Monday Feb. 23,
2009 BACK NEXT
HARPER AND OBAMA ABOUT TO CHANGE THE OLD CLICHÉ
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANADA AND USA
by Angelo
Persichilli THE HILL TIMES
OTTAWA—U.S.
President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa last week has changed a
cliché in the relationship between Canada and United States. This
relationship has generally been good, although driven more by
reciprocal economic interests rather than by mutual admiration.
Let's be clear, from the American perspective Canada is to the U.S.
what Quebec is to Canada: a historic, cultural nuisance.
Since the beginning of our Confederation, there was always
the concern that the powerful friend-enemy to the south would gobble
us up and turn us into the 51st state.
Recall the battles
against American troops since the beginning of Confederation to
defend what was then Upper Canada and to avoid their desire to make
this land another state.
Atavistic hate diminished, but it
did not disappear. What's left is enough to hinder a relationship
based on a reciprocal trust, but not enough to let us forget about
common economic interests.
Certainly, Canadian and American
soldiers fought together—side by side in the bloody European battles
during the two world wars.
But Canadians were there to
defend British interests, not American interests.
And we
come to the present reality. We remember the genuine reciprocal
disrespect between John Diefenbaker and John F. Kennedy, and the
profound dislike between Pierre Trudeau and Richard Nixon (who
referred to the former Canadian prime minister as an s.o.b.)
Things changed temporarily during the 1980s with the arrival
of Brian Mulroney in Canada and Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Both
leaders were of Irish descent and they participated in what became
known as the "Shamrock Summit," when they sang When Irish Eyes
Are Smiling in Québec City.
Such closeness did not go
over well with most Canadians and Mulroney paid a heavy political
price for it. Aware of those dangers, his successor Jean Chrétien
was very cautious in managing his relationship with his friend Bill
Clinton—allowing the friendship to surface only on a golf course.
Things deteriorated again with the arrival of George W.
Bush. First Chrétien and then Paul Martin distanced themselves more
and more from the White House, not so much over political
differences, but more so to capitalize on the Canadian public's hate
for the American leader.
In fact, apart from the decision to
not participate in the Iraq war, the Chrétien government didn't have
many differences with American politics, beginning with the
environment.
On paper, Ottawa supported the Kyoto Protocol
opposed by the Americans; in reality Canada has never honoured the
signed agreement and behaved worse than the Americans.
The
Canada-U.S. diatribes have also coincided with the election of
leaders of opposing political ideals: the Democratic Kennedy and the
Conservative Diefenbaker; the Republican Nixon and the Liberal
Trudeau. Things were better with Mulroney and Reagan, Conservative
and Republican, respectively, or with Chrétien and Clinton, Liberal
and Democratic, respectively.
What will be the case now with
Democratic Obama and Conservative Harper? I am convinced that the
changes we have seen in every international economic, social, and
political sector will also change Canada-U.S. relations. Obama's
visit to Ottawa is proof.
I've closely examined the
relationship between Harper and Obama, and I am convinced that
there's a good chemistry between the two, contrary to what many
believe, or want to believe.
More so international economic
events will not allow their respective ideological differences to
get in the way of their reciprocal interests.
There's no
question that Canada depends on the U.S. as our main economic
trading partner. But the U.S. needs Canada as well, above all, our
oil.
Contrary to what most believe, that the Americans are
in Iraq because of oil, the reality is that the two leading
suppliers of energy to the U.S. are Venezuela, and more so Canada.
Considering what's happening in Venezuela, it is obvious
that the White House (and Congress) cannot bully us without
consequences.
Harper and Obama have already spoken numerous
times during the past 12 months and the relationship between the two
is, as we have seen last week, optimal. As well, Harper has
understood that—since the time available is short—he could not waste
time discussing details and ignoring the larger issues.
Canadians, as former U.S. ambassador to Ottawa James
Blanchard told the National Post last week, are always
concerned with the price of eggs in Quebec and not so much about the
big picture.
Nobody was expecting great results from the
first meeting, but the Conservative Harper and the Democrat Obama
started off on the right foot,leaving aside obsolete ideological
differences, and the ridiculous historical revisionist attempts to
change the history between our countries.
Last week they
started laying down the groundwork for a better future for the
benefit of the respective economies and environment, and to enhance
cooperation in maintaining the existing lifestyles Canadians and
Americans have enjoyed to this point, but now are under attack.
|