Chavez is also talking about developing nuclear power and getting help from Iran. He met with Iran’s President Khatami in March and is now proposing that Venezuela work with other South American countries to develop nuclear power. It is unclear how serious Chavez is about this, but his choice of Iran as a partner is no doubt calculated to be yet another thorn in the side of George Bush.
All of Bush’s problems of shrinking influence are not in South America though. Iran itself has been doing all it can to ignore US attempts to control Iranian nuclear ambitions. Whether Iran is simply developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as it claims, or whether their research is for much more sinister purposes as the US claims, the reality is that Iran has been successful in doing what it wants no matter what threats the US has made. They pay little heed to the US threats, instead using those threats to their own political advantage.
Lately Hamid Karzai, the man chosen as the American puppet leader of occupied Afghanistan, has spoken out strongly against US control of Afghanistan. While his tone softened after meeting Bush, the Afghan leader asked for more control over the US military and more say in running his own country.
The spark for Karzai’s requests was ostensibly yet another case of US mistreatment of prisoners. It was really more than that though. Karzai’s push for more control in his country comes from continued problems with the US mishandling of issues from the opium trade to cultural differences. The US government has shown little or no propensity for working with the Afghan government or the people of Afghanistan, instead preferring to issue orders to them.
Karzai is, in large part, reacting to pressure from within Afghanistan. The disrespect shown for Afghan traditions and the greater Islamic world by the United States is having repercussions for the government of Afghanistan. Karzai, like all political leaders, would like to hang onto power. He would also like to keep his head.
The resistance to US control even reached deep into Washington when the Senate Committee running the Oil for Food witch hunt made the unfortunate (for them) decision to have British MP George Galloway testify. Galloway has already successfully sued members of the British press for making the same allegations, based on the same evidence, that the US Senate is making. He is also no shrinking violet, having honed his political skills in the tough world of British politics. Galloway is a tough Scot who, after being run out of Tony Blair’s Labour party for opposing George Bush, ran on the ticket of the small Respect-The Unity Coalition, and again won his seat.
Galloway lined up the Senate committee and, to put it in terms that George Bush might understand, tore them a new one. While the sycophantic US press made excuses and tried to paint Galloway as a loose cannon and, just maybe, mentally unstable, the world looked on and cheered. Somebody had just stood up to the neighbourhood bully and clearly come out on top.
The picture is much the same all over the world. The reaction to US hegemony of late has been a large yawn, sometimes followed by a further defiance of US wishes. Whether it is China reacting to the issue of Taiwan, or Vladimir Putin ignoring attempted US influence over the internal affairs of Russia, it is becoming very clear that the US does not have the influence that it once claimed to have.
The latest blow is the Amnesty International Report 2005 that singled out the human rights abuses of the United States as being not only hypocritical, but leading other nations to commit their own abuses. It seems the only area the US has influence these days is when it sets a bad example. Irene Khan, Amnesty’s Secretary General, characterized US actions like this, "The USA, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity."
All US officials could do is issue denials. Those denials sound increasingly false, however. In the face of continual dishonesty of the American government since the beginning of Bush’s first term in office, nobody outside of the Republican Party takes anything the US government says as fact. That their denials cannot be backed up with any information that contradicts Amnesty International’s charges weakens the denials that much more.
It is not an accident that US influence in the world has so greatly diminished lately. The world has tired of the United States meddling in the affairs of other countries. The world has grown tired of the constant stream of propaganda, hollow accusations, and outright lies that flow from the White House. While the US still wields economic and military power, the economic influence is increasingly endangered by debt and economic mismanagement and the US military is seen as over-extended, ill-equipped, and under-trained for the realities of the missions it finds itself on.
Canada’s present position in regard to the United States is not good. The human rights abuses that Amnesty International pointed out in Canada were mostly because of our cooperation with the US when it comes to security issues. The handling of the Maher Arar case and the issuing of security certificates were front and centre in Canadian human rights abuses. We have done little to aid Canadian citizens being held in Guantanamo and have done next to nothing to protect Canadians being tortured abroad.
As troubling as our human rights abuses is the toadyish behaviour of our government and the official opposition when it comes to US relations. We have done nothing to help the UN protect itself from the constant barrage of attacks against it by the United States. We have done little to stand up for ourselves or others who are suffering from the excesses of the United States. Our political and business elite are pushing harder than ever for us to become even more under the control of the giant to our south.
Even as the United States loses credibility and influence on the world stage, our leaders are doing all in their power to make us nothing more than a client state of the US, a mere satellite like Poland was to the USSR during the Cold War.
This is, we are told, for our own good. Vague threats of economic doom and border closures if we don’t let the US dictate our policies to us abound. These threats are hollow, the US can no more survive economically without us than we can without them. To let these threats dictate our foreign and domestic policy has nothing to do with what’s best for Canada and everything to do with what is most profitable for US based multi-national corporations.
The US is well on its way to becoming a feckless and dictatorial, if menacing, buffoon. It is time for Canada to stand up and side, clearly and loudly, with the international community and multilateral institutions. To do otherwise is to hang from the coattails of a failing giant and to give up whatever respect we may still have on the international stage.
I believe most of the postures and violent aggression of large scale governments is linked to resource control - oil, of course, and Mexico and Argentina have it - global trade, etc.
Well, our hemisphere must recognize ourselve as environmentally friendly to our hostess, the earth.
We are a species that can only be our best when we are in balance with out local resources. Political borders and manuevering is an old game. We are a new paradigm and the borders dont stop us. We are stewards, dependent on the health of the continent.
