9.1.05 [ Thanks, But No. ] 2 comments 
International defense is one of the only things that can be classified as a pure public good. In Canada, we have the capacity to devote a larger proportion of the government budget to social programs and infrastructure maintenance because we maintain a small military. This privledge, however, is because we are able to free-ride off the military strength of the USA.
In exchange for American protection (quite hypothetical, but quite necessary), it is a political norm that Canada would provide a voice of support and a gesture of military aid for American endeavors. However, in the recent past, this has not been the case. The Canadian government is in a good political position from this standpoint; there is the freedom of denouncing unpopular American military action, yet the umbrella of US Power still provides for our (hypothetical) protection.
Which is why I am surprised and impressed at the current American administration's approach.
The Canadian-American border is a very large unilateral trade zone. As such, the American government has the capacity to influence Canadian political actions through their marked affect on our economy. During the two-day summit between the leaders of our nations, the American president gave the strong impression that trade disputes over softwood lumber and Albertan beef (Canadian ticket) would only be resolved after there was an agreement made with respect to missile-defense (US ticket).
Despite these clear and strong American intentions, the US Administration made the first move: the current boycott on Canadian beef will be lifted, offering renewal for Alberta's beef industry.
It would only make sense, then, that Canada should return the concessional favour and go on board with the American plan -- if only to show public support for our ally. Sadly, the issue is not as clear as that.
Certainly, Canadian industry is intimately tied to American industry. And, as much as Canadians may protest, the differences between our peoples are not very distinct. Further, the future and present well-being of our two nations is integrated. However, to acknowledge the US as a significant ally, as a necessary relationship, is to also acknowledge that we must not give our support to the missile-defense plan.
Space-based nuclear weapons, the long-term goal of the project, compromises the security of Canadians and Americans. Though the current American administration may be heartfelt in their desire to eradicate terrorism (this point is subject to speculation), their approach (quick resort to war and invasion, space-based missiles) is not in our mutual best-interest.
For, furthering the distortion of power distribution on the world stage is cultivating powerlessness among non-western nations (and, even some western ones). Such is breeding grounds for terrorists. Though terrorism must be approached with a no-tolerance attitude, stronger emphasis must be placed on preventive measures.
So, Americans are our international friends, they should be treated with respect. But, the current administration's taste for military offense should be opposed with strength and determination, despite their friendly appeals and promises.
Post a Comment