Celli,
Your choice of words is as revealing as it your selective omission of the facts.
Under NAFTA there are no exclusionary tariffs on goods in our trade. The issue over exports of live cattle is founded in the fact of BSE infestation in Canadian cattle and the fact that Canada has already exported infected animals to this country. The consequences of this both for public health and our export trade with other countries are enormous. The restrictions we have imposed on Canada are no different than those imposed on Britain by her EU colleagues over a decade ago under similar circumstances. Why do Canadians so persistently paint themselves as victims here? Does their export profit incentive trump all other considerations?
Canada has persistently refused to accommodate post 9/11 U.S. concerns about North American border controls. That is your right, but you have no basis for indignation if we, as a consequence, impose some restrictions at our mutual border.
The commodities Canada exports to the U.S. are available from many sources. The markets for them are quite competitive and our own internal production capacity has substantial growth potential. Canadian manufactures for export to U.S. markets can be replaced even more easily, and in most cases with substantial net economic benefits to us. Few nations are as open to free trade and imports as the U.S. Canada abuses that tolerance.
You refer to the U.S. in rather interesting terms, as below;
"However, the US cannot sustain its insatiable need for more without someone to feed the monster. And you can't continue to beat up the world to get more."
Perhaps it is that view of a monster that has prompted Canadians to refuse to cooperate with us in the implementation of a continental missile defense system. I recognize that it is and will continue to be the U.S. and not Canada that will be the natural target for rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran as these weapons proliferate. The requested cooperation was a matter of geography more than a strategic need for Canada. Again it is your right to refuse. However you have no right to deny us the common sense interpretation of your denial as an unnecessary and offensive act. I don't think you have seen me refer to Canada as "a monster".
Canadians and Canada appears to me to be very judgmental and even hostile in its attitudes towards the United States, and, at the same time, quite complacent and self-centered in considering its own behavior. The fact is such attitudes have consequences. Americans are increasingly weary of the hectoring, petty attitudes of Canadians and the Canadian government. If this situation worsens and our reactions to it grow (as I expect they will) Canada will be the loser. You will have only yourselves to blame.
george
Once again, you have it backwards. The US wanted Canada to do something we were not comfortable doing, so the US starts with its usual threats.
Canada doesn't refuse to help the US in these matters because of any kind of spite and has no right to call us hostile.
Canada is a peaceful country who wants to keep it that way and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.
Don't you ever ask yourself why the US is the only country who is hostile towards Canada? I know that actions speak louder than words and if we do everything the US wants us to do, we will be the next target. No thank you!!!
At this point, the only country Canada has to fear attack from, is the US. None other than our planets biggest bully!
Well, this is all moot now.
George talked to Paul. George is all happy-dappy. Paul was waiting to talk about it til the end of the convention.
Phew.
We were soooooo worried. :wink:
<edit typo>
Does this mean I can stop my hand wringing?
Maybe we should wait til we get Georgeob's re-translation of GeorgeW?
Nah.
From Reuters (better than a Canajun reference, right?)
Quote:Bush Plays Down Canada's Missile Defense Decision
Sat Mar 5, 2005 03:30 PM ET
By Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush told Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin on Saturday he understood his decision to opt out of the planned U.S. missile defense system, in a conciliatory gesture ahead of Martin's visit to the United States.
In a phone call initiated by Martin, Bush raised the subject of missile defense and the two leaders discussed it briefly, according to U.S. and Canadian officials.
"The president expressed his understanding of the prime minister's decision, but underscored the importance of redoubling our security cooperation efforts," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said.
An aide to Martin described Bush as "conciliatory and very positive."
"The president said both sides need to move on," said the Canadian aide, who added that Bush praised Canada's plan to bolster its defense budget over the next five years.
Canada's minority Liberal government announced on Feb. 24 that it would not take part in the missile defense system, which is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles from adversaries such as North Korea.
The program has been marred by test failures and it failed to meet the president's goal of being operational by the end of last year.
Martin, who came to power in 2003 saying he supported signing on to the missile shield and deepening the integration of the two countries' defenses, had been under heavy pressure to back away from the system because of its lack of popularity with Canadian voters.
The tone of Bush's comments during the call marked a change from the initial U.S. reaction, in which Secretary of State Condoleezza expressed disappointment and put off plans to visit Canada.
Martin will join Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox at the U.S. president's Crawford, Texas, ranch on March 23. Bush is to hold sessions with the two leaders at nearby Baylor University before hosting them for lunch at his "Prairie Chapel" ranch.
In addition to missile defense, Bush and Martin talked of taking a common approach to persuade Japan and South Korea to open their markets to North American beef after the mad cow scare.
Lending support to Canada in its push to reopen U.S. borders to Canadian beef, Bush earlier this week pledged to veto a bill approved by the Senate that would block imports of Canadian cattle.
