bcpalmer@watrose.UUCP (02/21/87)
People have been questioning the definition of "Canadian culture" - maybe there are several perspectives: 1) "culture" that preserves the Canadian identity (then again, what is the Canadian "identity"? I'm thinking of our multiculturalism, environment, foreign relations, maybe a quieter patriotism, history, geography, bilingualism, ...), or 2) "culture" that originates in Canada, even if it is no different than that which originates from any other Western nation (a lot of our music or movies is really no different, but it may be nice to keep the jobs and money in Canada). What "culture(s)" are we talking about anyways? As far as nationalism and Free Trade, I really don't understand all the issues, but I'm just worried that the Americans will take more ground than they give, which usually seems to be the case in any of their foreign relations. (sidenote: look at the acid rain/pollution problem - when the pollution comes from them, we can't convince them, but when the pollution comes from someone else - ie. Mexico, they sign agreements pretty fast!)
bjorn@alberta.UUCP (02/21/87)
In article <8490@watrose.UUCP>, bcpalmer@watrose.UUCP (Barbara Palmer) writes: > What "culture(s)" are we talking about anyways? As far as nationalism and > Free Trade, I really don't understand all the issues, but I'm just worried > that the Americans will take more ground than they give, which usually seems > to be the case in any of their foreign relations. Who let's them get away with it? If you're too anxious to get an agreement of course they'll press for whatever they can get. Didn't P.E.T. offer free trade once? Didn't the US tell him to take a hike? Am I dreaming this? I'm all for hanging tough in international negotiations. This requires intelligence on the benefits the other side is looking to gain or not to lose. What they want most, what they fear most to lose. The only leverage you have is their self interest. > (sidenote: look at the > acid rain/pollution problem - when the pollution comes from them, we can't > convince them, but when the pollution comes from someone else - ie. Mexico, > they sign agreements pretty fast!) This sounds natural enough, they'd rather take than give. Has anyone looked into the possibility of suing the US in the US for damages resulting from pollutant originating in the US? How about damages and controls? I know it's possible for foreign entities to sue US entities (including the government) in US courts. The law? US law of course. So does someone (Dave Sherman can you help?) know enough about US pollution and/or liability legislation to answer these questions? See you at the Power Plant for a fresh charge, Bjorn R. Bjornsson alberta!bjorn