Posted on 08/06/2005 2:35:46 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Harvey M. Sapolsky, who directs the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told some unpleasant home truths to Canadians last month in a full-page article published in the National Post. There has been little response to it, either officially or editorially, and that is significant.
"Canada is a security risk to the United States," wrote Sapolsky. "Anti-Americanism is the unstated essence of the modern Canadian identity." But there are reasons for this. After the Second World War, when Canada's historic British connection began to decline, "the threat of being absorbed, not by a conquering but by a thriving America, was real." The Canadian who succeeded in then U.S. became a "Canadian idol." Canadians came to care as much about American politics as they cared about their own.
To secure a national identity, Canada took over its own constitution. It adopted a Charter of Rights of Freedoms like the American Bill of Rights. "But a constitution does not a country make," and in the end the only thing that came to distinguish Canada was universal health care. That's why "Canada reveres its problem-laden system."
Meanwhile, Canada largely disbanded its armed forces. It had virtually deserted its NATO obligations long before the Berlin Wall came down. It "briefly sought an international reputation in peacekeeping, but greatly tempered this initiative after disastrous experiences in Somalia, where its troops misbehaved, and in Rwanda, where its leadership was ignored. Today, Canada spends only about 1 percent of its GDP on national defense."
"Canadian politicians learned that opposing American foreign policy was popular at home and carried little risk to Canada of American retaliation." So Canada provided a refuge for American draft dodgers during the Vietnam War. Its contribution to the Gulf War was "token" and it hasn't joined the Iraq War at all. While such things might have "annoyed" senior American bureaucrats, they were understandable, and "no one much cared what Canada said or did."
Yet in other respects, the U.S. should definitely care, he said. For instance, the Ottawa Treaty Banning Land Mines has been actively promoted by Canada because the devices can injure civilians. The U.S. won't sign it because such mines are essential to protect U.S. troops in hostile foreign locations.
Similarly, Canada vigorously promotes the International Criminal Court to prosecute the perpetrators of the evils done in Rwanda and Bosnia. President Clinton refused to send it to the Senate because he saw that the treaty could be used to prosecute American peacekeepers.
These treaties "intentionally undermine America's military equities" and "seem to represent a deeper and more dangerous decision by Canada's foreign-policy establishment to lead the international effort to hobble the American military."
This attitude should concern Americans greatly because Canadian and American forces are vastly intertwined in continental defense. On occasion, Canadian officers command American troops. Canadian plants produce American military vehicles. Sometimes, Canadian ships sail as part of American fleets.
Therefore, Americans "should not tolerate Canada seeking a leading role in the global coalition to thwart American power needed to protect U.S. citizens and interests. Canada has given up on warfare; it can afford to, though the U.S. cannot."
The final straw was the Martin government's decision last spring not to participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defense program. This shows that the time has come for Americans "to give Canada some attention and a bit of a warning."
"Canada is easy to squeeze. Military trade preferences for Canada should end. The tag-along trips and combat observation opportunities should stop." These might be "small steps," but if Canada "continues its international meddling at our expense and forgets its geography" further steps involving "even greater costs for Canada" should be taken. Canada should be made to "know where its economic prosperity originates."
Two points about this article need be noted. For one, it's more than a mere opinion piece. Coming from MIT's security studies group, it will be semi-official, one stage below a formal diplomatic warning. The fact that Ottawa has not yet not prompted some Canadian academic to respond to it is likewise significant.
The second point is this: To a degree probably unrealized in Washington – and Ottawa too, for that matter – two Canadas have long been developing – one centered in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, the other in the West. The bizarre antics of the former have become so offensive to the latter that discussions of some form of separation have become commonplace among responsible people, particularly in Calgary. In deciding how to respond to this Canadian phenomenon, Americans might bear this in mind.
Ted Byfield published a weekly news magazine in western Canada for 30 years and is now general editor of "The Christians," a 12-volume history of Christianity.
My son flew in for a fly fishing trip last month in W Canada and back out.
He said the Canadians there were as conservative as he is. At times he makes me look like a moderate.
Who cares? Canada is a flea, they can be as impolite as they please and nobody would notice. If they want to be leftist anti-American driveling idiots go right ahead. Throw all the tantrums you like, the world will never have a reason to notice. Now if on the other hand anybody in Canada ever actually did something useful to the rest of the human race...
7/11? They're running our convenience stores now too?
Today Toronto announced that STARTING NEXT MONTH the cops will be searching all cars coming into the financial tower complex (where I work) for bombs. I reckon the oh so polite Canadians are anxious to give the terrorists a heads up so they can move their timetable up and blow us to smithereens within the next three weeks.
Agree with you one hundred percent.
Canada is indeed racially intolerant to the white english
speaking. It is so GD ridiculous it makes you want to
pack up, burn the maple leaf and go somewhere where you
are appreciated and treated equally.
