Asymmetrical Information

How about a link to Barlow's story?

Ummm...Molson isn't all that good.
Sure, it's better than our Big Name domestic lagers, but so is Corona, Dos Equis, Heineken (all easily available), and so are the better domestics like Rolling Rock and ANY of the Henry Weinhard's. If you go more expensive, Newcastle Brown Ale and Guiness Stoudt (non-draft) rock. So who care's about Molson's? Or even Moosehead?

RE the lumber thing.

I'm an American. I also try to keep up on various disputes and beefs that other countries have with the good ol' US of A. And I have never heard of this lumber dispute. Last I heard the Canadians were gripin' about fisjing rights, but they always claim that we're pulling too many fish out of the Great Lakes.

Any link to this unknown and terribly minor lumber dispute?

James

You mean 1.5%, not 0.15%.

Yeah, what Andrew said. :)

1.5% would definitely hurt -- a lot. But still, it's nothing compared to the damage Canada's economy would take. After all, $153 billion is less than the United States economy grew last year.

The important thing to remember is the ratio -- US/Canadian trade has over 15 times the impact on Canada's economy that it has on ours. This means that, in the event of a trade war, Canada is guaranteed to be the one that cries "Uncle" first.

Although it's true that the US Canada trade is relatively more important for Canada than for us I don't think one can simply say that the trade is peanuts to us either.

A good chunk of the trade is for intermediate goods used by US companies and they can't be replaced that easily (there's a reason why US and other companies have facilities in Canada after all). A lot of our cars have their engines built in Canada, for example. A lot of trade today has imporatnce beyond the specific numbers becasue of the interrelationships. Remember a few years ago when one little know factory in taiwan caught fire and RAM prices skyrocketed? Turns out they produced some special component almost no one else did. Yes, we can adapt if need be. But there would be a cost.

More importantly, and I know you didn't really address this, it would be illegal under NAFTA.

And, of course, it's simply stupid (see Drezner's comments).

Then again, what isn't in this administration's foreign policy?

1)I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think that the January numbers aren't representative. You're showing an annual trade deficit of $60 billion. If memory serves, it should be more like $10 billion (in Canada's favour).

2)Looking at sales to Canada isn't the entire picture on the American side. Many companies, the automakers in particular, depend on Canadian suppliers to keep their factories running. Even the slowdowns at the border after Sept. 11 caused major heahaches and costs to the Big 3 who are used to using JIT with cross-border suppliers.

3)Yes it would be a bigger hit to the Canadian economy, but it's more than enough of a hit to the American economy to get the proper lobbyists up in arms. Even softwood lumber has lobbyists from the home-building industry trying to sway American policymakers towards the Canadian position.

There is this ridiculous notion on the pro-war side that America doesn't need the rest of the world because it would be worse for the other country than for America. This holds true until you start realizing that if America punished every country against the war (Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, India, China, Russia, etc.) the ultimate loser would be America.

James: I keep up on cross-border relations, and I knew about the softwood lumber dispute ... but I thought we'd resolved it. Shows what I know.

Link here, which is pretty decent, even if the Canucks are maintaining it (and I say that as someone whose best man was Canadian); I didn't know about the cash deposits requirement in 2002.

Snowbacks. Snowbacks with their cheap smokes, losing hockey teams and funny money. ;-)

I don't really see your point here.

Is it that the only economic benefit the US gets from trade with Canada is the value of the goods we sell? That's not right.

Is it that 1.5% of GDP is not significant? That's not right.

Is it that we don't care about relations with Canada or any other country, and can simply shut ourselves off if they don't like something we do? Well, that may be Bush policy, but that's not right either.

I just want someone to explain to me why I can't get Keith's in Oxford, Mississippi.

In case the lumber dispute gets resolved, I'm sure we can have another one about something... after all, where would U.S.-Canadian relations be without a dispute that everyone in Thunder Bay is a-twitter about and nobody in Peoria has ever even heard of?

Thank you kindly for the link, Chris.

James

hi all,
another reason why the canadian threat is not peanuts-- at least until november 2004: do what erstwhile allies threaten to do when we lump extra protection on goods- target a few billion dollars worth of sanctions on products from specific states. like products (oranges, etc) from florida...hmmm? and ...
what would karl rove think about that, i wonder?

also, just a thought--are we thinking of possible multiplier affects of less trade?

