Time To Rip Off The Band-aid

 

I don't know about you, but I am growing tired of seeing an obese bully kicking sand in our collective faces. My national pride demands a real response. To mix the metaphor, it is time to rip off the Band-aid.

The obese bully, of course, is that vulgarian who 'leads' the U.S., Donald Trump, along with all of his enablers, chief among them his ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra. Said 'diplomat' delivers his master's message with relish, his contempt for our country obvious to anyone who can stomach listening to him. In my view, he personifies "the ugly American".

In his latest broadside against Canada, Hoekstra issues a warning that if we don't play nice with his country, there will be no trade deal. And playing nice means not even thinking about buying a competitor's military jets.

... we’re actually waiting to see exactly where the Canadian government is going to come out on this,” he said, pointing directly to the F-35 purchase review, and questioning what it means that Canada is shopping elsewhere for its fighter jets, and seeking to make its defence industrial base less reliant on the U.S.

Clearly, Hoekstra was not pleased to learn that Canada is thinking for itself when it comes to military procurements.

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly told reporters the current F-35 contract doesn’t provide adequate jobs or other economic benefits to Canada.

“We believe that we didn’t get enough when it comes to the F-35,” Joly said Tuesday.

“The industrial benefits are not enough. There needs to be more jobs created out of the F-35 contract. That’s clear to me and clear to this government.” She added the government believes it can “use military procurement to get more.”

Joly was speaking as the  Carney government engages in talks to possibly buy Swedish Gripen E fighter jets as part of his quest to wean Canada off its overreliance on the U.S. for economic and national security. 

While we have committed to buying 18 of the F-35s, with an option to buy more, the Grippen offers several advantages to Canada. It was, for example, made for rigorous northern patrol, and it promises an economic boost to our country.

Joly underscored that Sweden-based Saab is promising to create 10,000 jobs. “We’ll see how concrete (that is), and at the same time, we’re looking at (whether) Lockheed Martin can do more,” she added.

Hoekstra pushed back, saying Canadian suppliers have benefited for years from helping to build parts for the F-35, a fifth-generation stealth fighter jet.

His 'solution' to all of this?  Essentially, it is to give up any pretense of sovereignty and align policies with Uncle Sam.

He said Canada and the U.S. should deepen co-operation, and Ottawa should align its trade policies with Trump’s in order to shut out cheaper Chinese-made products, such as steel, that he said are dumped into North American markets.

“You can put in place the same barriers that we have in place. And you know, the primary target is probably China, OK, because they’re dumping steel, but you can put in place the same kind of protections that we have. And part of what we were looking at was harmonizing the barriers to unfair competition on key materials and products so that it would be fortress North America.”

Fortress America may have a nice ring to it for American acolytes of Trump and his thugs. However, I suspect the majority of Canadians would see that not as a protective shield as much as a prison which, once entered, would be hard to escape from. We must never forget while it may be about military procurements today, tomorrow it will be about something else. A bully can never be appeased.

Whose Sovereignty Is It, Anyway?

He’s loved of the distracted multitude,
Who like not in their judgment, but their eyes.
-Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 3

For a long time I have found little to fault in Justin Trudeau's tactful dance around the Trump administration. Rather than denigrate a particular benighted American initiative like the Muslim travel ban, for example, the Prime Minister promotes Canada's openness to the world and impressive acceptance of Syrian refugees. Why provoke the Orange Ogre for no good reason?

However, scratching beneath the surface, one must wonder if there might be more at work in this dynamic.

Take, for example, the opaqueness that has enveloped Canada's priorities on the upcoming NAFTA renegotiation, about which I posted the other day.

The Liberal-dominated House of Commons trade committee has quashed a move to invite the prime minister and other high-ranking cabinet members to answer questions about Canada’s NAFTA renegotiation priorities, as calls continue for more transparency about how the government plans to handle upcoming talks on the deal.

Couple that with the worrying assertion made the other day by Canada's ambassador to the U.S.

Canada needs to allow U.S. President Donald Trump to “declare victory” on the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canadian Ambassador David MacNaughton said Thursday.

“This was such a big part of the president’s campaign last year, and I think for any of us to think that we can sort of just ignore that would be crazy. We have to find ways where he can declare victory without it being seen in either Mexico or Canada as being a loss,” MacNaughton said.

Appeasement, by any other name, is still appeasement.

Then there is the recent announcement by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland that, on the one hand, seems to suggest that Canada is forging an independent foreign policy direction because the U.S. can no longer be relied upon:

Canada's new foreign policy will involve spending billions on "hard power" military capability because the country can't rely on an American ally that has turned inward, says Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Sounds impressive, doesn't it (although one can only imagine vividly the howls of outrage that would have ensued had this decision been made by the Harper government)? And this apparent independence of policy initiative certainly appears to be at odds with the theme of this post.

However, seen through the lens of critical thinking provided by Linda McQuaig, this new commitment to massively increased military spending is not what it seems.

... the Trudeau government’s announcement last month that it would dramatically increase Canada’s military spending — as Donald Trump has loudly demanded — was risky, given the distaste Canadians have for big military budgets and for prime ministers who cave in to U.S. presidents.

But the Trudeau government’s pledge to hike military spending by a whopping 70 per cent over 10 years succeeded in winning praise from Trump while going largely unnoticed by Canadians. Sweet.

Much of the media seemed swept up in Ms. Freeland's words, ignoring the fact that Canada is doing exactly what Trump wants, massively increasing its military spending:

It sounded feisty and bold, with a touch of swagger, a willingness to defy The Man.

Meanwhile, all was quiet on the Canadian front where the media, still high on Freeland’s soaring oratory, was awash in stories about the Trudeau government’s determination to “set its own course” and “step up to lead on the world stage.” Its keenness to please Trump mostly got lost in the hoopla.

And lest we forget,

The military spending hike, although introduced without much controversy, is in fact a major development with devastating consequences, imposing a massive new $30 billion burden on Canadian taxpayers over the next decade and relegating pressing social needs to the back burner.

It’s also a significant departure for Trudeau, who made no campaign promise to increase Canada’s military spending, which, at $19 billion a year, is already the 16th largest in the world.

Doubtless, that money could be used for something better:

My guess is that, given a choice between spending that money on fighter jets or on social programs, most Canadians would favour social programs.

But then, they’re not holding the leash.

In the play Hamlet, the title character is described as being loved by the masses, despite the fact that he has killed the King's counselor and threatened the life of the King. That mindless adulation, says the King, affords Hamlet considerable latitude.

Are we seeing the same phenomenon unfolding here at home?