Protesting What, Exactly?
The current summit at Montebello, Quebec of the three political leaders of North America; where President Filipe Calderon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President George W. Bush are meeting, ostensibly, to ensure that the continent combines its efforts toward a more secure unit in the face of world terrorism, to advance the economic fortunes of all three to present a counterpart to the European Union in their combined strength and to counter the growing economic presence of such burgeoning giants as India and China certainly has its detractors.On the face of it, the purpose sounds good. This union has been named the Security and Prosperity Partnership whose purpose is to broaden and deepen integration of the three countries in every sphere, from security to the health of the economy. Both the initiative and the participants have their critics, and they are legion. From the huge outcry of alarmed nationalists in Canada to conservative critics in the U.S. who fear the SPP will have the outcome of eroding national sovereignty, wipe out the border, institute a single currency, reduce workers' wages and working conditions within the U.S. In short, each country's protesters' concerns mirror one another's.
If there are protesters and worry-warts on the Mexican end, we haven't heard about them, but can be assured nonetheless that they're there and as bitterly divided among themselves as are those in the rest of North America. Some of the systemic changes seem to make sense, like regulations over food-colour dyes, common standards for hazardous materials containers, navigation systems for North American airways - but only if they report to the highest standards, not to be reduced to standards dictated by the money-making interests of large corporations.
And we've no assurances that such is not the case. Since coming out of the SPP process thus far has been the creation of the North American Competitiveness Council which is a collection of representative business leaders; ten appointed to represent each country. Their purpose is to 'advise' the leaders on how best to move the goals of the SPP forward. And therein lies a bit of a problem in that what protesters and indeed any interested onlookers see is those extremely self-interested corporate tails wagging the political dogs.
Moreover, all the meetings, along with progress reports as they're produced are maintained in a veil of secrecy, exclusive to those intimately involved in these proceedings, despite the fact that any institution of agreed-upon findings will most surely impact on the populations of those three involved countries. Critics insist that it is only corporate leaders who are being consulted. The viewpoints of scientists, labour leaders, human rights experts, police associations, environmentalists, even legislators have not been sought. Thank you very much.
Thus far the agreed-upon changes produced by the SPP in its short life can be summed up as a handful of common emergency measures planning. Which would incorporate plans for allied action during future potential avian/or and influenza pandemics. And then there is a long list of regulatory issues, such as foodstuff labelling, and pipeline standards, as well as air quality data-collaborative collection systems. As long as adherence to high quality is recognized to ensure already-existing regulations aren't undermined, that sounds fairly intelligent. Full stop.
There are other, very controversial issues to be debated; items which appear to be 'under review' by country-representative bureaucrats, which might include the export of water, joint visa-issuance standards and rules for immigration. There are, without doubt, many issues of great importance to the civil stability, economic opportunities, enhancement of societal values held in great esteem by all three countries, where harmonization across borders might prove to be a great assist, but some things like the wholesale exportation of water resources, and gas and oil require a step back for further consideration.
Only because the largest and more aggressive of the political entities, the greater-consuming nation with the largest population, whose powers of persuasion have proved in the past to be inimical to the best interests of its continental partners might be seen to be engaged in actively diverting the natural resources of its partners for its own insatiable use. Thus the protests.
Yet there's one singular contingent of protesters whose presence puzzles me. Those confusing the engagement of the United States in Iraq with these very precise and particular home-grown-and-contained issues, carrying aloft banners reading "Troops Out Now!". And PA-checkered headscarves adorning the heads of other protesters. Reminds me of the time when I joined an anti-war protest before the second Iraq invasion and found myself surrounded by anti-Israel signage.
So let's get this straight: protesting what, exactly, please do tell...?
Labels: Canada-US Relations, Conflict, Political Realities
posted by Pieface @ Monday, August 20, 2007
<< Home