This has been bugging me recently:
The CBC is on strike - locked out really - and being a good Canadian I don't really care too much about the issues. What bugs me about the whole thing, however is that there is very little coverage of the dispute in any of the other papers and media. This fact brings out a few issues:
1. The most commented issue is that allowing the strike to continue gives us taxpayers very little value for the subsidies that we are providing the public broadcaster. But, of course, settling a labour dispute hastily provides little value either
The next two issues area bit sinister and really bug me - from an ethical perspective:
2. The lack of coverage of the dispute makes it more difficult for the public to be informed about the issues and put pressure on the CBC. This keeps the CBC (competition) from producing their traditional product allowing other broadcasters to compete with an advantage.
3. Again, by not keeping the public aware of the lockout the other broadcasters are given an advantage because the CBC workers' cause will gain little sympathy from the public and will thus be at a disadvantage at the bargaining table. This, of course is an advantage for other broadcasters because their employees are members of the same union and any agreements favourable to guild members will be an advantage for any future bargaining.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Monday, September 12, 2005
NAFTA and Canada's National Interest
Many people are talking about revisiting NAFTA these days. The conservatives have mentioned that they would consider renegotiating the treaty. Kinsella comments on that here (Sept 8).
What really started the whole topic was the issue of softwood lumber. The trade in softwood is of course covered by NAFTA and so the trade should be free. In the event that one party to the agreement is unhappy with the other's trading practices then the treaty ought to stipulate how the disagreement is to be resolved. Of course, the treaty does just that and since Canada and the US have been disagreeing we have sought to have the issue resolved using the NAFTA framework. Unfortunately the US has not felt bound to resolve the issue in that manner preferring a negotiated settlement.
This all goes to show something that I have been arguing for some time. Namely, Canada's primary national interest lies in achieving a system of fair and effective international law. With effective mechanisms in place and respect for international institutions Canada is capable of punching far beyond its weight, but without such a system it is doomed to negotiate settlements that may not be as advantageous to the Canadian economy.
There are of course other more important, more idea-listic-logical, reasons why international law is good. These are the advantages that accrue to Canada and the world when right and justice have a greater sway on the goings on of the world than does might and power. But, these advantages cannot come about if governments are unwilling to live up to their bargains and would rather sacrifice their word for an extra $1000 going to domestic builders for every new home.
If I may finish this by pointing out that for these reasons avoiding the Iraq entanglement was good. It was obvious at the outset of that affair that international law would suffer. Now with the insurgency, and the American prison scandals the cause of international law is at a nadir. I would hope that Canadian politicians would strive to adopt a foreign policy that seeks to strengthen the traditions of international law at every moment.
What really started the whole topic was the issue of softwood lumber. The trade in softwood is of course covered by NAFTA and so the trade should be free. In the event that one party to the agreement is unhappy with the other's trading practices then the treaty ought to stipulate how the disagreement is to be resolved. Of course, the treaty does just that and since Canada and the US have been disagreeing we have sought to have the issue resolved using the NAFTA framework. Unfortunately the US has not felt bound to resolve the issue in that manner preferring a negotiated settlement.
This all goes to show something that I have been arguing for some time. Namely, Canada's primary national interest lies in achieving a system of fair and effective international law. With effective mechanisms in place and respect for international institutions Canada is capable of punching far beyond its weight, but without such a system it is doomed to negotiate settlements that may not be as advantageous to the Canadian economy.
There are of course other more important, more idea-listic-logical, reasons why international law is good. These are the advantages that accrue to Canada and the world when right and justice have a greater sway on the goings on of the world than does might and power. But, these advantages cannot come about if governments are unwilling to live up to their bargains and would rather sacrifice their word for an extra $1000 going to domestic builders for every new home.
If I may finish this by pointing out that for these reasons avoiding the Iraq entanglement was good. It was obvious at the outset of that affair that international law would suffer. Now with the insurgency, and the American prison scandals the cause of international law is at a nadir. I would hope that Canadian politicians would strive to adopt a foreign policy that seeks to strengthen the traditions of international law at every moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
