Canada’s Priorities
Originally written Monday, March 07, 2005
So, What Should Canada’s Priorities Be?
I received some interesting feedback to my post entitled “Consequences” last week, which pointed out that Canada ought to be fulfilling an active and meaningful role in the world instead of just reacting to the United States. niallking asked “when was the last time that Canada did anything of consequence in the international sphere?” and said that Canada, while a member of the G7, is “far from the 7th most active country in taking active roles in solving international crisis”. alevo agreed and said that “taking an active role in the world doesn’t mean giving up independence, but it does mean crafting a coherent strategy”.
The “anybody-but-Bush” strategy failed for John Kerry in his bid to win the presidency. I think an “anything-but-America” strategy will likely fail for Canada too, and it certainly won’t be good for relations with the US. But what exactly should our role be in regards to the United States? In a Toronto Star article, Rick Anderson addresses our relationship with the US by saying we need to decide what is important to us, like:
Open and fair trade, where disputes are more quickly and fairly resolved; a healthy partnership in North American security (the continental approach that outgoing U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci advocated, only to be cold-shouldered by Jean Chrétien); collaborative forays in selected areas of international affairs, such as spreading freedom and democracy, peacekeeping; modernizing multilateral institutions (the U.N., NATO, G7, G20); countering terror; fighting HIV-AIDS and helping Africa develop.
The problem with this list of issues is that it seems, in good part, to be dictated by the issues that are most important to the US. Sure, “open and fair trade” connects to mad cow and softwood lumber, but it also meshes nicely with US desires, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Or how about “spreading freedom and democracy”, a phrase pulled word-for-word from Bush’s last State of the Union address. Anyone care to join the US in the next Iraq?
Given our unique and dire planetary circumstances and the central role the US plays in them, the stakes are high. That’s why I think Canada needs to adopt a strategy that helps us – all of us, not just Canadians – pull out of the mess we’re in. This is going to mean countering a good many US policies, simply because of their destructive nature. I think the best way of doing that is to lead by example. If we politely decline to participate in any US idea that is bad for the planet, even if it might be good for us in the short term (e.g. BMD), and pursue policies that are beneficial to the planet and to Canadian citizens, we can provide an example to our neighbour down south that it is possible to be internationally helpful, environmentally sound, and socially just, and make it work.
This means putting money into domestic policies that make us better – education, environmental protection, health care, research and development – and cooperating with other countries to pursue international policy achievements. We’ve already started by ratifying the Kyoto Treaty, and now we need to show the US that it can work and it can make life better for Canadians. Similarly, if there are international efforts led by other countries underway to resolve disputes diplomatically instead of by force – the efforts of France, Germany and Britain to negotiate with Iran over nuclear development, for example – we ought to lend a hand.
By acting internationally but with a global conscience and by acting domestically with a Canadian conscience, we can turn Canada into an example of what is possible when the politics of fear and profit are discarded. That’s what real international leadership is all about.
Comment from Alevo:
Agreed. It is much more consequential to disagree with someone in principle when you also have an alternative. To simply disagree is, well, simple.
Niallking:
I support free trade in almost all forms (even FTAA), and I don’t think that anyone has the right to block 3rd world laborers from competing in the labour market.
Of course, I do not support exploitation either, but suggesting that corporations should be blocked from starting operations in South America because they [i]might[/i] exploit the workers serves no ones interest except the North American unions (who conveniently cloak their true motives as civil rights values).
It is also incredibly naive to assume that there is anyway to develop the economies of 3rd world countries without the participation of the worlds largest employers. Of course, many will argue that the wages paid in those markets are inherently exploitational (by western standards), but that is the reality of supply and demand. Self sustaining economies can not be built with handouts (look at Russia); the only way to develop the wealth of 3rd world countries is to allow them to compete in the world market whereever they can (i.e. cheap labour).
It is my opinion that the majority of the left should focus their influence on finding ways to encourage corporations to take a more constructive role in the development of the countries they enter, rather than stonewalling, and blacklisting, any that attempt to do business there. Ultimately, the left are doing as much damage (if not more) to the economies of South America as the capitalists are.
Alevo:
Let me get this straight. In your opinion niallking it is the duty of the political left to encourage constructive corporatism; blocking exploitive labour practices in South America benefits no one but North American unions. Where would you ascribe some degree of corporate resposibilty? Is development at any consequence acceptable for you? Let me pose that another way: if the Canadian government developed a pilot program to have the sewing of Canadian flags done by the Innu at Natuashish for 1/100th of minimum wage – you would say: “I have no problem with that, it is naive to assume they could be helped otherwise. I blame Jack Layton and Buzz Hargrove.”
Niallking:
Firstly, in order to put your question in the correct context, one would have to assume that no one else was willing to employ the Innu – or they would not accept the jobs period.
In that situation there are two possible outcomes/analogies:
1) The Canadian government recieves such bad publicity (spread by Jack and Buzz) from the ‘flag affair’ that it pulls out of Natuashish leaving them with no jobs at all. Futhermore, the government cancels an initiative to open up the Natuashish market to private sector development destroying any hope of other employers entering the market in the near future. This assumes that most Canadian don’t consider the Innu as their responsibility – similar to the attitude of the rest of the world towards South America.
2) The Canadian government is pressured by the people to increase wages; which it does only to the point that the cost benefits of flag sewing in Natuashish remain profitable. Other employers note that it is possible to run a successful manufacturing business in the region, and industries develop. Competition for the Innu labour market rises (as well as wages) and the region is eventually on the path to 2nd world status.
Unfortunately, the attitudes of many leaf leaners towards trade with South America falls in-line with the blindingly myopic ‘corporations are evil – block them in everything they do’ chorus that seems more inclined to produce outcome one than outcome two.