|
Are U.S. tourists making a political statement?
Some have blamed the rise in gasoline prices. But that doesn't make sense. Travelling from city to city within the U.S. is often a longer drive than heading up to Canadian cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, all close to the border. More to the point, the sharp drop in tourism was measured in August -- before hurricane Katrina spiked gas prices. Some have blamed the strengthening Canadian dollar, saying it has eroded Canada's economic attraction to Americans. But that doesn't make sense, either. The Canadian dollar is worth roughly 85 U.S. cents today. Last October, it was 81 U.S. cents (and it was 84 U.S. cents last November). Is an extra cent or two really the reason we have the lowest tourism from the U.S. in a generation? If the dollar is the reason, then one would have expected to see this tourism drop last year -- because between October 2003 and October 2004, the Canadian dollar rose from 76 cents to 81 cents -- a bigger jump than in the past year. And in the year before that, the Canadian dollar positively leapt from 63 cents to 76 cents, or 13 cents in just one year. How can a three- or four-cent rise in the Canadian dollar over the past year be to blame for falling U.S. tourism, if an 18-cent rise in the previous two years didn't flatten tourism? The obvious answer is that American tourism wasn't hurt by gas prices or currency fluctuations. It was killed by something else that Americans are thinking about when it comes to Canada in the past year. Gee -- what could that be? Could it be that Paul Martin's policy of unrestrained anti-Americanism has had an effect? Could it be some Americans -- not all, but certainly enough to cause August's 5.9% drop -- have made a political statement with their vacation plans, just like they have stopped drinking French wine? Granted, Jean Chretien was anti-American, too. But not with the same bellicosity as Paul Martin. Chretien didn't threaten to divert oil exports from the U.S. to its hostile rival, China, as Martin did. Chretien was sullen toward the U.S. but he was predictable. Martin started as prime minister claiming to be pro-U.S., stating support for continental ballistic missile defence. Then, at the last minute, he did a spectacular about-face, embarrassing the U.S. as it was trying to build international support. True, Chretien was against the war in Iraq. But it was Martin who turned his opposition into a negative attack ad in the 2004 election, smearing the war as an aggressive and hostile venture. Was his target Stephen Harper or George W. Bush? Liberal strategists might claim privately that anti-Americanism is just a campaign trick for domestic political consumption, a way of appealing to NDP voters and demonizing the Conservatives. But Americans are noticing. Their media certainly noticed when Carolyn Parrish denounced George Bush, and wasn't removed from the Liberal caucus until she later committed the only unpardonable sin in the Liberal party, denouncing Martin himself. It's a little rich for Canadian officials to complain about a drop in U.S. tourism, after the spectacle of official anti-Americanism. As retaliations go, a drop in tourism is about as gentle as it gets. But if Martin and company start acting out their threats to interfere with Alberta's oil exports to the U.S., don't be surprised if Condoleezza Rice responds with something a little tougher than a drop in tourism -- say, a one-hour "security inspection" of every Canadian truck crossing the border. Posted by: Steve White 2005-10-26 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=133184 |