A stupid post, won't happen, and a reversal of NAFTA.

The Canadian PM and the Liberal Party have acted shamlessly. There was no reason to follow their lead.

I think it's obvious that the U.S. wouldn't shut down all trade. But like softwood dispute shows, there are things that the U.S. can do, even without violating NAFTA, to hurt Canadian exports. And the amount of damage the U.S. can do to Canada vastly exceeds the damage Canada can do to the U.S.

The CIA World Factbook measures economies in PPP GDP, but exports have to be rated in currency-converted dollars as a technical matter, so the comparison is apples and oranges. Using the currency-conversion based GDP and trade numbers from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica Almanac 2003 (dates given after numbers are dates given in the almanac), we instead reach:

Canadian GDP (1999): $614.003 billion
Canadian Exports (2000): $422.559 billion
Exports to the US: 86.8%, or $336.781 billion
Canadian Economy US Exports Dependency: 59.7%

So, limited U.S. trade actions, carefully chosen to be NAFTA compliant, that reduce Canadian exports to the U.S. by just 5% would mean a 1.5% contraction of the Canadian economy.

US GDP (2000): $9,860.800 billion
US Exports (1999): $695.009 billion
Exports to Canada: 23.9%, or $166.107 billion
US Economy Canada Exports Dependency: 1.7%

So, limited Canadian trade action, carefully chosen to be NAFTA compliant, that reduce US exports to Canada by 5% would mean a mere 0.085% contraction (yes, 85 thousandths of one percent) of the U.S. economy.

****************************

Canada is an economic dependency and military protectorate of the United States. it is called a "partner" by the U.S. by courtesy, not because it reflects the realities of the relationship. If Canada doesn't want the U.S. to rudely drop the pretense of partnership and rub Canada's nose in these facts, perhaps Canada should consider avoiding actions that tempt the U.S. to do so.

dear warmongering lunatic.

"Canada is an economic dependency and military protectorate of the United States. it is called a "partner" by the U.S. by courtesy, not because it reflects the realities of the relationship. If Canada doesn't want the U.S. to rudely drop the pretense of partnership and rub Canada's nose in these facts, perhaps Canada should consider avoiding actions that tempt the U.S. to do so."

ok, that fits.

Whoaaa! Let's not get out of hand. Differences of opinion exist. There are reasons not to think that an attack on Iraq is the right course of action and I can respect that (I do not agree with it, but I can respect an honest opinion.) Canadians firmly believe they have a great country, Americans believe they have a great country. I believe both are right.
America is not the evil empire. What we do, we do in order to make the world safer for American (and Canada).
The President has had to make some difficult choices. I do not envy him nor do I believe anyone could have done better. The decision has been made by our elected representatives and America has acted.
In this difficult hour, we could use the support of our neighbors. But we are willing to try and address the terrorism/wmd issue alone. Canada may do what it must, America is doing what it must. God help us both.

actually i want the us to close the border.. hopefully it will lead to a collapse in government and we can get decent people in charge!

and us doesn't need to do anything illegal under nafta to screw this stuff up.

just mandate a 45 minute interview of everyone crossing the border.

the amount of traffic is ridiculous, and just this apparently innocuous rule change (something completely unaffected by any treaty) would bring canada to its knees.

if you really wanted to screw things up, search everything coming in across the northern border.. do full drug/explosive search of each car and truck...

no rules violated and you would cause serious serious crap in canada..

and we deserve it (bastard government!)

Canadians firmly believe they have a great country, Americans believe they have a great country.

Yes, but the problem is that Canadians also believe that America is a shitty country. Whereas Americans, to be honest, don't think about Canada much at all.

This is about encouraging other countries to use their brains. Canada is utterly dependent on the United States, economically and militarily. The United States, on the other hand, is not particularly dependent on Canada. Therefore it behooves the Canadian government to not make it its mission in life to endlessly insult and berate the United States.

What's changed over the last year and a half, it seems to me, is that Americans have lost their tolerance for being the designated verbal punching bags of every second- and third-rate nation in the world.

