I guess there are a few different levels at which one could respond.
If we could view this situation with the perspective and detachment that comes with time, it will probably come to be seen as a bit of a tempest in a tea pot. Fundamentally what Canada and the U.S. are doing is exercising their sovereign rights and duties. The Canadian government took a position that the war was not something that they supported. It seems to me that the decision as to how to deal with high-level refugees is consistent with that position. Think about it. You're the CO of the HMCS Iroquois, and you find Saddam zipping across the Gulf in a zodiac. Your government has not declared war on his government, and has not allied itself with the government that has declared war. How is it appropriate in that circumstance to turn him over to the U.S.?
I'm on record a dozen times on SI saying I disagree with the stance of the Canadian government. That aside, in concrete terms all Canada has done is behave like a sovereign nation.
Now, as to the emotional side of it. The Canadian government may have acted within its rights, but it has done so in such a maladroit way as to maximize ill will with our friends to the south. And the inexcusable behaviour of those who harrassed the kid's hockey team demonstrates that not all the mental midgets in Canada are in Parliament. It would be perfectly appropriate for individuals in the the U.S. to express their displeasure in tangible ways. Frankly, the Quebec tourism industry deserves to lose its U.S. customers. Maybe a cold dose of economic reality would remind people of the manners they've forgotten.
There's room in the world for honest differences on policy. Friends don't always agree. And, if those differences crop up in too many areas, the friendship suffers and eventually dwindles to "acquaintance". That is a logical consequence. And there are some among the USAphobes who recognize and accept that consequence. Most of them, though, want their cake and to eat it. They'd howl if any of the potential economic consequences were realized.
We've always had USAphobes. They're a minority, and we've usually been governed by statesmen who repudiated their stand and denied them a soap box. What the U.S. is seeing now is a tangible sign of the disfunction that's manifest in Canadian politics. It's been suggested that Chretien has governed solely in the interest of Quebec. If that's the case, well, we've got a timeline for a definite change of leadership, and hopefully that will bring some brain cells back to foreign policy. If there are consequences in the meantime, we've earned them. Not because of a policy difference, but because of our childishness and spite. |
