Posted on 03/28/2003 11:00:39 AM PST by knighthawk
The remarks of U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci earlier this week made a public issue of what had previously been dismissed or denied: The government of Jean Chrétien has failed Canada by failing to support our best friend. The litany of shame is by now well known on both sides of the border. The last straw came when hockey fans in Montreal booed the American national anthem. Their action made headlines across the States, on the sports pages, the ones that are read by everybody. The responses in Canada are also familiar and predictable.
By refusing to support the Americans on an issue of vital importance to them, we will unquestionably be hurt economically. And because Canada has defined its interests with respect to the United States chiefly in economic terms, the Chrétien government has not served the national interest. It has, therefore, neglected its first and greatest duty.
Apart from the still noisy anti-American cheerleaders on the nationalist and socialist left, many Canadians have been puzzled by Chrétien's actions. Why has he never rebuked his aides, his MPs, even his Ministers for uttering highly inappropriate remarks? Why is Jean Chrétien so distrustful of the United States? Why has he destroyed, in a matter of months, the patient work of decades?
By raising such questions commentators, members of the Opposition, and even provincial premiers such as Ralph Klein have made the obvious point: This is an irrational policy. That explanation is too simple. Jean Chrétien is not an irrational man. No one stays in public life for as long as he has done on irrationality alone.
To be understood, they must be seen from the perspective and interests of Jean Chrétien. First, he has been forced from office by one he detests, Paul Martin. If his legacy is a damaged relationship with the United States, it is something he can live with: Paul Martin, not he, will be left to fix it.
Second, he has been searching for a future that is not filled with endless rounds of golf. Rumours have existed for many months that he seeks to be the next United Nations Secretary General. No doubt, France will strongly support his application.
Third, Jean Chrétien has always had the Quebec fortunes of the Liberal Party of Canada at the top of his political agenda. Indeed, the key to nearly all his political actions has long been Quebec. With support waning for the both PQ and the BQ, federal Liberals have been hoping to recoup in the next federal election what historically has been the lion's share of Quebec MPs. If Quebec voters decisively reject the separatists in the April 15 provincial elections, the role of the BQ in Ottawa will suffer perhaps a fatal blow because Gilles Duceppe will have lost any mandate to promote separatism in the House of Commons.
So far the war has thrown Duceppe a political life-line. With Canadian opposition to the Iraq invasion nearly 20% higher in Quebec than in the rest of the country, Duceppe has used the difference as an opportunity to distinguish the BQ from the Liberals in the minds of Quebec voters. He has vigorously denounced the coalition war effort and used his question period allotment to grill the Prime Minister and his Minister of Defence about why there are any Canadian military personnel participating at all in the allied effort. Rather than defend Canada's puny contribution, Chrétien and his Minister have thrown up a fog of non-answers. This is symptomatic of the Liberals' larger concern not to be outflanked by the PQ/BQ alliance.
Liberal strategists read the same polls as the separatists, and they have decided to prevent the PQ and BQ from reaping the political benefits of anti-war, anti-American sentiment in Quebec. Chrétien's refusal to support the coalition denies Bernard Landry any spark to ignite fading separatist sentiment in the provincial electorate. From where Chrétien sits, it is far better to elect 50 or 60 MPs in next year's election than to stand shoulder to shoulder with the world's other three English-speaking democracies.
In this sense, sitting out the war is not so much the policy of Canada as it is the policy of Quebec. Once again, the internal dynamics of Quebec politics is skewing the national agenda. In the Liberal Party backrooms, what's good for the Party is good for Canada.
Contrast this with the courageous leadership shown by Tony Blair. With much more to lose, the British Prime Minister has steadfastly articulated a principled and compelling case for the Allies enforcing the conditions laid down by UN resolution 1441, conditions that the UN lacks the unity to enforce. Rather than the go-with-the-flow approach to public opinion, Blair has lead and shaped British public opinion. Despite significant opposition from within his own Labour Party, Blair has gone to the British people and successfully made the case for regime change in Iraq.
Leadership, or rather the absence of leadership, is the subtext of Ambassador Cellucci's criticism. By looking at the polls, particularly in Quebec, and trimming his sails accordingly, Jean Chrétien has achieved a remarkable result: He has betrayed the interests of the country at the same time as he has insulted our pride in being Canadian.
Barry Cooper and Ted Morton are professors of political science at the University of Calgary.
If the UN truly wants the US to withdraw its membership, this might do it.
Run it through babelfish or google translation, then send it.
It's what they deserve..
That's true, however you might be suprised to learn that they do not speak French, at least not Parisian French. The majority of "French Canadians", 300-400 years removed from Europe, using the original Norman and Brittany "French" have developed the language called "joual" which steals Indian and English words, uses a slightly different pronunciation. Joual.
East toward Quebec city they speak a purer form of French, closer to Parisian. Those speakers regard Joual speakers as a lower class, but still higher than English. BTW there a huge numbers of English only in Quebec , Montreal, Eastern Township areas.
Even Quebec is an Indian word.
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.