Let's just suppose for a moment that the Canadians are subsidizing the cost of softwood lumber exported to the US. Good. If Canadian taxpayers want to count half the stumps and send me the timber company's savings, I'm all for it. If there's anything else they'd like to buy me with their tax dollars, why should the US government want to stop them?

Frankly, I've found Chretien and his Liberals relatively restrained compared to a lot of American Democrats.
Chretien hasn't handled the war well, but now you know how he handles all issues: like a bumbling fool.

And he has belatedly pledged aid for post-war reconstruction (let's face it, we both know that the US doesn't need Canada's military aid), and today there was a motion adopted unanimously by the house of commons, parliament's elected chamber, calling on the government to help "bring to justice Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi officials responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes.

This can only be seen as a giant slap in the face to the moral equivalence crowd at the UN.

So let's all calm down.

Frankly, I've found Chretien and his Liberals relatively restrained compared to a lot of American Democrats.
Chretien hasn't handled the war well, but now you know how he handles all issues: like a bumbling fool.

And he has belatedly pledged aid for post-war reconstruction (let's face it, we both know that the US doesn't need Canada's military aid), and today there was a motion adopted unanimously by the house of commons, parliament's elected chamber, calling on the government to help "bring to justice Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi officials responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes.

This can only be seen as a giant slap in the face to the moral equivalence crowd at the UN.

So let's all calm down.

Michael Wagner: The reason disputes like this occur is because someone this side of the border complains -- specifically, a someone representing US workers who compete against Canadian products.

Yes, we do have a lumber industry. See also: The Pacific Northwest.

I can testify to the fact that the average Canadian is keen on the softwood lumber "affair" since several of my Canadian friends have made mention of it. I only knew of it as a serious issue through watching Canadian TV, though I think I heard something about it on a US (Washington state) news report, but only in passing as a minor point in a story on something else.

I hate to sound stupid, but...what's a "Canada"? I thought there wasn't anything north of North Dakota and Montana except Alaska and some Eskimos. You mean there's really a foreign country up there! Who'da thunk it!

Uh, Jane. Softwood lumber is what your 2x4 is made out of...

Nathan: check again. Guinness is made in Canada nowadays. The label still proudly proclaims "imported"; you have to read the fine print to learn the truth.

I discovered this after noticing that the flavor seemed to have changed.

While this isn't exactly a LIE, I don't deal with companies that engage in that kind of sneaky deception.

Canadian Exports (2000): $422.559 billion
Exports to the US: 86.8%, or $336.781 billion

That should be $366.781 billion, I think. Not that it makes much difference.

The idea of imposing some sort of price on those nations which have actively obstructed our efforts-- France, Germany, and (especially) Russia-- may have merit. But all this about Canada is mere pettiness; they're a sovereign nation, and are no more required to actively support the US war effort than the US is required to support the Kyoto Treaty.

Luckily, any idea of punishment is a nonstarter for the reason identified above by Manish-- most of the costs would fall on a fairly compact and easily self-identifiable group of people, who would be able to stop the scheme dead in its tracks for the usual public-choice reasons.

Whoa, guys -- I wasn't advocating a trade war with Canada. You'll note I said "Our ambassador shouldn't have insulted you", and I'm with them on softwood lumber, probably because I'm not a lumberjack in the Pacific Northwest. I was just pointing out that the relationship is not, as the initial numbers would seem to imply, symmetrical.

Bush sure is petty. He believes in killing his political opponents in this country when they are causing him trouble.

Oops. That was Clinton. (As reported by little George Stephy himself).

Understood, Jane. It's Celucci (who was no rocket scientist as governor of Massachusetts either) and like-minded people who are being ridiculous.

This stuff with Canada will blow over soon. Canada is the US's stuffy, prim sister. She irritates us, but we still love her.

Canada will continue to imply that the US is a slattern and a blot on the family escutcheon (phrase blatently stolen from Wodehouse). The US will continue to imply that Canada needs pull that stick out of her ass and lighten up.

The two countries will have little spats over who gets the family china, and who said what to who's husband. No big deal.

Since Mom (the U.K.) and the other sister (Australia) are pretty much siding with the US on this one, Canada will have a prim, proper little huff and get over it. Maybe she will even go out, get laid and loosen up a bit.