(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren)
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
unspun link
Now that has a better tone to it than what I've seen so far.
from the Toronto Star (before the call - made me grin yesterday)
<hysteria snip>
Quote:By Thursday, The Globe and Mail felt compelled to wade in with a front-page piece signalling that all might not be lost and headlined "PM, Bush aim to end the silence."
Yesterday, the Star reported, again on its front page, that the two men are now preparing for a "make-up summit" in which, according to sources, Martin will embrace the U.S. security agenda in the hope of easing Bush's irritation.
Meanwhile, the Post, ever so slightly mollified, reported that outgoing U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci had actually praised Canada.
Phew.
Intriguingly, all of this Canadian hand-wringing bears little relationship to the actual American reaction. If Americans are indeed steaming with anger, they appear not to realize it.
The U.S. administration itself says the missile decision won't affect relations with Canada.
As for the U.S. media, one has to search far and wide for any editorial comment on the issue. Using a Dow Jones search engine that monitors hundreds of U.S. newspapers plus the major television networks, I could find only three.
A good many U.S. newspapers reported Martin's initial Feb. 24 decision. But none did so on the front page and many, including the Times, relegated it to a one-paragraph brief.
Even the feisty cable news networks paid little attention.
On Tuesday, CNN asked whether Canada was "getting a free ride on defence." Fox News's John Gibson opined that "it's time to slap Canada around again," but he didn't seem to have his heart in it.
Given that Martin's decision makes absolutely no practical difference to the missile defence scheme (the U.S. was asking for neither money nor bases), America's relative lack of interest in this story makes considerable sense.
Which leads one to wonder: Why are we so nervous?
It may well be true that George W. Bush is miffed. A rebuff from one of his closest allies does not play into his plans to present himself to the world as a more accommodating dude.
[Bold]But the president's pique will not lead the U.S. to abandon NORAD, tear up trade agreements and close the border forever to Canadian cattle.
The reason is simple: The U.S finds its ties to Canada useful. It does not undertake them to please us but, rather, like any sensible nation, to serve its own interests.[/Bold]
So, calm your pit-a-patting hearts. Maybe Secretary of State Condi Rice will delay her visit to Ottawa for a few weeks. Maybe Martin won't get seconds when he lunches at W.'s ranch.
It'll be tough. But with luck, we can manage.
link
nothin' to get excited about.
nothin' to choke on our toast over
Enjoy your bran cereal, and have a great day.
LOL, Beth. Thanks for that. You made my day :-D
I think you underestimate the depth of the reappraisal of U.S. Canadian relations that has occured and is continuing both in our government and among increasing numbers of the American public. It is merely politic to put a good face on things. If an American president must use his veto to stop retaliatory actions passed by our Congress, that is hardly a reason for Canadians to rejoice.
Relax, georgeob.
It appears you aren't riling up us or the U.S. media, or the U.S. president.
Relax.
You're not canajun, so you've got nothin' to worry about in any case. Unless you want to worry. In which case, enjoy.
looks like georgeob is far more upset than George W.
georgeob
If it's merely politic to put a good face on things, then why are they just starting this practice now?
They have never kept their hostility a secret before, so I wonder why this would be different.
I'm sure you'll have a good respose, so I'm all ears ;-)
georgeob1 wrote: The issue over exports of live cattle is founded in the fact of BSE infestation in Canadian cattle and the fact that Canada has already exported infected animals to this country. The consequences of this both for public health and our export trade with other countries are enormous. The restrictions we have imposed on Canada are no different than those imposed on Britain by her EU colleagues over a decade ago under similar circumstances.
There are 14.5 million cattle in Canada. Four have/had developed BSE.
That's 3/100,000ths of 1 percent.
The UK and all other countries would have been glad about such a number ... even today.
If you wish to believe that our president's accepting a telephone call from the Canadian PM and speaking cordially with him, even inviting him to his home - along with the President of Mexico - means that relations between our countries are what they were a few decades ago, then you are welcome to do so. The facts however, strongly indicate otherwise.
My weariness of Canadian self-centered childishness is an increasingly common reaction here. The fact that legislation in our Congress to enact punitive trade restrictions against Canada could have a chance of passage, alone indicates how profoundly American attitudes have changed.
georgeob1 wrote:My weariness of Canadian self-centered childishness is an increasingly common reaction here.
Was that meant as an ironic remark?
I guess we can tell GeorgeW who one of those anonymous rogues are.
Where's that report button? Does it lead straight to the White House?
george
I can't fathom why you've got your panties all up in a bunch here. This issue has absolutely no effect on you, so instead of getting all upset over a country you say is worthless to the US, why not go out and smell the roses for a while.
Actually I go weeks at a time without thinking about Canada or Canadians. It is you and other canadians here who continue to raise these issues here on A2K. My reactions are what they are, and they are shared by an increasing number of people in this country. If things continue to worsen then Canada wil be the loser for it. That is a demonstrable fact.
