A young John Diefenbaker once proclaimed that he would build a Canada that would be “all Canadian and all British.” Stephen Harper isn’t going that far, but his British bonding and his de-emphasis on American ties that were so conspicuous under Brian Mulroney’s conservatism are of considerable consequence.
Last week, Mr. Harper said Canada has to do much more to wean itself off its economic dependence on the United States. Mr. Diefenbaker made a habit of saying such things, and he also had a habit, like Mr. Harper, of exalting the monarchy. The Chief would have been delighted with the Harper government’s reattaching the “royal” nomenclature to our armed forces.
When Mr. Harper took office in 2006, few were aware of his transatlantic interests and intent. At that time, given his Republican-like conservatism, we expected a closer alignment with the Americans. But his concept of Canada has a back-to-the-future look, and old-fashioned values are high on his list.
The tilt toward Britain and the lukewarm approach to the U.S. are also a reflection of political allegiances. Personal relations mean a lot. As shown by their get-together in Ottawa last week, Mr. Harper now has a like-minded Conservative at the helm in British Prime Minister David Cameron. This is in happy contrast to Gordon Brown’s Labour government, which hectored him on his laggard approach to the environment.
With Barack Obama, Mr. Harper has established a good working relationship. But, with the Democrat, there’s an obvious philosophical divide. In the case of George W. Bush, there was not such a divergence. But Mr. Bush was so loathed in Canada that Mr. Harper had to tread warily in relations with Washington and did so.
On questions of trade, Mr. Harper was blunt in an interview with Bloomberg TV last week, saying “we’d obviously like to see trade dependence on the United States fall.” Some has already taken place, he noted, but “I’d say we have to do a lot more. … It’s kind of shocking that when we came to office, in spite of the fact that Canada is one of the most trade-dependent advanced economies in the world, we had trade agreements with only five countries in the world.” There are now trade agreements with 14 countries, Mr. Harper noted, and “we’re negotiating with 50 others.”
Market diversification, of course, has been high on the list of other prime ministers, and failed to materialize. In 1957, Mr. Diefenbaker announced on the eve of a trade mission to Britain that “I have every confidence that this mission will achieve its objective of diverting 15 per cent of Canadian imports from the United States to Britain.” This, the Chief intoned, would “save this country from ultimate economic danger.” The plan proved delusional.
With considerable fanfare, the Trudeau government announced in the 1970s that it was embarking on a third option to move Canada off U.S. dependency by forging new trade ties with Europe and Japan. The plan fizzled.
Mr. Harper is under no illusions that trade volumes can be shifted quickly, noting in the Bloomberg interview that “the Canadian and American economies are hugely integrated … and we don’t walk away from that.”
His take on trade is a reflection of changing realities. If the U.S. isn’t a declining power, it’s giving every impression of being one. For Ottawa, it’s a market that can be less relied on, the Buy American provisions in its new economic stimulus plan being just the latest example. Ottawa is currently negotiating a border/security pact, but the word is that the Conservatives are proceeding cautiously. They’re rightly concerned that embedding the country into America’s security complex could be politically explosive.
Mr. Harper’s rejigging of relationships is no easy task, but he’s proceeding judiciously. Putting one’s economic eggs all in one basket was never a farsighted trading approach. Though other prime ministers have failed to change it, Mr. Harper is right to give it another try.
Origin
Source: Globe&Mail
Last week, Mr. Harper said Canada has to do much more to wean itself off its economic dependence on the United States. Mr. Diefenbaker made a habit of saying such things, and he also had a habit, like Mr. Harper, of exalting the monarchy. The Chief would have been delighted with the Harper government’s reattaching the “royal” nomenclature to our armed forces.
When Mr. Harper took office in 2006, few were aware of his transatlantic interests and intent. At that time, given his Republican-like conservatism, we expected a closer alignment with the Americans. But his concept of Canada has a back-to-the-future look, and old-fashioned values are high on his list.
The tilt toward Britain and the lukewarm approach to the U.S. are also a reflection of political allegiances. Personal relations mean a lot. As shown by their get-together in Ottawa last week, Mr. Harper now has a like-minded Conservative at the helm in British Prime Minister David Cameron. This is in happy contrast to Gordon Brown’s Labour government, which hectored him on his laggard approach to the environment.
With Barack Obama, Mr. Harper has established a good working relationship. But, with the Democrat, there’s an obvious philosophical divide. In the case of George W. Bush, there was not such a divergence. But Mr. Bush was so loathed in Canada that Mr. Harper had to tread warily in relations with Washington and did so.
On questions of trade, Mr. Harper was blunt in an interview with Bloomberg TV last week, saying “we’d obviously like to see trade dependence on the United States fall.” Some has already taken place, he noted, but “I’d say we have to do a lot more. … It’s kind of shocking that when we came to office, in spite of the fact that Canada is one of the most trade-dependent advanced economies in the world, we had trade agreements with only five countries in the world.” There are now trade agreements with 14 countries, Mr. Harper noted, and “we’re negotiating with 50 others.”
Market diversification, of course, has been high on the list of other prime ministers, and failed to materialize. In 1957, Mr. Diefenbaker announced on the eve of a trade mission to Britain that “I have every confidence that this mission will achieve its objective of diverting 15 per cent of Canadian imports from the United States to Britain.” This, the Chief intoned, would “save this country from ultimate economic danger.” The plan proved delusional.
With considerable fanfare, the Trudeau government announced in the 1970s that it was embarking on a third option to move Canada off U.S. dependency by forging new trade ties with Europe and Japan. The plan fizzled.
Mr. Harper is under no illusions that trade volumes can be shifted quickly, noting in the Bloomberg interview that “the Canadian and American economies are hugely integrated … and we don’t walk away from that.”
His take on trade is a reflection of changing realities. If the U.S. isn’t a declining power, it’s giving every impression of being one. For Ottawa, it’s a market that can be less relied on, the Buy American provisions in its new economic stimulus plan being just the latest example. Ottawa is currently negotiating a border/security pact, but the word is that the Conservatives are proceeding cautiously. They’re rightly concerned that embedding the country into America’s security complex could be politically explosive.
Mr. Harper’s rejigging of relationships is no easy task, but he’s proceeding judiciously. Putting one’s economic eggs all in one basket was never a farsighted trading approach. Though other prime ministers have failed to change it, Mr. Harper is right to give it another try.
Origin
Source: Globe&Mail
No comments:
Post a Comment