|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: Canadian sovereignty and the S Pee Pee |
 |
|
I'm Canadian, but thought some of you who are not might find this a bunch of paranoid bat crap.
| Quote: |
SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert
Sovereignty rhetoric contradicted by turnover of controls on military and immigration
Michael Byers says SPP is part of a larger process that threatens Canadian sovereignty and autonomy.OTTAWA, August 20, 2007: The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to hand sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.
I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who have been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country; unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.
David O'Brien, the CEO of Canadian Pacific ..He said that we have to make North Americans secure from the outside. 'We're going to lose increasingly our sovereignty but it's necessarily so.'
...Then there was Nancy Hughes Anthony, the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who said that we're not going to get anywhere with our American friends unless we can show we have good strong anti-terrorist legislation and we intend to enforce it. The result was the 2001 Anti- terrorism Act, which, of course was modelled on the [US] Patriot Act.
And then there was Patrick E. Daniels, the President of Enbridge, the big energy company based in Calgary, who complained that Canada pushed its sovereignty 'a little too far.' He said it would be realistic for Canada to either get onside with US foreign policy or 'accept some change in our relationship.'
I was asked to speak about one aspect of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, namely security, or more specifically, the military. In the immediate aftermath of September 2001, plans were devised within the American and Canadian governments to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of the US Northern Command. To put all our soldiers, sailors and pilots and all their equipment under the operational control of the United States, in a much- expanded version of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who took advantage of being out of Cabinet to let the rest of us know what his former colleagues were up to.
So those who wanted to pursue the efforts of further integration of the Canadian and US military decided to take their efforts underground in arrangements that bear striking similarity to the SPP. And the SPP is part of a larger process. The Bi-National Planning Group was the military sister or brother of the SPP... The military officers worked away quietly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of NORAD, as well as the US space command...
...Imagine how you might actually explain that closer military cooperation enhances sovereignty because giving up sovereignty is an exercise in sovereignty! You actually affirm your sovereignty by giving some of it away..
The report was very very clear that its preferred option was full integration, the option that had been floated internally in 2002, the assignment of Canadian Forces to what looked like an expanded NORAD, to an umbrella command where operational control would ultimately rest with the US military.
Some steps have been taken in that direction...
When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi-National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this... it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.
But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?
Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan?...
The integration of the Canadian and US military is not officially part of the SPP, but the SPP and the integration of the Canadian and US military are part of a larger project, and we need to address that larger project, and understand that what we're up against here does not involve the existence of an independent Canada... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's good to see someone finally post something about this. It's important to stay informed, but this over-the-top analysis of this policy is a little too much to believe. Canada is a country able to make their own decisions, and I doubt that the U.S. would be able to ascimilate Canada as easily as the author implies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good call, MM2. I'm surprised no one had the presence of mind to post this link of horse hockey before.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, Lou Dobbs and I are pretty freaked about this. His jowls literally quiver over the implications. We better bring on Mitt Romney, even though he was a crap governor of my home state of Mass. He has pledged to build a fence along the US borders.
(I think he used the plural  ). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nice OP, Mindmetoo. Good stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
MM2 wrote:
| Quote: |
| I'm Canadian, but thought some of you who are not might find this a bunch of paranoid bat crap. |
Yeah, it's so much bullroar, bruddah. Nonetheless:
| Quote: |
| Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy.... |
Ya gotta admit that ya gotta give credit where it's due in all matters of sharing public concerns like this. What a name, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| what is the strongest typhoon on record? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alright we're all agreed. Topic closed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
