New PM's icy comments over envoy could backfire
By JOHN IBBITSON
Friday, January 27, 2006
Posted at 8:19 AM EST
David Wilkins must feel like packing his bags and going home.
Once again, the beleaguered American ambassador has become the lightning rod for gratuitous criticism from the Canadian government -- in this case, the incoming Conservative one of prime-minister-designate Stephen Harper.
Mr. Harper went out of his way yesterday to repudiate some utterly innocuous remarks that Mr. Wilkins offered Wednesday at a forum on Canada-U.S. relations at the University of Western Ontario.
At that forum, my colleague Jeffrey Simpson raised the issue of Arctic sovereignty, pointing out that the Conservative campaign platform pledged to defend Canada's claim to all the waters of the Arctic archipelago by increasing our military presence there.
Mr. Wilkins, who has been desperately trying to keep himself out of the news, carefully responded that both sides had agreed to disagree on the issue for decades, and that many countries don't recognize Canada's claim of sovereignty over Arctic waters. But "you know, this is a situation where there's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," he said.
"There's no reason to say there's a problem that's occurring and we've got to do something about it."
Stephen Harper took these innocent words and contorted them into An Incident. To bemused reporters, he declared (without having been asked) that Canada would defend its Arctic interests, no matter what Mr. Wilkins said. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States," he declared.
You can just imagine Mr. Wilkins, back at the embassy, sputtering: "But . . . but . . . but I didn't!"
There can be no conceivable reason for Mr. Harper's attack other than to defuse Liberal accusations during the election campaign that the Conservatives were secretly controlled by American interests, to which they would sell the country out unless stopped.
Mr. Harper's outburst was intended to reassure Canadians that he was his own man. All he really succeeded in proving, however, was that he could be as petty, defensive and needlessly insulting as Paul Martin, given the chance.
On top of everything else, Mr. Harper's comments were counterproductive. The new prime minister is going to need American co-operation on a more important and politically sensitive issue than Arctic sovereignty. The Conservatives have pledged to violate international law by unilaterally extending Canada's 200-mile limit off the East Coast to the edge of the continental shelf, including the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
Canada has good reason to take this action -- overfishing of these areas by foreign trawlers is devastating what little is left of the Grand Banks fishery, and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization has been useless at policing abuse.
But however environmentally sound the measure may be, the Canadian government will be excoriated by other nations. We will face defiance and sanctions. The first time a Canadian frigate forces a Portuguese trawler into port, even though that trawler is in what everyone else agrees is international waters, there will be hell to pay.
During the inevitable protests, Canada will seek to minimize condemnation from its allies. Go ahead and criticize us, diplomats will quietly tell London and Paris and, especially, Washington. Just don't confront us.
At such a time the Canadian government will need all of the diplomatic capital it can accumulate. Success or failure could hinge on convincing the Americans to go no further than sending a sharp note of protest.
So how does Mr. Harper think the American ambassador in Ottawa will respond, when we ask this very large favour? Will he tell us that it's all right, this is another one of those issues on which Canada and the United States will simply agree to disagree?
Or will he treat Mr. Harper the way Mr. Harper just treated him?
© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
