Regionalization of regions great and small...
For those of you who have had a few drinks with me over the course of an evening that may have led to a discussion of BC identity politics, which is actually everyone who reads this blog :), you will already have an understanding of where I'm going with this. But just for fun, I'm going remind everyone of the varying definitions of the term 'region.' In international politics, a region is normally assumed to be a massive area that encompasses countries or even continents with intertwined economies and a degree of intermingling of their populations (e.g. Asia Pacific, North Atlantic, Eurasia -for you Orwell fans out there, etc.). In national politics, a region is normally denoted by similar characteristics on a smaller geographical scale (Northern BC, the St. Lawrence river basin, the maritimes, etc. I'm sure you get the picture). In European politics, the term region is used much the same way, but has an interesting additional facet: it includes communities in regions that are similar to eachother economically and socially, but different in geography and nationality (fishing regions {in Spain, England and Germany}, agricultural regions {portions of France, Poland and Italy} etc.). This regionalization of Europe has allowed for a fostering of regional identity within and across Europe, increased weight/voice in the European and national policy processes, greater sharing of knowledge and, in the cases of N. Ireland, (correct me if I'm mistaken- Spain isn't my area of expertise) Catelonia and the Basque country, peace through greater self-determination...
And now to the pith and substance of what I'm getting at (my 'pithy' remark is directly related to the obscene amount of Canadian legal crap I'm reading right now). Recenty, Trade Minister D. Emerson has openly supported the creation of a free trade zone amongst the 22 members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec), as an alternative to the faltering WTO. Following the reasoning and logic in Europe and eshewing any realist/protectionist baloney, the promise of such a project is considerable. Considering Vancouver's current demography, many of our possible future partners have remarkable diaspora populations already contributing to the Canadian economy, why not set up a regional body that will set all of us working for each other's benefit? If we can move beyond a purely economic cooperative unit, we may be able to move toward gr8dad's Union of Democratic Nations, where we can help those who are willing and able to commit to the same 'core values' that we all agree are necessary for lasting relationships... I say let's do it Canada! and let Cascadia (BC, WA, OR, & maybe CA if they're good) work within that framework to maximize our geographical opportunities.
Time for hockey! thanks for listening
And now to the pith and substance of what I'm getting at (my 'pithy' remark is directly related to the obscene amount of Canadian legal crap I'm reading right now). Recenty, Trade Minister D. Emerson has openly supported the creation of a free trade zone amongst the 22 members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec), as an alternative to the faltering WTO. Following the reasoning and logic in Europe and eshewing any realist/protectionist baloney, the promise of such a project is considerable. Considering Vancouver's current demography, many of our possible future partners have remarkable diaspora populations already contributing to the Canadian economy, why not set up a regional body that will set all of us working for each other's benefit? If we can move beyond a purely economic cooperative unit, we may be able to move toward gr8dad's Union of Democratic Nations, where we can help those who are willing and able to commit to the same 'core values' that we all agree are necessary for lasting relationships... I say let's do it Canada! and let Cascadia (BC, WA, OR, & maybe CA if they're good) work within that framework to maximize our geographical opportunities.
Time for hockey! thanks for listening
posted by kalen at 6:19 PM
6 Comments:
common self-interest? have you been taking self-prescribed medication? Certainly there has to be a degree of self interest in any endevour, or you'd end up giving your entire being away. There is self-interest in accomplishing with others what you can not alone, but as we've seen with the US there are 2 ways of going about that. You can say "let's work together" or "we'll take over and you can work for us." Which is less destructive and less self-interested? You can decide.
This might all be moot anyway, seeing as China pulled out of the bi-lateral meeting (surprise!) with Harper (do you blame them?)...
Ok my two bits. Yes, there has to be self-interest involved for any cooperation to happen. In Canada's case, economically speaking, our self-interest would say "stay out."
Canada is a developed country exporting developing country products: wood, water, oil, coal, beer. While APEC would offer access to giant markets, such as China, it would also create more competition with states who sell similar resources (Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Argentina, etc). All the competition, however, has lower environmental and social standards (not to mention currencies) so their goods are cheaper so free trade would drive down prices.
China is already investing heavily in the Canadian (read: Albertan) economy. Japan has been a major consumer of our forest products. The only (only!) benefit to exporting natural resources is people need them. If you play your cards write (which harper isn't) bilateral agreements are far more effective than a regional trading bloc.