Since Australia has moved to the other side of the globe, and Mom lives in her little flat overseas, the US doesn't get into it as much with them. Having your sister as your next door neighbor always leads to a fair amount of friction.

There is one heck of a sitcom in this, somewhere.

I can't believe how much attention Cellucci's comments are getting south of the border. To all the American's who are legitimately coming to Canada's defense - my sincere thanks. To everyone who is just using it as an excuse to bash Bush - thanks anyway, we can take care of ourselves.

Jane (and others) are correct. Canada's trade relationship with the US is highly one-sided. A recent National Post story (sorry, no link)indicated that cross-border trade represents about 80% of Canada's foreign trade and 3% of America's. 40% of our GDP is directly tied to US trade. I've never tried to confirm these numbers, but they certainly sound reasonable.

As LUA points out, just tightening up security at border crossings would have a tremendous impact on us, much less on you. If it was a long-term thing the big 3 automakers eventually wouldn't need to worry about JIT delivery of parts from Canadian plants because those plants would all be located in the US.

And while support on Iraq is probably a factor, it's not the only one. There has been a steady stream of insults from the Canadian government directed at the US lately, and cooperation on other security issues hasn't exactly been the Liberal Government's top priority either.

I'm a Canadian, and I really hope that relations with the US don't deteriorate further. But it's not like Cellucci's comments came out of nowhere, and there are a large number of Canadians, including a large portion of the governing Liberals, who needed a reality check. I just hope it worked.

Regarding consequences, here is a (rather lengthy) quote from a column by Andrew Coyne in Canada's National Post:

"There is a world taking shape after this war, and Canada, it grows ever clearer, will not be part of it. The institutions of our imagined influence -- the UN, NATO, the whole apparatus of Cold War statesmanship to which our Foreign Affairs thinkers cling, as if drowning -- have shown themselves to be obsolete, at least as far as the Americans are concerned. Whatever takes their place will be reserved to those who have proved reliable allies in the crunch.

[...] There are huge potential advantages to Canada in a world centred on the United States, and we have just thrown them all away. While our other historic allies, the British and the Australians, fight alongside the Americans, with more than 40 other nations in support, we have cast our lot with the French, and as Brian Mulroney wickedly put it the other day, "our new friends": the Russians, the Chinese, and the Germans.

[...]

But the best is yet to come. Watch as the government now scrambles to get back onside with the Americans, without the slightest trace of irony or self-respect. For all we care, we've just told them, you can die in the sand alone. But we're still your best friends, right?"

Trade-related consequences would definitely hurt, but loss of influence hurts too, and we may be at the point where that's almost a given.

I agree with Dan's point that the genesis of this is that we are no longer willing to take mindless criticism from every other country in the world as we have been. Accepting these lowbrow potshots without comment or action contributed to rampant Anti-Americanism which had a much greater impact than we ever expected.

South Koreans want to protest our presence? Rummy ponders a re-allocation of forces. Germany isn't sure if we can use their airspace? Let's talk with Poland and Romania. Canada's elected officials call our president a moron or state that they hate Americans? Let's talk about border security.

The bottom line is, America isn't going to be everyone's punching bag any longer (at least not until the Democrats hand foreign policy back to the state department). This position is perfectly appropriate. It forces these countries to evaluate our entire relationship instead of just blaming us for anything that doesn't work perfectly.

I favor remaining in the UN, mostly because if we resign it will become the devil's playground. But I think we should start the stake into NATO's heart. Not only has NATO allowed the Western European countries to make awful fiscal decisions, it frees them from concern about negative consequences of their political positions.

A series of bilateral agreements would work just fine in its place. After all, it isn't like we would be getting any help anyway. Since we (with Britian) are the security guarantor, those who enter agreements receive substantially the same benefit. At the same time, what good is an alliance with members who refuse to defend each other. What does France and Germany's military have to offer us? NATO's history for the last 30 years has been nothing but a huge free rider program. Let's put these countries on the spot and see who is willing to be a partner, and who is just a leech.

Jane,

Let's say we lost 1.5% of GDP as a result of Canada no longer willing to trade with us.

Under which account would you track the loss? Would it be a "cost of war?" :)

All the Canadians I ever knew worry endlessly about the details of the trade arrangements with the US. Americans have no idea what they even are, and have no reason to care.

