babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » KEEPING BEIJING OUT OF SUDBURY

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: KEEPING BEIJING OUT OF SUDBURY
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 03 October 2004 04:48 AM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
KEEPING BEIJING OUT OF SUDBURY

Stan Sudol, writing in the Friday, Oct 1 edition of the National Post (Keep Beijing out of Sudbury – op ed page), warns against allowing China to purchase Noranda Mines.

The Financial Post has had at least three articles, all saying the same thing. This is interesting in that the most rabid of the Financial Post free-marketeers, including Terence Corcoran and Peter Foster, were calling for government intervention to prevent the sale.

If you find this a little strange coming from those who express abhorrence for government intervention in the market, and an undying belief in property rights, so you should. Presumably the shareholders of Noranda are property owners, and have property rights.

I wondered why the opposition to the Noranda sale was so hysterical.

So we come to the Stan Sudol article, and the reason becomes clear.

“The Canadian government must not allow Noranda’s 60% controlling interest in Falconbridge to fall in to Chinese government control,” writes Sudol.

Apparently Falconbridge is the world’s third largest producer of nickel. Further, according to Sudol, “Nickel…is critical to the health of the US economy, including its military/industrial complex.”

He points out the refining and mining of “this vital metal for national defence” is a specialized business. Four countries, Russia, Canada, Australia, and New Caledonia account for 60% or world production. The two largest concentrations of nickel are in Russia and Canada.

But guess what country’s missing from that list – yep, the United States. Apparently the US doesn’t have any nickel mines at all, which means, according to Sudol, “…the United States would come to a grinding halt without secure supplies of this crucial metal.”

Nickel is used in the manufacture of “jet engines, missile technology, and space applications”.

Sudol warns, “If there is a military conflict between China and the United States…where does Sudbury/Falconbridge nickel go?”

He concludes with, “Falconbridge Nickel Mines must remain in Canadian or US control. It is an issue of paramount importance. The military, industrial and economic security of both the United States and Canada is at stake.”

So there’s the reason for the hyperbolic reaction of the right wing to the impending sale.

It has nothing to do with free market at all; it has to do with ensuring the military might of the United States.

Presumably so they can continue cramming free markets down our throats.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 03 October 2004 01:07 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I noticed that. There's no complaint, of course, about US companies buying up Canadian companies. The assumption is always there that Canada really belongs to the US. Period. They really don't like the idea of real free trade, do they?
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 03 October 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"The military, industrial and economic security of both the United States and Canada is at stake."

I wonder what makes Sudol think Canada is threatended by this takeover.

In fact, Canada has a lot to gain by trading with China.

Rather than buy the overpriced junk produced in the US, Canada could be trading more with China and reaping the benefits of purchasing manufactured goods at a quarter (or less) the price.

However, that would admit China will be (is) the new global superpower, something the Canadian bourgeoisie is reluctant to do. After all, all their connections are with the US.

Who will protect their fortunes if the US goes the way of the dodo?

Of course there is the problem of Chinese labour.

I believe the best course of action is to find ways to help Chinese workers achieve higher standards of living through independent labour organizations.

Marx said, "Workers of the world unite!", and it's never been more true.

It is the duty of workers in countries where independent labour organizations exist, to express solidarity with workers in countries where they have yet to arise.

In the end, that is the only strategy which will yield positive results for workers everywhere.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hugh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5804

posted 03 October 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for Hugh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Where they [independant labour organizations] have yet to arise" is a pretty cheerful way to describe China, where independant labour organizations are illegal.
From: where they buried the survivors | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rich L
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4915

posted 03 October 2004 04:34 PM      Profile for Rich L     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This isn't the first time that foreign use of Canadian nickel has been controversial.

In 1933, J.S. Woodsworth stood up in the House of Commons noting that Germany under Hitler was rebuilding its army with Canadian nickel, which companies based here were selling to Germany. At the time, Canada had most of the world supply of nickel. Woodsworth suggested that the Canadian government legislate restrictions on the sale to Germany of nickel or other materials that might be used to build armaments. Parliamentarians across the bench responded by shouting down Woodsworth, calling him a "bolshevik" and an "economic freak."

Of course, Canada eventually did legislate an embargo against Germany, but that was only in 1938 or 1939, by which time Germany's army was fully rebuilt.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca