The Empire strikes back (Amen Alert)

National Post ^ | March 26, 2003 | J.L. Granatstein

[conservativecorner]

In Toronto to speak to the Economic Club yesterday, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci was uncommonly blunt. "A lot of people in Washington are disappointed and upset" at Canada's refusal to lend support to the war in Iraq. Many are wondering why "Canada is not there for us now," he went on, expressing his irritation with the anti-American comments of Liberal ministers and Members of Parliament. Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta offers support for the United States and the federal government "comes down hard on him. When [Minister Herb] Dhaliwal makes totally inappropriate remarks about the President of the United States," however, the government "totally ignore it ... maybe that's something they could do a better job at." A former Massachusetts governor, Cellucci is ordinarily calm and unruffled in public, so the vigour of his remarks may surprise some.

But it shouldn't, and Cellucci is not the first American to slam the anti-Americanism of Ottawa. David Jones is the former political minister-counsellor at the Embassy and in February's Policy Options, published by Montreal's Institute for Research on Public Policy, he let fly. Quoting a long string of foolish utterances by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Ministers John Manley, Pierre Pettigrew, and Bill Graham, as well as the outrageous comments of a host of backbench Liberals, Jones then focussed on the Prime Minister's press secretary's now-famous "moron" comment. To Jones, "as an illustration of the thinking of the Prime Minister and the senior members of the Prime Minister's Office, it was definitive." What "moron" meant, Jones went on, is "we don't like your policies, we don't agree with your policies, and we hate the possibility that it might be necessary to support your policies." Jones conceded that public opinion in Canada may agree with these Ottawa attitudes, "but these attitudinal differences make one wonder whether Canadians lived through a different 2001-02 than did Americans."

The importance of Jones's quite extraordinary article is that it was written well before the Chrétien government decided not to offer support to the United States in the war against Iraq. The United States government, in other words, was already fed up with Canadian anti-American and anti-Administration attitudes and more than slightly frustrated at Ottawa's unwillingness to strengthen the Canadian Forces and North American defence and security.

All this may shock those Canadians who continue to believe that no one pays attention to anything they say in Washington, who call the Americans their best friends and boo their anthem at hockey games, and who automatically assume, however beastly they believe U.S. behaviour abroad to be, that the Americans would not and could not take action against them. Jones touched on this very point when he concluded his article by saying that "there are many in the U.S. government who carefully register [Canadians'] words and the messages and attitudes behind them. It is a brutish political reality that systematic, open disrespect by a small weak state for a large and powerful state rarely ends to the benefit of the former." Ambassador Cellucci yesterday was asked if there might be U.S. retaliation against Canada for its anti-war posture. His answer was that we would have to "wait and see."

Let us be very clear: The Americans are furious at Canada now, as angry as they have ever been and, as soon as the dust in Iraq settles, they will exact their revenge. No, they won't send Tomahawk missiles at the Peace Tower or close the border completely. But there will be no favours for Canada from the White House or anywhere the Administration's reach extends. Canada traditionally has relied on the White House to moderate the excesses of Congress, but that will not happen now. We can expect a flood of trade complaints to begin to march unimpeded through the American regulatory system. The U.S. military, or so Defence Minister John McCallum said 10 days ago, sent home most of the Canadian officers at Qatar's Central Command headquarters; I expect that those Canadians attached to the Command's Tampa headquarters are also finding many doors closed to them too. The flow of space intelligence that Canada has received from the United States, I suspect, will dry up, and the United States will be certain to proceed with National Missile Defence without much, if any, concern for our sensibilities. And if the United States proceeds with its plans to register visitors entering or leaving the country, Canadians had better be prepared for huge line-ups at every airport or border crossing. There are dozens of other areas where a vulnerable Canada will lose because of its anti-U.S. posture.

So what? The less military co-operation the better, some say. One Montreal student told me that it would be ideal if Canada had no military at all so the United States couldn't use it. That's fine if Canada's territory and sovereignty are never threatened again. Another friend said she was prepared to accept a 10% cut in her income to see Canada's independence of Washington increased. The difficulty with that position is that 90% of Canada's trade goes to or through the United States and 40% of our Gross National Product comes from trade. How about a 40% cut in income? How shall I prepare your grass, Madam, boiled or sautéed?

We all want Canada to be sovereign and able to make its own policies in the world. But we also want to eat regularly and most of us recognize that if we don't defend our part of North America, the United States will, because it must. Canada simply must accept the fact that it is part of North America and shares that space with a superpower that, believing itself under threat, expected Canadian support. In American eyes, Ottawa failed in the crunch. Ambassador Cellucci said yesterday that "if Canada was faced with a threat, we would support you because we are family." When a family member acts badly, some parents practise tough love and punish their child. Now, regrettably, it's Canada's turn.

Historian J.L. Granatstein is chair of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century (www.ccs21.org).

[TShaunK]

Good old Paul cellucci!!!
Finally the pride of Massachusetts!!!