Brian Mulroney has made a neat transition from a mediocre politician to a fairly decent statesman. I think being out of power suits him and has made him free to make the detached trenchant observation from time to time.

Well I think Canada is a nifty place filled with some of the nicest folks you could ever meet.

There will be no trade war as a result of Canada's failure to support the Iraq war. There will be no "consequences" at all--except perhaps the recall of a rather empty-headed ambassador.

Funny how the current occupant of the White House spouts off about "free markets"---except when it is convienient for him not to.

I have not forgotten that Canadians were killed in Afghanistan...for those of you old enough I remind you that it was Canadians who put their lives on the line to get some of our people out of Tehran in 1980. No doubt there are other examples.

Canadian beer, however, is substandard (excepting the Guinness which is produced under license). Ireland Uber alles!

well, let's say you are a executive at a major american company, what would you do if trade relations between the US and Canada started to be blocked due to tit for tat retaliation?

I have a guess, stop donating money to the republican party - it's bad for business.

The only good thing about Canada is the number of French-Canadian strippers that perform at Niagra Falls bars. Eh?

Manish writes:"There is this ridiculous notion on the pro-war side that America doesn't need the rest of the world because it would be worse for the other country than for America. This holds true until you start realizing that if America punished every country against the war (Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, India, China, Russia, etc.) the ultimate loser would be America. - "

The "ridiculous notion" that the anti-war side has is that the odious-Bush-led United States is this overweening unilateralist hegemon that demands total obeisance from the rest of the world. (BTW, have you added up the total GNP of the countries you mentioned? And who is to say we need to punish them as a group? Taking them one at a time based on who was the most odious in opposing us and who is the most vulnerable would be a very effective strategy)

The core of this worldview boils down to some pretty basic human issues: Power, dependency, and envy.The powerful cannot be loved -- they can be admired, respected, feared, hated, envied,or resented but never loved.

The US is rather naive about this. They want to be loved. They think they should get credit for the benefits that they provide for other countries. They think that, for instance, Canada should appreciate the fact that a large part of her high standard of living is due to the economic relationship with the US. (BTW, one thing that wasn’t pointed out in the previous posts is the large number of Canadian companies that are branches of US companies - or other foreign companies for that matter - Canada isn’t exactly a leading country in developing its own industries other than the natural resource sector. Also, the ripple effects weren’t considered). Furthermore, an even higher artificial standard of living is allowed by virtue of Canada defaulting on its own defense obligations. Shit, Canada has larger territory to defend than the US. Can anyone make a credible argument that Canada’s military is in any way capable of mounting its own defense? Canada would be forced to divert billions and billions of dollars from their beloved social programs if they really had to pull their own weight. But Canadian politicians are shrewd enough to know that however strained the relationship, the US will defend Canada because it is in the US’s self-interest to do so.

Nevertheless, the realization of this dependency on the US breeds a resentment that is akin to the resentment a modestly talented son of a self-made highly successful entrepreneur feels. He gladly revels in the luxuries and privileges his status affords him but despises the fact that he has to “kiss his daddy’s ass” to make sure his trust fund checks keep coming. He also knows that he could never on his own provide the lifestyle he enjoys and therefore has tremendous feelings of inferiority that cause even greater rage. Meanwhile, “Daddy” thinks sonny boy should appreciate what he has gladly provided for him. He doesn’t really want anything more in return but he becomes mighty upset when Sonny mouths off to him in front of the employees and says nasty things behind his back to competitors at conventions.

Well we are really talking about contries here and not Daddy and Sonny so lets consider the following statement:

"But all this about Canada is mere pettiness; they're a sovereign nation, and are no more required to actively support the US war effort than the US is required to support the Kyoto Treaty."