Without dollar signs in the eyes, the social benefits of creating a region in Asia Pacific won't happen. (and this isn't to mention the region is far too disimilar politically and socially...but another rant).
first, gr8dad, you'll please be kind enough pardon my obviously ill-fated attempt at wit...
second, while the tactic has not proven to be unsuccessful, the US has gone into Germany, Japan, Vietnam, afghanistan, and now Iraq and 'helped' set up US approved governments.
third, any agreement the US has entered into in the last 60 years has been heavily biased in favour of the US on account of the fact that anyone who needs what the US has will 'agree to' most any conditions the US stipulates. This is because either, as anyone who has desperately needed a loan can attest to, the immediate benefit of the agreement skews the severity of any long term commitments; or there simply is no other alternative as far as democratic partners go. So, while it may not be entirely 'right' to say the US doesn't enter into mutually beneficial economic relationships, it is because the benefits are disproportionately in favour of the US, the statement is by no means categorically wrong.
But, as always, we are always free to disagree...
I'm a little scared to enter this one, guys. But hey - you can't get me unless you come to Bangkok, which I actively support. So it is a mutually-beneficial exchange of opinions :) (note smiley).
In a nutshell, you're both right and in some ways both wrong. It depends on how you view the motivations of the Americans and of the countries they occupy/influence, etc. Is keeping troops in Europe for defensive purposes similar to backing candidates in the Panama national elections? Well, yes and no. The people of Panama (who voted Noreiga back in) might not take kindly to American influence. Children of WW2 survivors in Europe might have a different idea.
What interests me is the question fo what standard to hold the US to, should we treat them differently because they are a superpower? In my mind Yes. Those who can do the most harm or the most good hold the most responsibility.
However, it isn't the standards we hold them to as much as the standards they create. Moral standards. The American government touts their international policiing, etc as the tools for greater international morality and justice. Bringing the right people to power, taking down those who shouldn'tbe there. While in some cases, this might be relatively clear, in other it is not. Yes, I'm sure you're warming up your fingers for a bit rebuttal here, but the fact is, Americans are the ones who decide. Increasingly, non-Americans are rejecting these decisions. Even Americans are questioning the moral basis for American interventions.
I spent all day yesterday playing baseball with a bunch of american men. I'm still in culture shock.
Hmm...where to begin.
Well to start, I do hold China to a higher standard for the simple reason we NEED them to behave better. They have a huge responsibility. If they continue to build their massive coal refineries, North Americans will be choking on their pollution (moreso). The only difference in my opinion between China and U.S. revolves around the different types of power each holds.
Yes, China has nukes. Approx 20. A fraction of the US. China's GDP is expanding rapidly, but their economy is still not as global as the US. They have more people and more potential, but a wield a different power. They have the responsibility to develop responsibly. To date, this is not the case.
I think you are confusing (perhaps on purpose) individual Americans with the American government, military and industry. True - individual Americans can be as kind and generous as any other individual on the planet. Their actions are not tied to the vested interests of their government's foreign policy.
As Machievelli pointed out, even a statesmen can have two faces: one domestic and one for foreign policy. Countries are likewise split between their citizens and their government. I for one am not represented by the current Canadian Conservative government.
And the bit about culture shock. Americans are different. It is different being in a group of Americans than a group of Canadians. They were kind people and I enjoyed their company, but we related on the broadest of 'North American' terms. As when I'm thrown into completely Thai situations, I was left a bit culture shocked.
What interests me is your staunch defense of American foreign policy in the face of growing criticism from prominent people (eg Colonel Powell). Why are you willing to 'look for reasons to shore up your [positive] beliefs' and unwilling to see reasons that contradict? perhaps a mental exercise....
wow guys,
A perfect illustration of why I wanted to start this blog.
I've got to get to the gym, so I'm only going to throw my 2 bits in and run, so here goes:
I agree with TJ, except, I'll go one further. I hold every country with a stable government to the same HIGH standards, which is why I'll criticize Canada, Sweden, China, and the US - all for different reasons, but I'll criticize them just the same.
GD, I also admit and applaud the American's generousity, and that being said, it was a LOT of private individuals who GAVE. US government support to the tune of $XX million makes complete sense, and it can not be wholly seen as humanitarian. There is a fair amount of american investment in the region, and if they can help get tsunami victims back on their feet and working again, well then everybody is happy... If the reasoning here is a little jaded, ask yourself why goverments have international development funds? Because an underproducing region costs big bucks. The EU has structural funds, so that under'developed' regions can reform and develop so they can in turn support efficient economies, so that the EU won't have to support them in the long run. Unfortunately, state sponsored humanitarianism is too easily placed under the rubrik of fiscal responsibility to be immediately classified as a 'selfless' act, and that is why so many people the world over have trouble with the Americans'... (government)
Post a Comment
<< Home