| |
|
im sad to see people missing the point on this. so sad that im going to ramble on for a really, really long time.
im canadian, and your (plural) failure to see the point of questioning the spp is as ridiculous as not understanding the significance of irelands economic rise.
victim gave us a misleading first post by trying to lay aside the conspiracy angle. the problem with the spp is its conspiratorial nature. the problem isnt the building of a highway (which is listed as one of the 'myths' on the site linked above) or the coordination of emergency protocol. the problem is that the spp so far consists of secret meetings between bush and harper, the two creepiest people to lead their respective countries in a long time, and calderon, whose creepiness im not privy to, but who came to power in a suspiciously bush-like scenario. few people outside of the activist community had heard of the spp before the well-publicised incident in august of this year, when quebec police placed agents provocateurs among the ~1000 protesters.
canadian culture involves a cautious fear of america, along with a grudging respect. to us, the united states seems less like a big brother, and more like a little brother who has grown bigger and stronger than us. with our nearly unanimous negative opinion on bush, and suspicion of american international policy, this does not seem like the ideal time to tie ourselves more tightly to the usa. thus, bush and harper (actually our previous pm, martin, got it underway) have basically ignored public opinion, and there was close to zero media coverage of the spps existence until the quebec incident became a hot underground story.
when these kinds of agreements are negotiated, canadians wonder how much the americans simply dictate the terms. the original free trade agreement between canada and usa was controversial, but legitimized when brian mulroney won an election on it. nafta was ratified under a slightly less sleazy scenario than the spp-- parliament debated it, and it was a big news story, but remains a hot-button issue for canadians 15 years later. both agreements are still controversial in canada because they are designed to deregulate exports, which means canada gives away piles of natural resources, while importing mostly value-added manufactured goods.
the rumour goes in canada that any commodity, once exported, cannot be later denied nor the (adjusted) price raised. i think its article 315, but i cant interpret it completely and im not going to search the whole document. im not sure if this is really the problem for canada, or merely the one that resonates with our perception that the usa wants to suck us dry of our natural resources. the simpler issue is simply that canada is relatively tiny, and increasing free trade makes our industries more vulnerable to irrelevance, marginalization, and takeover by richer american interests.
the most famous case of canada being screwed involves us trying to get a fair price on our raw lumber (i.e. trying to give away our natural resources more cheaply, probably because the forestry companies are american-owned).
the spp recalls truly paranoid conspiracies that canadians scare each other with around the campfire, like the idea of draining hudsons bay to sell water to the usa. or the idea of becoming americas biggest state. truly, if the spp is ratified, the usa will control our military and police forces (likely through 'subsidies' similar to the current system in place in mexico). the usa will be able to buy whatever they want of canadian capital and labour. canadian immigration and customs will be dictated by american security concerns. etc.
now maybe i still sound like a paranoid canadian nutcase. but this is the atmosphere in canada among people who know about the spp. we know globalization is in progress, and we need trade agreements to compete. but why is there no public debate? why are there only three men at the table of discussion? why is this thing moving forward when all three governments are led by psychotic right-wing warmongers? (i dont know much about calderon, but i know hes trying to position himself as an anti-chavez, and that he has welcomed american efforts to fight drug crimes within mexico and extradite mexicans to the usa-- this last one hits me hard as a british columbian, thinking of marc emery, a vancouverite who ran an online cannabis-seed-exporting company, and is currently fighting extradition after being arrested at the request of the dea.) its not realistic at this time in history to expect every citizen to google spp (and i cant even find the canadian spp site on the list) and then write letters to the prime minister. there has to be a public media debate as well as a parliamentary debate. people like victim are the closest we are getting to the former, and it took a citizens petition to even get shouted down in parliament.
europeans probably see free trade as a good thing, and i think the eu works reasonably well (starting to fall apart due to immigration issues?), but imagine if you were in a union with the united states! and mexico is not far off your turkey, or at least romania. its clear to me that spp means more jobs flowing to mexico, and more money flowing to the usa, while canada bleeds nonrenewable resources (logs, water, energy) faster and faster. the spp is barely comparable to the eu. i think its probably closer to the warsaw pact. there are two reasons i see behind the canadian governments compliance in this issue: fear of the united states, and fear of the chinese alternative. |
|
|