In the first place that is a specious comparison. Equating our expectation that Canada support our war effort with our support of the Kyoto treaty is pure bullshit. We are talking about a long-standing close relationship between two neighboring countries that have important ties politically, culturally, and militarily. The US subsidizes Canada’s defense and is vital to Canada’s economy. Yes Canada is a sovereign nation and is not required to support the US. But unless one is completely naïve about diplomacy and believes that countries take public positions without the most cynical self-interest being behind it -- One can legitimately ask the question: what political capital does Canada gain by taking the positions it has? Will France or Russia or China rush in to fill the breach? Fat fucking chance. Canada is being used like a tool. What does Canada have to offer France or Russia or China that is essential to their self-interest other than being a nasty pimple on the US’s ass? It’s funny how the anti-war types always cynically disbelieve any pronouncement by the Bush administration and always look for the underlying nefarious motivations but accept at face value the positions taken by France or Russia or China or any other country that has a long running history of treachery, repression, and prevarication. You left wing Canucks love to bash Bush but people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Chretien ( drop a few letters and it becomes the more apropos Cretin) is nothing but a lower case Chirac with lower case delusions of grandeur who has taken a highly risky political course with no clear benefit other than pandering to his political base of anti American multi-culti fetishists.

Manish writes:"There is this ridiculous notion on the pro-war side that America doesn't need the rest of the world because it would be worse for the other country than for America. This holds true until you start realizing that if America punished every country against the war (Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, India, China, Russia, etc.) the ultimate loser would be America. - "

The "ridiculous notion" that the anti-war side has is that the odious-Bush-led United States is this overweening unilateralist hegemon that demands total obeisance from the rest of the world. (BTW, have you added up the total GNP of the countries you mentioned? And who is to say we need to punish them as a group? Taking them one at a time based on who was the most odious in opposing us and who is the most vulnerable would be a very effective strategy)

The core of this worldview boils down to some pretty basic human issues: Power, dependency, and envy.The powerful cannot be loved -- they can be admired, respected, feared, hated, envied,or resented but never loved.

The US is rather naive about this. They want to be loved. They think they should get credit for the benefits that they provide for other countries. They think that, for instance, Canada should appreciate the fact that a large part of her high standard of living is due to the economic relationship with the US. (BTW, one thing that wasn’t pointed out in the previous posts is the large number of Canadian companies that are branches of US companies - or other foreign companies for that matter - Canada isn’t exactly a leading country in developing its own industries other than the natural resource sector. Also, the ripple effects weren’t considered). Furthermore, an even higher artificial standard of living is allowed by virtue of Canada defaulting on its own defense obligations. Shit, Canada has larger territory to defend than the US. Can anyone make a credible argument that Canada’s military is in any way capable of mounting its own defense? Canada would be forced to divert billions and billions of dollars from their beloved social programs if they really had to pull their own weight. But Canadian politicians are shrewd enough to know that however strained the relationship, the US will defend Canada because it is in the US’s self-interest to do so.

Nevertheless, the realization of this dependency on the US breeds a resentment that is akin to the resentment a modestly talented son of a self-made highly successful entrepreneur feels. He gladly revels in the luxuries and privileges his status affords him but despises the fact that he has to “kiss his daddy’s ass” to make sure his trust fund checks keep coming. He also knows that he could never on his own provide the lifestyle he enjoys and therefore has tremendous feelings of inferiority that cause even greater rage. Meanwhile, “Daddy” thinks sonny boy should appreciate what he has gladly provided for him. He doesn’t really want anything more in return but he becomes mighty upset when Sonny mouths off to him in front of the employees and says nasty things behind his back to competitors at conventions.

Well we are really talking about contries here and not Daddy and Sonny so lets consider the following statement:

"But all this about Canada is mere pettiness; they're a sovereign nation, and are no more required to actively support the US war effort than the US is required to support the Kyoto Treaty."

In the first place that is a specious comparison. Equating our expectation that Canada support our war effort with our support of the Kyoto treaty is pure bullshit. We are talking about a long-standing close relationship between two neighboring countries that have important ties politically, culturally, and militarily. The US subsidizes Canada’s defense and is vital to Canada’s economy. Yes Canada is a sovereign nation and is not required to support the US. But unless one is completely naïve about diplomacy and believes that countries take public positions without the most cynical self-interest being behind it -- One can legitimately ask the question: what political capital does Canada gain by taking the positions it has? Will France or Russia or China rush in to fill the breach? Fat fucking chance. Canada is being used like a tool. What does Canada have to offer France or Russia or China that is essential to their self-interest other than being a nasty pimple on the US’s ass? It’s funny how the anti-war types always cynically disbelieve any pronouncement by the Bush administration and always look for the underlying nefarious motivations but accept at face value the positions taken by France or Russia or China or any other country that has a long running history of treachery, repression, and prevarication. You left wing Canucks love to bash Bush but people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Chretien ( drop a few letters and it becomes the more apropos Cretin) is nothing but a lower case Chirac with lower case delusions of grandeur who has taken a highly risky political course with no clear benefit other than pandering to his political base of anti American multi-culti fetishists.

