership. This was particularly evident in the debate over Canada’s potential participation in ballistic missile defence, something the government had requested before it let the public opinion tail wag the foreign policy dog. If the government changes policies at the whims of public opinion, how reliably will Canada be viewed?"
Let's have that one more time :
"Letting foreign policy be driven by public opinion shows a lack of leadership.
If the government changes policies at the whims of public opinion, how reliably will Canada be viewed?"
Oh, democracy and public opinion. Sooooo '20th century'. Sooooo 'dinosaur-speak'.

I'm guessing a militarized NAFTA in the form of a North American security perimeter would be the end of all that public opinion nonsense.

Canada warms to the idea, indeed.

With thanks to West End Bob for the heads up.
Update : Harebell says What security perimeter?! And provides a nice pie chart.


thwap said...

All they had to do was say their proposal was "revolutionary" and then clink their frosty Coca-Cola (tm) bottles together, and their corporate p.r. bullshit spin would have been complete.

Fucking assholes and morons.

skdadl said...

Hmmn. David Biette, Ugly American.

And once again our Alison shows the msm -- here, the Star's (obviously boring and limited) Washington correspondent -- how to do real research.

I just slogged through that book review of Biette's from 2006. So funny that he would refer to the "Toronto nationalists" as dinosaurs who are now dying off when he was bothering to take seriously even more boring old farts like Jack Granatstein in that review.

I'd love to hear Biette on the subject of his own country's constitution -- probably thinks it's as "quaint" as Alberto Gonzales thought the Geneva Conventions are.

West End Bob said...

No, "thank you," Lady Alison.

I knew you would do it justice . . . .

opit said...

History is a scary thing.The first 40 years our nation existed was a constant dogfight to establish a tariff wall between us and the U.S.
Why ? Because north-south trade is shorter and cheaper than east-west trade. That's what the Crow Rates were about : making internal trade competitive.
Our farmers are farther from supplies like machinery. Thanks to NAFTA, we don't even have an advantage by being the source of petroleum. Our farmers have a shorter growing season with less solar energy to stimulate growth. Plus U.S. farmers are...wait for it...subsidized by the federal government.
'Free Trade' is bleeding us dry.
But all that lovely water that falls from the sky in cooler climate is very attractive to those in the Great American Desert. Fort MacMurray cannot be explained by our appetites either.
Our currency still has some credibility : unlike that of the nation which defaults on fiat currency I.O.U.'s ! I'm talking about the 'freezing' U.S. Dollar accounts of those who they wish to squeeze; like N. Korea, Iran...
If we think we're in bed with an elephant now...just wait.
John Diefenbaker said back in 1957 that it was unacceptable for Canada to be dependent for 30% of its foreign trade with the U.S. You can just imagine what he would have thought of these trends.

Blog Archive