Allan Gotlieb on Canada-US Relations

In the January 26, 2006 Globe and Mail (sadly, I haven't found it online - and I'm too lazy to retype a lengthy diatribe), we are treated to a detailed lecture by Allan Gotlieb about all of the missteps made by Paul Martin in dealing with the Bush Whitehouse.

He argues that Martin made seven key errors:

1) Canada does not need Diplomacy. (In essence, we have to negotiate with the US Executive branch)
2) Martin 'elevated' the importance of Congress and tried to downgrade the president.
3) Overemphasis on lobbying congress
4) Overemphasis on advocacy
5) Mobilize the Canadian diaspora. (Basically make ex-pat Canadians a vocal lobby group)
6) Underestimate the importance of defence and security
7) Americans must be sensitive to our agenda but we do not need to be sensitive to theirs.

In some respects, Mr. Gotlieb has a point or two. I don't think Martin handled certain aspects of the relationship particularly well - but I also think that Mr. Gotlieb has allowed his partisan history with the Mulroney era to colour his analysis rather badly.

First, we cannot foist the blame for the current state of affairs entirely upon the Martin government. To do so would be disingenuous, and worse fails entirely to recognize the short term history that led to the current state.

We have to recognize that George Bush, and his cabinet are not Ronald Reagan. The Bush administration is extremely partisan, and quite unwilling to discuss anything with governments that they perceive to be ideologically at odds to them. This was made painfully clear when Bush visited Vincentes Fox of Mexico shortly after taking office in 2000, and delayed even making a phone call to then Prime Minister Chretien as long as possible.

Second, both Paul Martin, and Jean Chretien, are ultimately responsible to the Canadian PEOPLE. When the Canadian People as a large majority stood in opposition to Canada participating in the quagmire to be called Iraq, there was little room to maneuver politically. Outside of bastions of Conservative support such as Alberta, Canadians were deeply opposed to what they perceived to be an unnecessary war of aggression.

Third, we have to examine the behaviour of Bush's ambassador's to Canada - in particular Paul Cellucci. The man paraded himself around Canada to various speaking engagements, using the opportunity each time to lecture Canada on how we should conduct ourselves. Needless to say, acting as "Governor-in-Residence" did not sit well with many Canadians, and no doubt contributed to a sense of animosity on both sides of the fence.

The message from Washington was pretty damned clear: "Do it our way, or we won't talk to you". Since neither Chretien nor Paul Martin were what the Bush White House would consider ideologically compatible, the Bushies simply decided that they would freeze Canada out until something "more palatable" came along. It's notable that shortly after a Conservative win in the election Ambassador Wilkins starts groping the new government.

I hear on the radio today that Mr. Wilkins is now saying that a "speedy resolution" can be found to the Softwood Lumber issue. Really? How interesting. For the last several years, BushCo has claimed that they can't do anything about it because it's in the hands of the courts and the legislative branches of government. Now, mysteriously, they can pull a rabbit out of the hat?

Mr. Gotlieb's analysis is deeply flawed because he fails entirely to acknowledge the utterly closed minded approach to foreign affairs that BushCo takes. In essence, ever since President Bush took over, it has been a game of "do it his way". Canada is not the United States, and many of us really don't like the idea of being dictated to from Washington. To be sure, both Chretien and Martin took their share of 'cheap shots' at the White House (what do you expect when they provide a target the size of all outdoors?), but the White House bears more than a passing involvement in the picture.