More seriously, after reading through the text of the press conference, it's intriguing to see what was (or wasn't) said.
Harper attempted to play the 'national interest' card on the matter of changes to the US rules around crossing the border. It's notable that he's playing the card very softly.
Perhaps the most significant "not said" issue was the evasiveness with which Harper responded to this question:
Mr. President, on a serious note, in light of the North Korean missile test, [and] the fact that North Korea could launch another series at any minute, did you ask Canada to consider joining the ballistic missile defence shield, and, Mr. Prime Minister, do you think still it's wrong and not in Canada's interests to join?
Mr. Harper's Reply:
Let me just begin by saying that, first of all, the question was asked earlier, I think, is North Korea a threat. I don't think the issue is whether North Korea's a threat. North Korea clearly wants to be a threat . . .
I just want it repeat what the president said. Given that that's a society of the kind of nature it is, I think this should concern us immensely, and the fact that it is prepared to arm itself and prepared to threaten to use such armaments I think is something that we should be gravely concerned about, as was said earlier. Missiles that are fired in the direction of the United States constitute a threat to Canada.
That's one of the reasons why our government renewed on a permanent basis the NORAD treaty. Through NORAD, we have a special relationship on air defence. We share information on these kinds of matters. I think, as you know, to answer your specific question, the government of Canada is not prepared to open the missile defence issue at this time.
But I will say that I think it should be obvious when we look at this kind of threat, why the United States and others would want to have a modern and flexible defence system against this kind of threat. So I think that's something our government at least fully understands.
Charitably, I'd call this an elliptical response. Harper doesn't really address the question of Canada's involvement - he knows that if he comes out and commits Canadians to this particular farce of a program, that it will give his political opponents in Canada ammunition. Consequently, he has tried not to take an explicit position.
When the recent softwood deal is looking more and more like a sellout, with a termination clause that smells pretty rotten to me - it leaves me with the distinct impression that the Americans - whether through their congress or lobby organizations will pull the plug at the first possible opportunity.
Along with a recent - and arbitrary - decision to extend Canada's troop engagement in Afghanistan for two full years, and Canada refusing to censure Israel's heavy handed tactics in the Gaza, I think it's fairly safe to infer that given the opportunity, Stephen Harper would commit Canada wholeheartedly to whatever schemes GWB. came up with.
This is not, in my view, a good thing - not when GWB has shown a distinct propensity for starting wars at the drop of a hat.
1 comment:
The alternative to the craven New Tory party's capitulation to Bush on the softwood issue is very simple.
The NDP, Bloc and Liberals have the majority votes in Parliament. They could agree to pass legislation which would direct the government to table the following revised proposal with the Bush government:
1. Term - The term should be ten years, with no early termination possible unless both sides agree, and the Canadian government is to agree only if a majority of MPs through a free vote (on a non-party basis) in Parliament for an earlier renewal.
2. Automatic renewals - Renewal period should be for automatic five year periods, unless notice of termination is given by either side 12 months before the end of a term (and the Government of Canada would need a majority vote of MPs to give such notice, through a free non-party vote).
3. Payment - Full payment of the $5 billion (yes, that is right, the amount owed under the applicable laws), plus interest on overdue amounts at 5% p.a..
4. No litigation - American lumber companies to agree not to litigate the settlement.
5. Reaffirmation of NAFTA - American government to reaffirm its commitment to the NAFTA treaty.
6. Failure of US to agree -
a. Should the US government not agree to this proposal, then Canada to continue with litigation.
b. Canadian government to fund such litigation by Canadian companies.
c. If the USA takes steps to penalize lumber imports from Canada due to failure to reach agreement as above, the Canadian government is to appoint a Royal Commission with a mandate to review what steps should be taken by the Canadian government to uphold the NAFTA, including whether to terminate the NAFTA (what is the point of an agreement with a government which does not honour its commitments?).
d. Royal Commission to report by February 28 2007.
e. Canadian government to review the findings of the Royal Commission and take such steps as the majority of MPs agree to through a free non-party vote.
f. Canadian government would use taxpayers money to assist Canadian companies who needed assistance due to the non-payment by the Americans of the debt they are refusing to pay.
So, you see: the answer is really simple. All you need is a bit of backbone as the Prime Minister of a country which entered into a treaty with another government in full expectation that the other government would honour its obligations, and not welsh when it suited it.
Our MPs would be in a position where they could reflect the views of their various constituents, as the later votes would be a non-party vote on the issues set out above.
Who will take the lead to stand up for Canada?
Post a Comment