Manish writes:"There is this ridiculous notion on the pro-war side that America doesn't need the rest of the world because it would be worse for the other country than for America. This holds true until you start realizing that if America punished every country against the war (Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, India, China, Russia, etc.) the ultimate loser would be America. - "

The "ridiculous notion" that the anti-war side has is that the odious-Bush-led United States is this overweening unilateralist hegemon that demands total obeisance from the rest of the world. (BTW, have you added up the total GNP of the countries you mentioned? And who is to say we need to punish them as a group? Taking them one at a time based on who was the most odious in opposing us and who is the most vulnerable would be a very effective strategy)

The core of this worldview boils down to some pretty basic human issues: Power, dependency, and envy.The powerful cannot be loved -- they can be admired, respected, feared, hated, envied,or resented but never loved.

The US is rather naive about this. They want to be loved. They think they should get credit for the benefits that they provide for other countries. They think that, for instance, Canada should appreciate the fact that a large part of her high standard of living is due to the economic relationship with the US. (BTW, one thing that wasn’t pointed out in the previous posts is the large number of Canadian companies that are branches of US companies - or other foreign companies for that matter - Canada isn’t exactly a leading country in developing its own industries other than the natural resource sector. Also, the ripple effects weren’t considered). Furthermore, an even higher artificial standard of living is allowed by virtue of Canada defaulting on its own defense obligations. Shit, Canada has larger territory to defend than the US. Can anyone make a credible argument that Canada’s military is in any way capable of mounting its own defense? Canada would be forced to divert billions and billions of dollars from their beloved social programs if they really had to pull their own weight. But Canadian politicians are shrewd enough to know that however strained the relationship, the US will defend Canada because it is in the US’s self-interest to do so.

Nevertheless, the realization of this dependency on the US breeds a resentment that is akin to the resentment a modestly talented son of a self-made highly successful entrepreneur feels. He gladly revels in the luxuries and privileges his status affords him but despises the fact that he has to “kiss his daddy’s ass” to make sure his trust fund checks keep coming. He also knows that he could never on his own provide the lifestyle he enjoys and therefore has tremendous feelings of inferiority that cause even greater rage. Meanwhile, “Daddy” thinks sonny boy should appreciate what he has gladly provided for him. He doesn’t really want anything more in return but he becomes mighty upset when Sonny mouths off to him in front of the employees and says nasty things behind his back to competitors at conventions.

Well we are really talking about contries here and not Daddy and Sonny so lets consider the following statement:

"But all this about Canada is mere pettiness; they're a sovereign nation, and are no more required to actively support the US war effort than the US is required to support the Kyoto Treaty."

In the first place that is a specious comparison. Equating our expectation that Canada support our war effort with our support of the Kyoto treaty is pure bullshit. We are talking about a long-standing close relationship between two neighboring countries that have important ties politically, culturally, and militarily. The US subsidizes Canada’s defense and is vital to Canada’s economy. Yes Canada is a sovereign nation and is not required to support the US. But unless one is completely naïve about diplomacy and believes that countries take public positions without the most cynical self-interest being behind it -- One can legitimately ask the question: what political capital does Canada gain by taking the positions it has? Will France or Russia or China rush in to fill the breach? Fat fucking chance. Canada is being used like a tool. What does Canada have to offer France or Russia or China that is essential to their self-interest other than being a nasty pimple on the US’s ass? It’s funny how the anti-war types always cynically disbelieve any pronouncement by the Bush administration and always look for the underlying nefarious motivations but accept at face value the positions taken by France or Russia or China or any other country that has a long running history of treachery, repression, and prevarication. You left wing Canucks love to bash Bush but people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Chretien ( drop a few letters and it becomes the more apropos Cretin) is nothing but a lower case Chirac with lower case delusions of grandeur who has taken a highly risky political course with no clear benefit other than pandering to his political base of anti American multi-culti fetishists.

Comments are Closed.