But as fast as they would construct these walls on the outside, they would tear down almost every fence on the inside with an across-the-board harmonization of rules, regulations and laws on everything from who could seek asylum in North America to military operations to pollution and environmental controls.
In fact, they would go so far as to give Canadians and Americans absolute freedom to decide where they would work and where they would live.
Despite the one, big happy North American family portrait that the report painted, the dissenting views of some prominent members of the task force presented a much different picture of where all this harmonization would ultimately lead.
Richard Falkenrath, a former advisor to the president on homeland security, said that because the U.S. stands to gain less from economic harmonization than from a unified approach to security, it would make sense for Washington to demand even more from Canada and Mexico on security, including a common approach to "nuclear and ballistic threats." That could easily be interpreted as wanting Canada to reverse itself and join the U.S. on missile defence, even if it decides to take weapons into space.
Chappell Lawson, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, expressed the concern that the task force ignores the reality that the integration it proposes "will generate large numbers of losers as well as winners," and offers no remedy to alleviate the pain.
And Tom Axworthy, principal secretary to former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, pointed to the case of Maher Arar as an example of the dangers of harmonizing visa and asylum rules. He also wondered what U.S. commitments would mean when North Dakota is already breaking a Canada-U.S. treaty with a water diversion project that threatens Manitoba.
If these are the concerns of people who generally favour greater North American integration, it raises the question of how much greater the risks to Canadian sovereignty and Canadian values really are.
For example, how do you harmonize Canada's commitment to the Kyoto accord on climate change with a partner that refuses to do its part? How do you co-ordinate Ontario's commitment to get rid of its dirty coal-fired power plants with a country that is building more coal-fired plants?
The report doesn't say.
Original article: EDITORIAL: Beware the ties that bind too much
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on May 25, 2005]
Note: EDITORIAL: Beware the t...
EDITORIAL: Beware the t...
Stumble It!
Is it not interesting to see how they spin the notion that Canadian sovereignty is an afront to our national security? Is this just American grand standing or plain old ignorance? I'd say it goes to show you how little Americans know about their neighbours to the north, but in John Manley's case I would say that the same can be true for some Canadians.
The North Dakota violation and on going trade disputes with softwood lumber and cattle only proves the point that an agreement signed in good faith with the United States is not worth the paper it is written on.
Chappel Lawson's comments only show how the individuals who push these 'initiatives' are only serving their own selfish interests. I can just imagine how the Americans will use us and the Mexicans to further their dispicable sanctions against Cuba. And that's only to begin with.
Thankfully inspite of successive Liberal and Conservative governments Canadians as a people are moving further away from Americans when it comes to the enviornment, free trade, gay rights, multilateralism, and a host of different issues. In light of this new shift within North America, we have to ask ourselves, how are they going to try and get away with turning the continent into a fortress?
---
"I pick the bones of what's been done. I'm the revolution when the door is shut. I bite the hand that slaps me senseless. I am far too Canadian" -SotW
>>regulations and laws on everything from who could seek asylum in North America to military operations to pollution and environmental controls.<<,
>>that because the U.S. stands to gain less from economic harmonization than from a unified approach to security,>>>
>>He also wondered what U.S. commitments would mean when North Dakota is already breaking a Canada-U.S. treaty with a water diversion project that threatens Manitoba.<<
It isnt BTW
>>dangers of harmonizing visa and asylum rules<<<
So I thought the term "deep integration" was just to be used in an Economic context. This Article you slapped your little propaganda label on talks abut a whole mess of issues. It is pretty funny to see how quickly you reverse yourself.
On Kyoto, yeah we could have signed it and then underfunded and ignored it like you did. Would we have been more multilateral then?
What a miserable little rag the star is, Linda McQuaig and that little bitch Haroon Siddiqui. Do you think newspapers in the USA keep people on staff to whine about Canada once or twice a week? The answer is no, because no one here would want to read the same unfair diatribes over and over. That in a nutshell is the difference between us.
here is a sample of the great American integrity<br />
<a href="http://www.rense.com/general65/strat2.htm">http://www.rense.com/general65/strat2.htm</a>
<br />
<a href="http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11708557.htm">http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11708557.htm</a>
I don't know about the other issues, but I work on assignment in the USA for a Canadian environmental engineering company and have worked on both sides of the border. The Americans are way, way ahead of us on clean water issues.
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).
---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.
---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.
---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.
The linked article can be summarized as a few politicians shooting their mouths off (posturing) without sufficient evidence to back up their concerns. What else is new?
As indicated in the linked article, 'But independent experts have remained remarkably quiet in the debate, largely because there's little science to support either country's position.'
The above 'thank-you anon' post from a 'different' anon makes no sense at all in terms of the content of either article, or Vive content in general.
Go figure.
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).