Saturday, December 17, 2005

My Blahg: HARPER ON SOFTWOOD: "I can’t help but notice that Harper’s stance on the softwood lumber dispute is the exact same as Paul Martin’s; for which he was labelled as anti-American."

1 Comments:

Anonymous CuriosityKilledTheCat said...

Harper's Munich?

When Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before, he waved an infamous piece of paper, which read as follows:

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Chamberlain later went to 10 Downing St. and said:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Now, in April 2006, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, is symbolically waving a piece of paper and speaking of a "good deal" he has struck with President Bush of the USA.

"Sellout" Stephen has "resolved" the softwood dispute, so the news says. He has done this by going on bended knee to a President who has gained a reputation – not shared by any other President to date – for spurning legalities, ignoring the rule of law, and unilaterally breaking legally binding treaties entered into between nations.

In so doing, Sellout Stephen has agreed to allow the USA to breach its obligations owed to Canada under a legally binding treaty (NAFTA), despite clear court and tribunal decisions supporting Canada's position.

What are the implications of this incredibly shortsighted and stupid decision by this so-called "policy wonk" Prime Minister? Here are a few:

• Harper has telegraphed to the USA and to others that Canada will not insist on legally binding international treaties being upheld.

• Harper and his New Tories have shown that Canada is run by a weak government, which can be easily browbeaten, and which will settle for less than the country is entitled to.

• Harper has shown contempt for the rule of law equal to the contempt shown by Bush during his failed presidency. This is a new and dangerous path for a Prime Minister of Canada to tread, and reveals a startling moral lack on the part of the New Tories.

• Harper will sell out any principles for short term political gain, especially if by doing so he can curry favour with the USA.

The question can now be asked: Who speaks for Canada?

Apparently not this Prime Minister.

It is time for him to go.

3:08 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home