Pandering To America’S Megalomania

Canada is a country both blessed and cursed by being butted up against the world’s singular superpower. He is right that “our pride and self-esteem should be a manifestation of our nationhood,” but he is wrong when he says this has nothing to do with our relationship with the United States. We are at ground zero of US hegemonic power and being Canadian any expression of our sovereignty is too easily construed as being anti-American. Because of our geopolitical proximity our relationship with the US goes a long way to defining ourselves as a country. Unfortunately there are too many among our political elites that see a divergent Canadian viewpoint as knee-jerk anti-Americanism. McKenna’s paper is largely an urgent petition to revisit the drive for ballistic missile defence (BMD). This was rejected by Paul Martin’s government but there is a concerted effort within the Liberal party to undermine this decision. There are strong arguments to be made against BMD, not only from Canada’s standpoint, but global considerations. It is already precipitating a new arms race and leading to the weaponization of space--two rather large considerations! The best reason McKenna and others can muster for BMD is that Japan and Denmark have signed on and the EU has it under consideration! These are not exactly compelling reasons for such an undertaking. Proponents might want to consider BMD has the potential to be a monstrous trillion-dollar boondoggle; the technology is at least a decade away from being workable; the need for it is largely fallacious and the billions to be spent should go to much more critical and pressing issues. Liberals like McKenna, John Manley and Michael Ignatieff suffer from a contorted logic that says the best way to protect our sovereignty is to adopt BMD, when it is obvious the opposite is true. BMD is but one more aspect of Deep Integration which calls for the complete homogenization of Fortress North America and the abdication of Canadian values and sovereignty. These are Liberals who cannot distinguish between friendship and servitude. Canada and the US have a much celebrated friendship. The essence of friendship, whether it is between individuals or nations, is a celebration of shared values and a genuine affection. It is also the right to not agree on all issues. Canada is in the paradoxical position that a legitimate expression of our sovereignty is all too often seen as anti-Americanism at home and as dissent by the Americans. One reason the US sees it as dissent is because they are so used to blind obedience from our elites. If we exercised out sovereignty on a more regular basis the US might come to accept that yes we are a friend but not one who is going to agree on all issues. Sovereignty is a muscle that must be exercised, otherwise it goes into atrophy. The softwood lumber agreement is about much more that 2x4s being shipped south. It is actually a kpi-key performance indicator- as to the state of the NAFTA and the health of our friendship with the US. To look at the terms of the agreement it is not a negotiated settlement but a complete capitulation on the part of Canadian negotiators. It is a sham agreement. The Harper government rammed it through after browbeating the industry into line. It is utterly protectionist, imposes Canadian based duties and in reality puts the industry on a quota system. From a leaked US government memo it was the stated purpose of the US Commerce Department to “hobble” the Canadian softwood industry and they have achieved this thanks to the obdurate David Emerson. The softwood lumber agreement is really a tacit admission the Harper government, at least, has given up on NAFTA. It makes interesting speculation as to whether Emerson, a one-time Liberal cabinet minister in the same portfolio, would have brought in the same agreement as a Liberal minister? The softwood lumber agreement, far from being a manifestation of comity between nations, is contemptuous of Canada. It is a thumb in the eye and it does not bode well for future negotiations between the two countries on trade and other issues. A low water mark has been established and these will follow a similar template. Alarmingly, the US has just announced that it is undertaking the total domination of space (Full Spectrum Dominance), and will not allow interference by any other nation and it will not enter into any international treaties on space. This comes on the heels of renouncing the right of habeas corpus and allowing torture. Instead of adopting the politics of capitulation Liberals might better in the spirit of true friendship, in some modest way, attempt to moderate America’s megalomaniac tendencies. A very good starting point would be to remind them if they willingly debase their civil liberties, their rule of law, their democratic values and resort to Draconian and phobic security measures they grant terrorists and perceived enemies their greatest victory. America, tragically, will have turned itself inside out without them lifting a finger. Contrary to McKenna’s feeble bromide, pride-self-esteem-self-worth for a country are born out of acting on values and beliefs held sacrosanct and exercising these with equanimity. We do not serve ourselves well or a friend by dealing in denial, appeasement and the politics of capitulation. These only make a bad situation worse. We can, especially now, best serve this important friendship by being a voice of moderation and sensibility and being true to ourselves. *** Canadian philosopher, George Grant, observed in his 1965 book, Lament for a Nation, that Liberals are more than willing to preside over the demise of Canadian nationalism. This has been a lingering issue on the tapestry of Canadian politics but now it comes to the forefront; first of all because there is a behind–closed-doors movement toward North American Union, aka NAFTA Plus, aka Deep Integration. Also, Liberals are now confronted by a malformed- Conservative party that would sell out the country in a minute if they gained a majority. Canada does not need two parties of national extinction A crucial element in Liberal party renewal must be a whole new approach to Canada/US relations: One that seeks comity rather than the cloying servitude manifest in Emerson’s softwood lumber agreement, a foolhardy rush to war in Afghanistan and buying into BMD. There are too many issues notably absent from the leadership debate- the very one’s the Liberal party must confront. Even as candidates pontificate on their grand visions for Canada many of these will die a quick death as the surreptitious movement toward North American Union proceeds. A probable reason the likes of Manley and McKenna are not in the leadership race is they have elected to work toward North American Union in the background, holding hands with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives who have a direct pipeline to both major parties and are lobbying hard for NAU- at the expense of Canada’s civil society. If a renewed Liberal party should assume power and decides it must irresistibly be birth mother to North American Union, that it cannot purge its seditious nature it must in grace and candor be willing to call a national referendum on union with the US; if not, Canadians must insist on it--yet one more chapter in Grant’s prescient lament. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 23, 2006]