The fundamental power of a country is by its government and leader. When two countries lie side-by-side with a disparity in size and power, and very different populations and economies, it is crucial for both leaders of these countries to develop good relationships. When it comes to Canadian and American relations, both leaders in these countries need to search for common ground. With Prime Minister Chretien and President Bush, it is a factor of a Democrat versus a Republican. These political leaders must be given opportunity to narrow the political and personal gaps that divide them. Opinions and views from both sides must cultivate a solid foundation in order to present a good impression. The hostility and competition between Canada and the United States propose a greater threat for both countries through its resolutions in the war against Iraq, agreements within North American free trade, and socio-economic imbalances existing amongst both countries.
More and more countries are being forced to experience first hand the savagery and ruthlessness of today’s increasing terrorism. Despite whether the United Nations deliver a resolution endorsing force on Saddam Hussein to comply with international demands or not, President Bush believes the United States will assemble a coalition to wage war with Iraq. Prime Minister Chretien puts emphasis on Canadian support of the United Nations. However, Canada opposes the tough United States resolution against Iraq while making Canada increasingly dependent on the Americans to defend Canadians by their chronic neglect of Canada’s rapidly shrinking and poorly-equipped armed forces. The Canadian government debates whether to be part of the United States alliance in the war against Iraq. Nevertheless, Canada goes to work with those many member nations that are committed to ensuring that every single humanly conceivable effort is taken to prevent war (Spencer, 2002).
Canada is one of the largest countries in the world with a climate that ranges from arctic to mild with moderate summers and long, cold winters. Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a bilingual federal system, a parliamentary form of government and strong democratic traditions. Canada has immense mineral resources, it is the world’s largest producer of asbestos, nickel, zinc and silver. ...
The motivation of terrorism is completely unacceptable and should always be fought. Before the Canadian government signs on to another United States initiated military action, it should ask – how many civilians must die in order to capture Saddam Hussein? There is a major risk in going to war. An invasion could provoke the use of chemical and biological weapons if Saddam has them and the means to deliver them. Moreover, the political risks of a war include a break-up of Iraq and the growth of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. On the other hand, success would rapidly end much of the criticism as it has in Afghanistan.
Another major concern is that civilians will be killed, as they were in the Gulf War and in Serbia. Smart bombs are not always smart. In the age of smart bombs and guided cruise missiles, is has been led to believe that collateral damage is limited. The North American press and television has largely ignored the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan (Trickey, 2002).
They accept Pentagon briefings that give the impression that numbers are small and are of no importance. However, Canadians should be more wary; it was after all a United States smart bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers – a mistake made by allied troops (Politics Canada, 2002).
Consequently, the Iraqi leader is developing weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is a strategic threat to Iraq itself, to its interests in the region, to United States allies in the Arab world and to Israel. In addition, the aftermath of the September 11 attacks produced a new American doctrine of pre-emption not reaction (Trickey, 2002).
Subsequently, there has been a new United Nations resolution on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. The inspectors left Iraq in 1998 after Iraq put up too many obstacles and therefore, they needed to get back. This time what is different is the threat of war by the United States and Britain if the inspectors are not allowed to operate freely. However, according to the Los Angeles Times, two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified. Ninety per cent of respondents said they didn’t doubt Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, but without new evidence from United Nations inspectors, 72 per cent of respondents, including 60 per cent of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war. These results show the undoubtedly bad impression of the United States and its government. Canada must create some means of co-operation with the United States through a difficult and crucial global issue that, in turn, determines its value of alliance to the United States.
Team Canada Trade Mission - Hong Kong and China a) The motivation for the trade mission to China is quite simple. The Canadian government wants to do business. In 1999, Canadian two-way trade with China was worth $11. 5 billion. Canadian two-way trade with Hong Kong equalled $2. 4 billion during 1999. The numbers tell the story. China is Canada's fourth-largest trading partner after the United ...
Furthermore, an improvement on the North American free trade Agreement must be adhered between Canada and the United States. Amongst the many objectives this agreement is committed to promote, the main goals include promoting conditions of fair competition in the free trade area, eliminating barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross border movement of goods and services between the territories of the Parties (Politics Canada, 2002).
Prime Minister Chretien, along with President Bush and Mexican President Fox, needs to discuss what benefits have been gained from NAFTA and what improvements must be made. However, the hardest area to get agreement on would be cultural industries, something Canada specifically would not talk about during the free trade negotiations. Nevertheless, given the success of many Canadian artists and performers in the United States, Canadians should not be worried about dropping cultural trade barriers. There are some ongoing trade “irritants” within the free trade industry such as the Prince Edward Island potatoes banning from the United States because of worries over potato wart fungus. However, island workers say that is just an excuse for protectionism and want a retaliatory ban on United States potatoes in Canada. Additionally, President Bush favours drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve; a move that could threaten caribou that native people on the Canadian side of the border depend on for food. Amongst all, the major issue of the softwood lumber dispute in which the United States has unfairly put a 19% tariff on Canadian softwood and the recent steel dispute between Canada and the United States is raised. Paul Celucci, the American ambassador to Canada says that the success of NAFTA may help Canada and the United States help resolve other trade disputes. Essentially, Canada has been a huge beneficiary to NAFTA. It has a trade surplus of $60 billion with the United States (Calgary: CBC, 2002).
