Posted on 03/27/2003 11:10:40 AM PST by quidnunc
Hey, wait a minute: That wasn't in the script.
The script for American ambassadors is very clear. No matter what the government of Canada does, no matter how unco-operative it is in international councils, no matter how little it contributes to the common defence, no matter how many gratuitous insults it heaps upon Americans and America's head of state, the U.S. ambassador is required to nod indulgently, smile with forbearance, and repeat his lines as written: Canada and the United States are the best of friends, largest two-way trading relationship in the world, we are grateful for Canada's invaluable contribution, etc.
Well now the United States is fighting for its life, Canada has just kicked it in the gut, and strangely the ambassador is no longer in the mood. Yesterday's extraordinary speech to the Toronto Economic Club was not merely a departure from standard diplomatic code. It wasn't even a mild rebuke. It was an angry, wounded cry, direct from Washington and heavy with meaning.
"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," Paul Cellucci said, or rather bellowed. "There would be no debate, no hesitation. We would be there for Canada … And that is why so many people in the United States are so disappointed and upset that Canada is not there for us now."
"Not there for us" was perhaps a vestigial twitching of the diplomatic-restraint nerve. The Chrétien government is not just "not there for" the Americans, it is very much here and against. If not actively hostile to the United States, it is certainly passively so — as the ambassador also noted. He compared Ottawa's reaction to recent remarks by the Alberta Premier, Ralph Klein, and the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Herb Dhaliwal. "When Mr. Klein issues strong support for the United States the Canadian government comes down hard on him," he said. "When Mr. Dhaliwal makes totally inappropriate remarks about the President of the United States, they totally ignore it."
American ambassadors never say these things. Certainly the Chrétien people were taken aback. They had calculated that, after months of waffling, Canada had made itself too small and insignificant for the Americans to be bothered with, lacking either the military capacity or the diplomatic clout to make much difference either way. Officials in the Prime Minister's office had confidently predicted there would be no consequences to breaking with the Americans, even on a matter of such vital concern as Iraq. The way was clear to turn loose the Liberal "street," to ride whatever waves of national emotion the war might set off — anti-American, pacifist, what have you — or at any rate, to prevent others from doing so.
But it turns out that, with advances in modern communications, what is said and done in Canada can be picked up in the United States, even in far-off places like Washington. They have noticed, and there will be consequences. (What might these be? Again, the ambassador threw away the script. "We'll have to wait and see.")
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
Almost half of Americans surveyed say they would consider switching away from Canadian goods in favour of those from other countries in the wake of Canada's opposition to the Iraq war.
The new poll, a portion of which was obtained by The Globe and Mail, found that 49 per cent of Americans surveyed said they were "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to find substitutes for Canadian goods in the wake of Canada's decision not to send troops to support the conflict.
The poll was produced for Fleishman-Hillard/GPC International, a public affairs and communications firm with offices around the world, including Canada.
GPC International chairman Hershell Ezrin said the survey numbers demonstrate that Canadian companies are at risk.
"We see at least a vulnerability of Canadian brands to the possibility that Americans are starting to ask some questions," he said. "We see it talking to our colleagues in the U.S., and in our office down in Washington. They say they are feeling a chill when they are taking Canadian clients around down there."
The poll also found that 35 per cent of Americans were "much less favourable" or "somewhat less favourable" to Canadian companies and their products. However, 29 per cent of consumers said they were actually "more favourable" to Canadian brands and companies.
The poll surveyed 1,003 adult Americans between March 21-24, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. The polling firm asked Americans how they felt about Canadian goods given recent world events, and was no more specific than that.
Mr. Ezrin said one of the chief fears is that Americans may be convinced to switch away from products that they have been comfortable with for some time.
"If you have a Canadian in your name — Air Canada, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific — you obviously get more easily identified by some," he said.
The implications of the American attitudes become more severe in the context of overall potential changes in consumer purchasing plans, according to Mr. Ezrin.
The war would probably make Americans more likely to curb their spending habits, an action that could hurt the Canadian economy.
