| Slogans • Annexation If Necessary, But Not Necessarily Annexation. |
|
"Annexation if necessary, but not necessarily annexation." 
|
As with any discussion of supra-national
consolidation, the North American context offers numerous potential
iterations for such an amalgamation to occur. The focus here is with a
democratic union, based on the expressed will of the people. It follows that
any considerations for an annexation of Canada to the USA will only be
relevant if they help build a consensus on both sides of the border. In fact
majority support on both sides is a pre-requisite for any successful merger
talks.
So why is an annexation necessary? People have different life
experiences, different political beliefs, different social values,
different perceptions and motivations. Canada and America are both
countries that promote individual freedoms as a valuable wealth from
which the whole nation ends up benefiting. So in this context, how can
we establish the necessity for this union? Many people support a union
for their own personal and unique reasons. Some supporters even hold
contradicting reasons for their support, mostly due to differing
perceptions on what the impacts of a Union would be.
The answer is to focus our attention on the natural affinity and
compatibility of our peoples, rather than on the issues of the day. By
momentarily making abstraction of those daily issues, we can distinguish
the quintessential basics of this proposition: That proposition has it's
core motivation in a mutually shared understanding of the people
themselves: that we share a cultural affinity and a lifestyle that is so
similar that to the external observer, we are indeed one and the same,
but living under separate political regimes.
Indeed our undefended border is a testament to that situation, even though most of us are simply too busy with our daily lives to stop and think about it. So again, is there really a necessity for such a union? Can't we just enjoy the status quo and maintain our two separate political entities in the spirit of friendship of good neighbors, without having to compromise the elements that do make us uniquely different? These are valid interrogations that form the basis of any debate on this proposition. The necessity however, exists independently of these considerations. Let's now take a look at some of the reasons why necessity might become a motivating factor to justify altering the comfortable status quo: |
|
|
Economic Necessity
Yes, an economic
depression on a global scale could force such reconsideration of the status
quo. A collapse of globalization would certainly return the levers of
economic control in the hands of national governments. This is in fact a
serious possibility considering the current trends, and many financial
analysts agree that this is a likely trend if the interdependent financial
grid continues it's deterioration. Canada and America both share the biggest
trade relationship in the whole world. Canada stands to suffer the most from
a return of protectionist policies that would drastically affect it's export
driven economy, and the welfare of it's good people would suffer as a
result. At the same time, America is looking towards reducing it's
dependence on foreign nations for it's natural resource needs. A conjugation
of our national interests would certainly act as a legitimate and major
driver for democratic integration talks.
|
 |
|
|
Climatic Necessity
Climate change is occurring. The debate that rages
around whether most of it is due to natural causes or to mankind's industry
bears little impact on the fact that climate is changing, and that our
ability to successfully adapt to it is directly linked to the technical
means we have at our disposal. A warming of the Arctic pole resulting in the disappearance of all
Arctic ice during summers, is being predicted and observed by scientists
from numerous affiliations. The repercussions of those wide ranging changes
are immense: previously unattainable natural resources are now accessible.
New naval routes linking Europe to Asia now open. And the challenges of
maintaining national sovereignty in those parts is limited by Canada's
relatively small population. Whether it be as a result of drastic climate
changes causing severe logistical issues with displaced populations and
scarcer resources in an unstable global situation, as has been forecast by
the US Department of Defense (see below), or because of
changing geo-political balance as a result of the climate system
alterations, it is clear that climate change can eventually play a huge role
leading North Americans to seriously reconsider the current arrangements.
|
 |
|
|
"In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The United States and Canada may become one, simplifying border controls. Or, Canada might keep its hydropower—causing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea may align to create one technically savvy and nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a unified block – curbing immigration problems between European nations – and allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its abundant minerals, oil, and natural gas may join Europe."
Political Necessity
There are also
political motivations which may encourage a necessity for such a union of
our countries. On Canada's side, the political reasons are basically
centered around a federal system that has in the view of many provinces at
least, usurped the balance of "individual/state/federal" and has over the
years generated much discontent towards that system. It has even led to the
emergence of multiple separatist movements (the biggest of which is found in
Quebec) that seek to exit this "unfair" federation not because of an issue
with the people of Canada, but rather because of systemic issues with the
Canadian constitution and Ottawa's repeated meddling in fields of competence
that are traditionally allocated to the provinces. From this perspective,
America offers a much better balanced federal system, and a constitution
that treats everyone equitably and fairly. By contrast, America offers clear
delimitations on the division of powers between individuals, their state,
and their federal government. Inclusion of Canada's provinces in the
American federation would indeed destroy those separatist movements
permanently: First because the systemic issues that fuel the fire of those
political groups would be addressed, and secondly because any democratic
annexation of Canada to the USA would be permanent in character, as stated
in the Articles of Confederation:
"Article
XIII. Every State shall
abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on
all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the
Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State,
and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time
hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a
Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the
legislatures of every State."
While we are at
it, those same articles also offer an open-ended invitation to statehood by
the founding fathers, applicable to Canada specifically:
"Article XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the
United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of
this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such
admission be agreed to by nine States."
As such I
conclude that a democratic annexation born of necessity to address the
systemic failings of the Canadian federation constitutes a legitimate
proposition that truly has the potential to fix those irregularities while
also providing Canadians with a pletora of economic and political
opportunities as full partners of the American union, which the current
border is inhibiting.
Common Sense
When it gets
down to it, we have to use our own judgment about what's really necessary.
Sure Canadians would gain from the increased economic opportunities. All
Canadians would have many more travel and work opportunities, anywhere in
the USA. Currently it is very hard even for university graduates to find
work positions there, so that would be a major change. Lower taxes while
keeping universal health care for the provinces that wish to keep it? These
are valid advantages, but none of them seem to warrant the sense of
necessity and urgency to justify such a major change to the North American
situation.
Ultimately, it
comes down to the necessity for our peoples to attain the best peace,
freedom & prosperity for themselves while helping to propel mankind in the
right direction, all of it in an efficient way that leads by example. This old idea is a big vision, a
dream of what could be. And for some like me, the necessity of a union of
both our countries is founded on the understanding that it would affect the
future of mankind at large, in a positive and constructive way. Canadians
are Americans without a vote, without a say, in what goes on in world
affairs. The actions America takes end up affecting all of us, and to me the
responsible thing to do is to take our place alongside our American
brothers, enjoying the advantages while carrying the responsibilities that
freedom entails. Playing our role from the inside, for our own advantage,
but also to ensure that the choices America makes end up serving the broader
interests of mankind, and that America forever leads by example. Whether
necessity will knock at our door or not, remains to be seen. But we should
not shy from exploring the implications of this serious proposition.
In conclusion, we can agree that whatever happens needs to be with the interest of our peoples at heart; this is why it must be democratic. A democratic discussion will ensure that any integration that occurs will be by the people. Perhaps our peoples will conclude that other solutions are better equipped to answer our mutual needs, and that an annexation is not in our best interest. In any event this exploration of potentialities will help forge and define real solutions that will inspire decisions made in the future in regards to this relationship. |
|
|
Alexandre Dufresne February 10th, 2009 |
|