It is due not later than Sunday March 3, at 6:00pm, submitted to Moodle You need to use at least 3 sources: your textbook, your class notes and 1 other source of your choice. Sources need to be cited properly. Your essay must cover all periods of trade: pre-European contact, early contact/colonial, late colonial, American-dominated, international. In each period, include what was traded, by whom, ...
Although areas such as softwood lumber, agricultural commodities, and cultural industries must be all looked at individually, Canada and the U.S. should examine whether they can resolve trade irritants to the benefit of both parties.
Additionally, changes in NAFTA must be met; particularly in the labour market. While Canada has highly skilled professionals who can move freely back and fourth under NAFTA, that is not the case for most workers. Canadian workers see NAFTA with its high productivity low-wage factories, lack of effective unions, and labour standards as an unfair economic “playing field” that can only have negative effects on their jobs and their living standards. They see it as a strenuous process of competitive poverty amongst workers and their communities. The Liberals, who opposed free trade when it was introduced by the Conservatives, and who dismissed as racist opposition demands to tighten border security and refugee laws, have come out with a thundering endorsement of continentals and co-operation with the Americans (Chwialkowska, 2001).
Moreover, it is important to understand that the debate over NAFTA in Canada is less about what might happen in an uncertain future than it is a debate about three years of experience with the Canada-U.S. trade deal. It is not therefore a debate but rather one that centres on the effect free trade has already had.
Canada is the United States’ largest trading partner. On January 1, 1989, Canada and the United States signed the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This reflects a new Canadian vision on how to manage its economy and ensure prosperity. In a more general context, the FTA can be seen as a formal recognition of the benefits of globalization and an important but not dramatic commitment to continue policies based on the premise that open international markets lead to a more efficient and productive allocation of resources than the mercantilist alternative (Haynal, 2002).
... me, Canada has several advantages over the United States; even though Americans are have some skeptical opinions about our wonderful country. When mentioning Canadian identity, ... it to be swept with globalization. We Canadians love our country is because of economic stability.Historically, Canada has been a heaven for people ...
As a result, both Canada and the United States will enjoy greater economic growth, increased trade and investment, greater energy security, more jobs, lower prices, and greater competitiveness at home and abroad than they would without this agreement. In 1992, the total amount of trade in goods and services was an astounding $216 billion.
In addition, the nature and extent of Canada-U.S. integration and co-operation has changed in a way previously unimaginable. Its social and economical ties with each other display a larger issue between Canadian and American relations. While the immediate concern is the border, the terrorist attacks of September 11 has opened a series of questions about the challenges and choices Canada faces within a North American economy. There can be no more important measure than maintaining an open border with the United States. Intellectually, the government found the words to express and defend with passion the importance of North American economic links to the lives of individual Canadians. Politically, it made continental commerce and security the primary drivers of policies around immigration, intelligence, and air safety (Krauss, 2002).
The Canadian government recognizes the vital importance of an open Canada- U.S. border to our economic security. Canada will spend $135 million over five years to establish new multi-agancy border enforcement teams, in which Canadian customs officials, immigration agents, police and RCMP will work together with their U.S. counterparts (Chwialkowska, 2001).
Canada provides 20% of United States imports and is the largest foreign market for U.S. goods and services, accounting for 25% of its exports (Haynal, 2002).
The government feared Canada risked losing not just U.S. investment, but investment from all over the world. If the border became a major problem, there would be no reason to invest in Canada unless Canada suddenly developed significant economic advantages. Meanwhile, the trend was in the opposite direction. Over the past decade, Canada has lost market share, particularly to the United States for foreign investment. With a slow border, it would be difficult to pitch Canada as the place to invest to serve the North American market (Bauch, 2002).
Canada was founded as a nation on two distinct cultures and two very different languages. The end product being two nations in one sovereign state. For the French speaking Canadians, it is an endless struggle to retain their separate culture. For many French Canadians the most common emotion felt is that they have never received cultural, political and economic equality to the extent the English ...
It is crucial that the United States go forward with an aggressive and concise plan and a clear understanding of what advantages exist for Canada.
Canadians still widely favour closer economic ties with the United States, but do not want Canada to become more American (Hillmer; Granatstein, 2001).
A broad national survey from the Montreal Gazette demonstrated attitudes of Canadians on Canadian and American relations. The survey found that two thirds of Canadians think their social values differ from those of their American neighbours. Most felt that the most valued distinction is Canada’s health care system. Moreover, just over ten per cent wanted Canada to become more like the United States, while nearly ninety per cent stated they either like the current state of difference between the two countries or would like Canada to be even more different (Bauch, 2002).
Concluding all on Canadian and American development, it is an asset to have two socio-economic successful countries next to one another – providing that they agree on issues in both of their best interests in the development of the country, its people, and its government.
Although the United States is Canada’s major trading partner, holds ten times Canadian population, and possesses an enormous military with devastating weaponry, both nations cannot successfully operate properly from all aspects of socio-economic factors without each other. We are sovereign and separate nations, but we are also the closest of neighbours. Our relations are intertwined and our economies are linked. Their political leaders depend on actions taken not only militarily, but more rather economically. Both countries work and progress in parallel with one another, and should one fall – it will lead to political corruption. Whether Canadian relations with the United States improve or not, these two nations will continue attempt fixing a continental divide.