"There's a bit of a perfect storm forming here for Canadian business and economy in the States," he said. "Americans, because of the war, are likely to consume less and purchase less than they've been thinking of buying in the recent past. That has an economic impact when 86 per cent of exports go to the U.S."
-snip-
(Brian Laghi in The Globe and Mail, Mach 27, 2003)
To Read This Article Click Here
Canada's massive auto parts sector is losing U.S. business because of deteriorating government relations and delays at the border, the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association said yesterday.
"There definitely has been some business lost," said Gerald Fedchun, president of the association, which represents 400 Canadian auto parts makers. "I have heard from various [companies] that business has gone south because of that but they themselves were not about to tell me how much."
A discussion of Canada's stormy relations with its southern neighbour and terrorism-related border delays dominated a directors' meeting of the auto parts association last week, Mr. Fedchun said. "It's going to hurt us. It's hurting us now."
The parts group sent a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's office last Friday, urging the government to rein in MPs critical of the United States and to work closer with that country on issues such as humanitarian aid for Iraq and counter-terrorism efforts. The Prime Minister's Office has not yet responded to the letter, he said.
The Canadian auto parts industry, which employs about 100,000, is heavily dependent on north-south trade. About two-thirds of $33-billion in annual revenue comes from U.S.-based businesses — either automakers or larger suppliers. The parts sector is already suffering from a general slowdown in the auto industry, as American consumers have eased off from four years of torrid car buying because of a weak economy and, more recently, concerns about war in Iraq.
Linda Hasenfratz, president and chief executive of Linamar Corp., a Guelph, Ont.-based maker of engine and suspension parts, said her company has seen signs of a slowdown but has not yet lost business because of U.S.-Canada issues. "That said, I don't think it helps matters very much to have the situation that we are in right now, specifically some of these comments that have gone on from our top-level people with regards to our American neighbours. I personally think that is a real issue that can hurt trade between our countries and it is just not appropriate."
Ms. Hasenfratz's solution to the controversial comments from the likes of Herb Dhaliwal, the Natural Resources Minister, and backbencher Carolyn Parrish, is simple: "Those people should not be in those positions any longer," she said.
-snip-
(Paul Brent [Financial Post] in the National Post, March 27, 2003)
To Read This Article Click Here
the United States is fighting for its life, Canada has just kicked it in the gut, and strangely the ambassador is no longer in the mood. Yesterday's extraordinary speech to the Toronto Economic Club was not merely a departure from standard diplomatic code. It wasn't even a mild rebuke. It was an angry, wounded cry, direct from Washington and heavy with meaning.
"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," Paul Cellucci said, or rather bellowed. "There would be no debate, no hesitation. We would be there for Canada … And that is why so many people in the United States are so disappointed and upset that Canada is not there for us now."
This will be the solution if Canada continues support the cruel and evil and spits on us even more:
"There's a bit of a perfect storm forming here for Canadian business and economy in the States," he said. "Americans, because of the war, are likely to consume less and purchase less than they've been thinking of buying in the recent past. That has an economic impact when 86 per cent of exports go to the U.S."
One way or another we will have a new government in this country and a new Prime Minister within a year. His view of Canada-US relations will be very different from that of the present government. I trust Mr. Bush understands this.
Why were chretian (and fox) so certain there'd be no consequences for their arrogant dissent? I really don't understand that.
Colonial Williamsburg is great.
Be sure to eat at the king's Arms Tasvern and have some of their spoon bread if it's still on the menu.
I was so fond of it that the waiter would slip me a second helping on the sly.
Came back from the usual trip over to Michigan yesterday. Saw massive truck after truck waiting to cross to the USA. Not too many peeps out of us against the USA, except the "usual suspects"ie: protesters- young people who could not get a job even if there was full employment. Some 150 tops at any given time.
Anyway, as you know, the only real worry of a Canadian government MP is how and where to spend their retirement- most likely wintering in the USA. Cheers.
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.