Waffling on missile defence plan hurts Canada, experts say
By BETH GORHAM
Canadian Press
Harriman, N.Y. â †It's time for Canada to stop dithering and join the U.S. missile defence plan so it can move on to issues like co-ordinating maritime defence and transborder emergencies, a major conference on Canada-U.S. relations concluded Sunday.
A majority of government officials, academics, diplomats and others from both sides of the border said the missile project has been wrongly linked to â Å“science fiction scenariosâ ? of weapons in space and that there would be ample opportunity for Canada to get out if the U.S. ever moves in that direction.
â Å“A positive Canadian decision would get the issue off the table and end the debate which has unfortunately obscured more than it has enlightened,â ? said an initial draft report from the American Assembly at Columbia University.
â Å“Even though Canada does not share the U.S. assessments of external threats to the same degree, it has no alternative but to adjust to U.S. perceptions of what menaces North America,â ? said the draft, which will see a number of revisions.
The assembly's report wasn't unanimous. A handful of high-profile Canadians, including former prime minister Joe Clark, expressed reservations about the missile defence plan at the sessions.
But a wide spectrum endorsed it after debate sessions during the four-day gathering, where there were few top-level U.S. officials and more Canadians than Americans.
The elite assembly on cross-border issues last met two decades ago, when it played a major role in pushing the concept of free trade.
This time, the gathering rejected the notion that one â Å“big ideaâ ? can heal rifts in what has become a troubled relationship exacerbated by Canada's decision to stay out of the Iraq war and the unpopularity of U.S. President George W. Bush north of the border.
â Å“It is by now evident that Canada has lost influence in Washington,â ? said the group, which recommended several smaller initiatives. Among them:
â †A general increase in Canada's defence budget, in part to improve its ability to get to world hotspots quickly.
â †More money for an overwhelmed border with too few lanes, bridges and tunnels.
â †A public airing of little-known U.S. plans to require biometric identification for all cross-border travellers on Jan. 1, 2008.
â †Closer co-operation on product regulations and a mechanism for resolving trade disputes. Those issues are expected to be addressed this spring in a so-called three amigos summit between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
â †More direct contact between Canadian officials and the U.S. Congress.
The assembly rejected the notion that values are widely diverging between the U.S. and Canada, a notion reinforced with the re-election of Mr. Bush and an outcry from people in liberal Democratic states who pronounced their similarities with Canadians.
â Å“There are more differences within the two countries than between them,â ? said the assembly, but the idea of a values chasm is hurting relations and making it harder to resolve bilateral disputes.
â Å“We are witnessing something new in the relationship â †the emergence on the American right of a troubling anti-Canadianism, albeit confined to strident voices in the media,â ? said the draft report.
â Å“Nonetheless, this misguided impulse pales beside the disturbing and persistent currents of anti-Americanism in Canada,â ? it said.
The missile defence issue could crush the minority government of Prime Minister Paul Martin, who faces opposition within his party and among New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois.
Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of the Dominion Institute research group in Toronto, said in an interview outside the conference sessions that he had â Å“become a little more comfortable with the idea.â ?
â Å“It's not part of a hidden agenda to tie us into Fortress America. But it was the wrong messenger at the wrong time with the right message. Americans need to understand that opposition to this has to do with U.S. foreign policy.â ?
Robert Greenhill, a visiting executive at the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa, said Canadians have been too focused on missile defence as Mr. Bush's big project without considering that there is little risk in joining.
â Å“If you're in a marriage and your partner thinks it's important, why not?â ?
Pamela Wallin, Canada's consul general in New York, said she believes most Canadians support signing on, despite polls suggesting otherwise.
â Å“Being at the table is an important way of hearing what the Americans are saying. It's a way of exercising our sovereignty.â ?
The timing of the gathering was important, said Ms. Wallin, because Canada-U.S. relations have gone off course.
â Å“For the Americans, it's all about security and we use sovereignty as our lens on the relationship. Each side doesn't understand why the other side is so obsessed.â ?
