Harper and Obama: The Same Economic Struggle
Several weeks ago, the prime minister of Canada sent a clear message to China and, against all odds, made Canada’s ongoing alignment with the United States even clearer, despite his minority position within his own country.
Despite strong criticism of the prime minister, one has to admit that he now has another ally serving the Chinese the very same medicine: Barack Obama. Of course, there will always be fundamental differences between Conservative and Democrat, but let’s not forget that an American Democrat is simply not the same as a Canadian Liberal — far, far from it. And what’s more, a Republican in America is on another planet compared to the average Conservative in Canada. Once this fact has been well-established, we can consider the similarities and the potential for a free exchange between Canada and the United States. The challenge of facing Communist China cannot be managed by any one man.
President Obama’s decision to meet with the Dalai Lama pleased the entire world — except China, which still considers it to be the ultimate affront on their supposed sovereignty over the tiny, defenseless state of Tibet. As far as I am concerned, [Tibet] probably respects the most essential of international conventions more than China and, furthermore, aims to emerge from isolation in the most peaceful way possible by reaching out to the world. And again, as if history were repeating itself, seeing China behave indignantly toward the American president can only ensure that the sale of arms to Taiwan will continue.
This situation can only be explained in one of two ways: an aligned North America consisting of Canada and the United States, or simply one of life’s coincidences. Let’s wager that the former of the two is correct. Is it desirable?
For those who would like to hear it, not only is it desirable, it is the salvation for both our economies. Our future and our economic sustainability are presently in jeopardy, and both of our countries risk becoming powerless spectators if nothing is done. In the course of the past 30 years, we have seen most of our manufacturing sector and financial strength shrink to the benefit of a country that plays its cards in the manner it sees fit, according to its own rules and according to its own objectives for domestic growth. China has done all this without taking into account the environmental consequences of its “bulldozer” industrialization and, above all, without being held accountable to anyone else.
On the other hand, America, Europe, Northern Africa and Latin America are expanding multilateral relations and endeavoring to align their economic, social and environmental policies in accordance with the common good and more stable trade, all in the spirit of cooperation. They also seek to establish major international conventions that deal as much with labor and children's rights as human rights, international trade regulation, and the rules governing them and all participating companies.
It seems very easy to criticize Stephen Harper for his attitude toward China a few weeks ago, but if Barack Obama suddenly acted the same way, the pill would seem easier to swallow and we might even sympathize with him. The solution is very simple. We here in Canada need to figure out what we want. Do we desire to pursue a policy that supports the disastrous departure of the jewels of our manufacturing sector through a program of industrial cooperation that encourages our entrepreneurs to manufacture abroad in the supposed spirit of cooperation and solidarity? Do we also want the same entrepreneurs to become mere unmotivated and insipid distributors? Or should we take a harder line against China and even the other BRIC countries, who, solely through low wages and all that comes with them, succeed in competing with both of our countries and those in Europe with nothing but the offer of lower prices?
Should we wait for the same BRIC countries to no longer be the only ones in the know; to perhaps see the same defiant attitude seize the new tigers of Southeast Asia? I think not. It seems to me that the Obama-Harper method is actually the most likely way to bring about the necessary changes required not only for the future of Western countries, but also for the planet itself and its environment.
Despite strong criticism of the prime minister, one has to admit that he now has another ally serving the Chinese the very same medicine: Barack Obama. Of course, there will always be fundamental differences between Conservative and Democrat, but let’s not forget that an American Democrat is simply not the same as a Canadian Liberal — far, far from it. And what’s more, a Republican in America is on another planet compared to the average Conservative in Canada. Once this fact has been well-established, we can consider the similarities and the potential for a free exchange between Canada and the United States. The challenge of facing Communist China cannot be managed by any one man.
President Obama’s decision to meet with the Dalai Lama pleased the entire world — except China, which still considers it to be the ultimate affront on their supposed sovereignty over the tiny, defenseless state of Tibet. As far as I am concerned, [Tibet] probably respects the most essential of international conventions more than China and, furthermore, aims to emerge from isolation in the most peaceful way possible by reaching out to the world. And again, as if history were repeating itself, seeing China behave indignantly toward the American president can only ensure that the sale of arms to Taiwan will continue.
This situation can only be explained in one of two ways: an aligned North America consisting of Canada and the United States, or simply one of life’s coincidences. Let’s wager that the former of the two is correct. Is it desirable?
For those who would like to hear it, not only is it desirable, it is the salvation for both our economies. Our future and our economic sustainability are presently in jeopardy, and both of our countries risk becoming powerless spectators if nothing is done. In the course of the past 30 years, we have seen most of our manufacturing sector and financial strength shrink to the benefit of a country that plays its cards in the manner it sees fit, according to its own rules and according to its own objectives for domestic growth. China has done all this without taking into account the environmental consequences of its “bulldozer” industrialization and, above all, without being held accountable to anyone else.
On the other hand, America, Europe, Northern Africa and Latin America are expanding multilateral relations and endeavoring to align their economic, social and environmental policies in accordance with the common good and more stable trade, all in the spirit of cooperation. They also seek to establish major international conventions that deal as much with labor and children's rights as human rights, international trade regulation, and the rules governing them and all participating companies.
It seems very easy to criticize Stephen Harper for his attitude toward China a few weeks ago, but if Barack Obama suddenly acted the same way, the pill would seem easier to swallow and we might even sympathize with him. The solution is very simple. We here in Canada need to figure out what we want. Do we desire to pursue a policy that supports the disastrous departure of the jewels of our manufacturing sector through a program of industrial cooperation that encourages our entrepreneurs to manufacture abroad in the supposed spirit of cooperation and solidarity? Do we also want the same entrepreneurs to become mere unmotivated and insipid distributors? Or should we take a harder line against China and even the other BRIC countries, who, solely through low wages and all that comes with them, succeed in competing with both of our countries and those in Europe with nothing but the offer of lower prices?
Should we wait for the same BRIC countries to no longer be the only ones in the know; to perhaps see the same defiant attitude seize the new tigers of Southeast Asia? I think not. It seems to me that the Obama-Harper method is actually the most likely way to bring about the necessary changes required not only for the future of Western countries, but also for the planet itself and its environment.
Next article![]( "China vs. the U.S.: Who’s Afraid of Whom?")