[camle]

they surely have come a long way from the Canada that risked everythign to shelter our citizens from the Iranians during the hostage crises until they could ship them safely home.

whatever happened to all that class?

[netmilsmom]

Yesterday there was a thread about an Atlanta computer company, selling on E-Bay that refused to sell to anyone who would not support the USA in the war. One guy said, It's stupid to refuse to sell to me because I'm Canadian!!
(or some thing like that).
Right.

[Media Insurgent]

When Cellucci took the job as ambassador to Canada, the odd thought struck me that there's something very unglamorous about an ambassador post that one could drive to by hopping on I-93.

[saluki_in_ohio]

whatever happened to all that class?

It evaporated because of the commie lover Trudeau and his protege lapdog Chretien.

[NewYorker]

"there are many in the U.S. government who carefully register [Canadians'] words and the messages and attitudes behind them.

Make that "there are many in the U.S. who..."

[BibChr]

Interesting read.

He makes more a pragmatic case than a moral case, but still his points are pithy.

Dan

[Outrance]

As I have said before, The US passes gas and Canada has a recession.

[Grig]

Things are about to boil over

[AFMobster]

Before we bash Canada too hard, let's remember we had herr klinton for 8 years, and I'm certain that some of Canada's attitude was encouraged by that idiotic era of our history when it seemed that we too were on the road to socialism. Of course, there are some people in the US that still want to get us back on that road.

[doc30]

I'm Canadian living in the U.S. and am completely embarrassed by the Lieral governemnt's attitude. I've lost friendships back home because I support what the U.S. is doing. I was sickened by comments like:
1) Canada is a better place to live because we have free healthcare (even though it is terrible quality. American healthcare is evil becasue you have to pay for it. Free healthcare is a basic human right - the quality is irrelevant)
2) Canada is a better place to live because we have no guns (and no way to defend yourself against the rising violent crime rate)
3) Canada is a better place to live because we are truly multicultural. We do not for immigrants to assimilate into our culture. (and Toronto has become so ethnically diverse that newspapers are printed in Chinese and Europeans are a minority, even government job applications state "applications are accepted from Women and Visible minorities only - i.e. white men need not apply)
4) The U.S. does not have the moral authority to tell other countries what to do. That's why everyone hates the U.S. (the world needs a policeman, but the U.S. should not be it because they are imperialistic, capitalistic money grubbers that just want to exploit other nations)
5) Canada is better place to live because we force our TV and radio stations to have at least 60% Canadian Content so our feeble, anti-American attitude will be preserved. After all, we banned U.S. satellite dish receivers because we couldn't control what they showed. (last trip I made, I got a satellite radio so I wouldn't have to listen to the cr@p coming from Canadian stations)
6) Canada "rescued" all the strandede travellers from the grounding of airline flights resulting from 9/11. THat's more important job than that of the emergency responderws in New York City. (nice thing to do, but they need to support, with action and not words, the war on terrorism
7) Canada is a better place to live because we have enforced bilingualism (where the English majority is lead by the French minority at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars that could have been better spent elsewhere). The U.S. would be better if it made Spainsh an official language (so it could have the same problems bilingualism has brought to Canada).

Political correctness, socialism and blatant anti-Americanism started to bleed the life out of Canada 20 years ago, now it is putting the nail's in her coffin. At least since I've lived here, I've found that hard work can lead to success. In Canada, hard work leading to success means you've taken advantage of others and make oether people look bad. THerefore, you are bad. Classic socialism. I'm glad I escaped the Peoples Republic of Canukistan.

[saluki_in_ohio]

Before we bash Canada too hard, let's remember we had herr klinton for 8 years, and I'm certain that some of Canada's attitude was encouraged by that idiotic era of our history when it seemed that we too were on the road to socialism. Of course, there are some people in the US that still want to get us back on that road.

Indeed, don't bash Canada.

If you want to bash something, bash the Canadian socialist/liberal hegemony that brought Canada to its current sorry state of affairs. Should be easy to do, too.

[Darheel]

"that the Americans would not and could not take action against them"

We can, and will. Canada no loger exists as a 'nation' because they cannot defend their territorial integrity. America should have a two- or three- hundred year plan to claim the land before 'canada' totally disintigrates.

[Darheel]

I've thought about it, and I'm waaaay past equivocation with the likes of the canadian government.

[sheik yerbouty]

Al Qanada is in need of some shock therapy, which, hopefully, will have a therapeutic effect on their body politic.

[Billthedrill]

Canada's biggest problem is the same one we had for eight long years - a ruling class that elitist, academic, and internationalist in nature and that shows open disdain for the opinions of those deemed less sophisticated than its members. At some point the Canadian people will have a bellyful and consign them to political minority. Between now and then there will be damage in international relations, just as there have been for the U.S. - North Korea, for example.

But lasting animosity between the citizens of the two countries? For the most part, I think it very unlikely.