G20: “The world needs more Canada?”

Someone in the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office already consigned us to “Tier 2”; now Norman Spector lets us know what the loverly lefty Guardian thinks of us:

Those key G20 questions answered
6. And who’s only along for the free snacks?
Argentina: not a great deal of traction as far as the global economy goes. Australia: Kevin Rudd’s centre-left politics are a relief from those of his predecessor, but he is widely seen as just a wee bit conventional (some might say nerdy). Canada: nice, but irrelevant [emphasis added]. India: another vast emerging economy, but one that somehow never quite fulfils its promise; too many problems and an octogenarian leadership. Indonesia: the world’s largest Muslim country, so kind of had to be there really. Italy: all sizzle, no steak. Mexico: too many (drug) problems at home. The Netherlands: who? South Africa: potentially important, but the jury’s still out on where it’s heading. Spain: fell out with Bush after pulling troops out of Iraq, and now with Obama after announcing withdrawal from Kosovo too…

Mark C.

7 thoughts on “G20: “The world needs more Canada?”

  1. wilson says:

    Canada: nice, but irrelevant
    Co-chairing the most important aspect of the global recovery makes Canada irrelevant….?
    Seems the reporter thinks the entire exercise and everyone involved is a big bunch of nothing.

  2. Powell Lucas says:

    The truth is Canada is pretty well irrelevant in the world economy. Our nation basically operates as a branch plant of the U.S. as far as manufacturing goes. But, I’d rather be a branch plant of the U.S. than I would of France, or Britain, or Russia. It’s simply a fact of life, we are a fairly small nation when it comes to population and, therefore, consumption.
    Our biggest strength lies in our resources whether it be in the oilsands, diamonds, gold, nickel, timber, or our other vast, untapped reserves of mineral wealth.
    As these commodities become a dwindling reality, Canada’s place at the economic table will grow in proportion to the scarcity of these reserves. At the moment we are suffering the pains of being a branch plant economy. However, once the U.S. is back on its feet, which it will be, there will be another move to locate subsidiary operations to Canada. The U.S. relies too heavily on Canada’s resources to allow our nation to wallow in a permanently depressed state, and soon more of the world economies will be following the U.S. lead.
    We are an open trading nation with skilled and productive workers, and we are a stable and secure source of supply. Those two facts alone will secure us a seat at any economic table.
    So, who cares what the Guardian thinks. Like the Toronto Star, this publication is just another irrelevant, leftist rag good only for lining bird cages.

  3. Bruce Rheinstein says:

    It could be worse, you could be “The Netherlands: who?”
    Actually with Alberta’s tar sands oil, hydroelectric power exports from Quebec and New Foundland, and your strategic presence in the Arctic, you’d think even the lefty snobs at the Guardian would take Canada more seriously.
    Perhaps Turkey and Saudi Arabia appeal more to the Guardian’s sense of romance than does a large, resource rich, western democracy.

  4. John B says:

    I didn’t see much about the UK in the article. Probably just as well:
    “‘Worst financial crisis in human history’: Bank boss’s warning as pound suffers biggest fall for 37 years”
    ” Sterling had its worst-ever week against the dollar since 1971 and hit a record low against the euro;”
    The Brits know it all.

  5. Philanthropist says:

    The Islamic Republik of Britain doesn’t need an economic recovery, they are energized by their hatreds and ideology. Canadians shouldn’t have bothered to save them from fascism 60 years ago.

  6. Mark Collins says:

    Philanthropist: The Brits saved themselves in 1940.
    The Canadian Army did not go into combat, other than a brief excursion to France in 1940, until 1943 (Sicily). The RCN was not an effective anti-submarine service until 1943. Many Canadians served in RAF Bomber Command, both as members of the RAF and RCAF; the RCAF’s own, 6th Group, within that command was not formed until 1943 and relied largely on the RAF for ground crew. In any case until 1943 Bomber Command was largely ineffective. You could look it all up.
    That is not to denigrate our country’s significant contribution to the war effort. But we were no saviour.
    That role was provided by the US with its materiel assistance (Lend-Lease, starting in 1941); by the USSR’s being able to avoid defeat in 1941–in spite of Stalin’s slimy policy vis-a-vis Hitler and his terrible destruction of the Red Army’s senior officer corps–and the subsequent ability of that army eventually to defeat, at mind-boggling cost, the bulk of the Wehrmacht; and by the fact that the US did actually enter the war and devote the bulk of its military effort to the European Theatre.
    All that too can be looked up.
    The essence is that the Brits, largely because of Churchill, in what was objectively a hopeless situation in June 1940, stayed in the war.
    By the way, 60 years ago was 1949, the year the North Atlantic Treaty, the origin of NATO, was signed. But that’s a different story about saving Europe.
    May I suggest you read these two book by John Lukcas?
    “The Duel: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler”
    “Five Days in London: May 1940”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s