I can understand why you left this multiculturally soiled
blanket. Every day it gets smellier and smellier.
I pray that the U.S issues an ulitmatum to our leftist
quebecois leadership (make no mistake that french canadians
and quebec run canada from the dual language on my pop
tarts to plum gov't jobs to french speaking or bilinguals
first, immigrants second, disabled third, special interest
fourth,and white english males last).
I dare say you will soon see gov't job applications with
a check box for preference for homosexuals to obtain
employment in the public service.
Mark my words.
Maybe I should change my sexual orientation?..but I still
have that english male problem?
Something has to give. Trudeau, the charter of rights and
everything since trudeau has been a disaster for the white
english speaking male in Canada or people who have been
here for generations (save the french canadians).
I tell ya......it is disgusting.
Uncle Sam......make some noise........PLEASE!!!!
Something else...if you watch the CBC lately they refer
to what tony blairs new rules as anti-extremism steps......
when everyone else on the planet calls a spade a spade...........they are anti TERRORIST policies.
Never hear that from the CBC which is....guess what....ran
by the ruling liberal party of power in Canada.
Grampa,
Here in the San Juan Islands we know the Canadian Military & Civilians up close and neighborly. IMHO, trying to pidgeonhole all Canadians as anti-US is like saying all of us agree with the anti-US sentiments found in Berkely, Austin, Ann Arbor, Boulder, etc.
grandma mac
I used to love going up to Victoria for a weekend, but I don't know how you live in the socialist paradise. I had an uncle that migrated to Canada in the late 60's to keep from getting his sizable backside shot off. Ironically, until the day he died, he was a conservative political activist in Canada.
Anyway, if you come south, don't stop until you hit the Mason Dixon line, or you may think you're still in Canada.
They ARE quite conservative in western Canada, except for coastal British Columbia and some isolated urban areas.
Even in eastern Canada, conservative sections exist in Ontario and the Maritimes, particularly away from the large urban areas.
Quebec is so extremely liberal, it makes the blue states look very conservative...
Unless Quebec separates (or is purged from Canada), it will get a WHOLE lot worse. They will continue to single-handedly push us far to the left...
Maybe .... but the point of being 'worse' on this thread had to do with anti-American sentiment. I also see it getting worse as a result of the Libs pushing through SSM so it depends from which angle one wants to look at life here. However, having raised the issue of Quebec separation, you would have to admit that while the pot always seems to be rumbling and close to breaking into a boil, it hasn't gotten any worse in recent years. In fact, it may be better which may in part be due to the rather low low birth rate in the province. One thing for sure, I don't think that a Quebec separation will be simply a matter for the rest of the country carrying on without them. My theory is that if Quebec separates (for whatever reason), it will actually result in the creation of three countries plus two provinces that would end up joining the States.
Very timely article, interesting reading. Canada had better wake up.
It would? Why?
Are you on Orcas, by any chance? A good friend of mine grew up on Doe Bay.
Quebec is where the anti-American sentiment is concentrated: less than 20% of Quebeckers are pro-American, compared to 59% for Canada as a whole.
Whidbey Island:a little piece of heaven accessable by way of Deception Pass Bridge, Mulketeo or Port Townsend ferries.
Orcas is beautiful beyond belief.
Washington State. No income tax. Cascade Mts for skiing. Seatac airport. Plenty of Universities.
Sirius satellite
July 8, 2004
Ottawa and New York — Partners CBC/Radio-Canada, Standard Radio Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. welcome today's CRTC announcement regarding the launch of public consultations on satellite radio services in Canada leading to a public hearing in November 2004.
June 16th, 2005
The CRTC authorizes Canada 's first three subscription radio services
OTTAWA-GATINEAU — The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) today announced the approval of three subscription radio licences and the establishment of a licensing framework for satellite subscription radio services.
The Commission approved the licence applications of SIRIUS Canada Inc. (SIRIUS Canada) and Canadian Satellite Radio Inc. (CSR) for subscription radio services to be delivered by satellite and terrestrial transmitters, and the application by CHUM Limited (CHUM/Astral) to offer subscription radio services uniquely through terrestrial transmitters.
BTW, Aljazeera might be availabe in Canada if some one wanted to broadcast it but it has extreme conditions attached to it . It is available on DISH in the US .
Fox is available in Canada on cable.
Out of curiousity, where are you getting your numbers from? I'm not thinking that the Quebec numbers are low, my gut feel is that the rest of the country is high. Just my impression based on the world around me here in Southern Ontario.
Too liberal for my tastes plus the majority of my customers are steel, cement and mining companies of which there are not a lot there. We also do quite a bit of work in pulp and paper but that industry is dying in the Northwest. I do have family across in BC though which would be nice. Let's just say it's not on my short list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.