This is a great thread, and I have to wade in.
I heard Rex Murphy interviewing Desmond Morton about this topic last Sunday on his CBC radio show, and from what I can remember of the discussion, a lot of what he said made sense to me. Some highlights:
- We‘re best friends with the Americans whether we want to be or not -- our mutual geographic and economic conditions guarantee this. It‘s just a fact of life.
- The Bush Administration (as opposed to the entire US political establishment) just did not make the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda (sic) that both Canada and the rest of the world needed to garner their diplomatic -- if not military -- support.
- If you‘re not going to come right out and state your position on an unpopular war of aggression/defence(?), then for God‘s sake keep your mouth shout! Letting Cabinet ministers spout off against the conflict only makes it that much harder for the diplomats to do their thing behind the scenes.
- The US is suffering a severe paranoia attack right now in the aftermath of 9/11 and has "terrorism on the brain". Once they‘ve exorcised their anxiety on Iraq, they‘ll likely take a deep breath and step back. Colin Powell will reassert his power as Secretary of State and the US will move to repair the damage it‘s caused to the 50+ years of multilateral diplomacy it created through NATO, the UN, etc.
Now, having studied Anglo-American relations in the early years of the last century at grad school, I could get academic and spout off about how this obsession with Iraq is:
- A modern interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine (no foreign involvement is permitted in Central or South America), extended to another area of key economic and military interest to the US; and,
- An over-reaction to global events that has shocked the US out of its tendency to self-isolation -- just like the Lusitania (WW1) and Pearl Harbour (WW2).
However, next to nobody likes academic know-it-alls -- especially me -- and this line of discussion is best explored in
Foreign Affairs or the
International History Review (and I‘m sure it will be).
Did our government properly stick-handle its position on the war? Of course not! That would‘ve went totally against the fine Liberal tradition of obfuscation -- of which our PM is an acknowledged master.
Of course Canada is indirectly supporting the war on Iraq -- the presence of our ships and aircraft in the Gulf area, as well as the lack of recall of exchange officers serving with US and UK forces, says this to all in no uncertain terms. Remember the old saying, "Actions speak louder than words"? The presence of our military personnel in-theatre sends a very strong diplomatic statement. The US realises this, as does the UK and the rest of the world.
The bland statements of support for the UN that the government has issued, its skirting of outright support for the US actions
but confirming its support of the US to defend itself when it felt threatened, would likely have been fine and perfectly acceptable to Washington -- if certain Cabinet ministers and Liberal MPs hadn‘t spoken out so strongly and publicly against the US. Their gaffes complicated immensely the hard work done by the mandarins in Foreign Affairs to make sure that the Americans knew we were with them, even if the political climate in Canada did not permit the government to come right out and say so.
That being said, it sickened me to read this on Friday:
National Post
(Fri 04 Apr 2003)
By Steven Edwards
UNITED NATIONS - With the battle for Baghdad under way, Germany, France and Canada, all previously vocal opponents of the war in Iraq, are scrambling to mend fences with the United States.
Germany yesterday welcomed the removal of Saddam Hussein after earlier condemning regime change as a war aim. France signalled it would accept U.S. and British control of Iraq immediately after the war, and Canada affirmed its friendship with its southern neighbour.
The changes come as world attention shifts to Iraq‘s post-war reconstruction and the billions of dollars worth of contracts that it will involve. . . .
Being a student of diplomatic history, it shouldn‘t surprise me that France and Germany -- along with Canada -- would now choose to come out in favour of regime change in Iraq and attempt to patch things up with the US. After all, if they don‘t they‘ll put their business interests at a severe disadvantage in bidding for post-war contracts to rebuild Iraq, right?
If our government wants to continue to believe that it can act as America‘s conscience in this new, post-Cold War world, then I think we all know what it needs to do: conduct a joint foreign /defence policy review and provide the funds required to support them. I don‘t just mean money for strategic airlift, new tanks or destroyers, but for things such as foreign aid and economic development. We need to know where we‘re going, and if we‘re sending troops into harm‘s way, we owe it to them to make it clear exactly what it is we‘re asking them to risk their lives for.
When the world had two superpowers staring each other down, there was a legitimate neutral ground where "middle powers" such as Canada could operate, and who could use the UN to help influence the policy decisions of the superpowers. I think this middle ground is now gone, and in the new vacuum we‘re currently in, no one is going to listen to Canada unless we put our money where our mouth is.
I think Canadian foreign policy can and should operate independent of the US, but we should d*mned well have the ability to
project our policy independent of the US. From what I‘ve been able to glean from ministerial statements about Canada‘s position on various topics, it seems to me that we‘re moving farther away from this every day. This is too bad, as I think we as a nation have a lot to offer the rest of the world, and if someone asked for our help, we could make a big difference (like in sub-Saharan Africa, for example. Remember the "Bungle in the Jungle"?).
Anyways, sorry to ramble, but I had to get this out.
bottom line, the world evolves around money thats what our greedy American friends are after