A groundswell of humanity - or a continued jet-set good-news consumer society doomed to degeneration and decay.
Hail to your perspective, sir.
That's kind of my point, Calumny. I don't think we're wearing rosey coloured glasses or any other kind of eye-wear though, just that we should be. We've become myopic to the point where all we see is a trade relationship that we don't dare endanger, no matter what the real cost.
The reason it bothers me is that it happens to play into the spinning of governments' like Venezuela's actions as rash, threatening (well, exactly), aggressive, uncooperative etc. which is the way they're represented in the mainstream media, im sure much to the delight of our governments.
---
These days, if you are not confused, you are not thinking clearly. Mrs. Irene Peters
But are they first-hand from the U.S., or second-hand from vested interests on our side of said border?
Let's get this straight: the U.S. is not dictating our policies, nor does it have any particular interest in doing so. Certain demographics within Canada (like the CCCE) believe it to be cheaper and easier, as far as their own interests are concerned, for Canada to harmonize its systems with those of the United States. And, in the interest of political convenience, harmonizing means adopting. That's because things like having multiple jurisdictions, languages, and regulatory bodies to deal with is costlier and more of a nuisance. It's the same motivator as the mega-city craze, which allows one-stop-shopping for business/development interests.
So it's a group of Canadians who are dictating, driven by a self interest that they assert will trickle down and close an alleged prosperity gap once and for all. Keep in mind if this doesn't happen, or doesn't happen quickly enough, many proponents don't really care, as their personal downside is probably an order of magnitude larger than than the average Canuck's 649 dreams. At the same time, that doesn't mean all of the proposals are bad. And even if one such proposal is bad, it doesn't mean all of them are.
So it is up to other Canadians to weigh these arguments and potentially accommodate or disappoint the authors. If we can manage this exercise without constantly insulting our friends in the U.S. we might get somewhere.
I disagree. If this were the case, we'd have been in Iraq. I'm sure you recall all the dire warnings from various corporate shills as to the sorry fate that awaited us if we didn't jump on board. While not wanting to be melodramatic, there were more than a few willing to spill a bit of Canadian blood (not their own or their family's, of course) in the name of the mighty god of trade.
For once, they lost (sort of.). And they lost on BMD as well (sort of.).
However, as I and a number of other Vive participants have indicated, there has never been a "Canada" that was functioned on any basis that might accord with the best interests of most Canadians. Anyone disagreeing with this is welcome to provide information to convince me otherwise however, in the absence of this information I'll hold to my opinion on the matter.
If this Canada existed, we wouldn't be here discussing concerns about lost sovereignty, provincial separation, injustice towards natives, etc.
This Canada might take the actions you're suggesting. However, while there's evidence, see Iraq and BMD above, that this Canada does exist in the minds of many of its people, there's nothing, as I indicated in my first post, in the reality of what Canada is today that is likely to follow the course you suggest. Our government, whether Lib or RefCon won't, nor will its corporate sponsors, although we may get a tax break or two or increased child tax benefits along the way to ease the pain. To once again spin my tiresome line, I don't believe anything will change for the better in the absence of a profound change to the status quo.
I believe a lot of eggs will broken and applecarts overturned before we achieve a Canada that will stand up in the way you suggest, both for its citizens and for what is morally and ethically right.
It seems most Canadians refuse to get this, preferring to continue spinning their wheels believing a change of party or a bit of tinkering will somehow fix the system and make things okay, regardless of the fact that it never really has before.
Unfortunately, the only folks in Canada who seem willing to take some risks and grasp the reality that nothing will change unless they change it are Quebec sovereignists, which doesn't do the rest of us much good.
So, I'll stick with my previous statement that "there really isn't a "Canada" that will be do this, unless of course we take off the rosey coloured glasses and get to work making one.
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).
The same goes for BMD. Martin wanted to join so bad he was drooling at the prospect. He had to listen to the Canadian people only because he was in a minority government. Again, Harper would have signed us up. We were saved by political circumstance and a few people who made a lot of noise.
We will, with a little luck, have minority governments for a while yet. If we make some noise, maybe we can change the course on strapping ourselves to the US. Maybe not, but I'm willing to give it a shot.
Points were well-made above about our business/political interests crying wolf about the dire consequences of taking an independent, principled, and self-interested stand. Even Harper has realized he won't get elected with that kind of talk.
Still, the U.S. is a long way from becoming a "Totalitarian Fascist Republic". This is the kind of prose that makes jaws drop for American visitors to this site. There are far too many good people south of our border for that to happen, and we should be willing to believe in that and help those people to the extent that we are able. David Dodge sending a friendly warning to the U.S. Fed about the critical debt/deficit issue is a healthy start: diplomatic tone and rational facts, coming from a foreigner well qualified to make such comments.
As for Chavez: Canada should remain as neutral as possible as regards this man and his provocative stance with the United States. He may be holding power right now through populist programs, but lets not fall for that one so easily. The guy is sure to fart in church one of these days. Or perhaps it will be his less-patient successor, disgruntled by the natural slowing of pace and tempering of attitude as Chavez evolves from revolutionary to statesman.
Perhaps it is time for Canadian leadership that governs from the radical middle, whom the Bush fans and Chavez fans equaly dislike as dithering, flawed, technocrats, but whom history will regard as middle power peacemakers worthy of our legacy. Or, at the very least, ordinary people elected to do a difficult and thankless job.
---
Dave Ruston