Bush Unrecognized By Canada.
Brock Press - Opinion
Issue: 11/9/04
--------------------------------------------------------------
The danger of irrelevance
By Joe Orlando
One of the results of the re-election of President Bush in the United States will be four more years of Canadian resistance to American foreign policy.
I think this is a good thing. It is always good to assert the autonomy and sovereignty of one's nation, and not simply "tow the party line" of our neighbours to the south. This would be true even if the average Canadian supported the Iraq war.
At the outset of the Second World War - a war in which Canada played a major, and often unrecognized, role - Canada declared war against Germany in support of the declaration of war by the British. Our government at the time saw it fit, however, to be very clear that we were declaring war because of our opposition to Axis aggression in Europe, not because the Queen appeared on our dollar bills.
But to have the ability to make sovereign decisions of this nature, there is a prerequisite: the military force required to carry out the proposed military activity. It is not a strong statement to say that you will not commit your military power to a conflict if what is meant by the refusal is that you do not actually have any military power to send.
Switzerland is a prime example of this concept. The Swiss are historically neutral, and have not been involved in an armed conflict of any sort in the 20th Century, and yet they have obligatory military service for all men. They know that the decision to remain neutral must be backed up by the military strength to defend oneself if that neutrality is violated.
Australia has a military budget which, per capita, rivals that of the United States. On one level, that is a ridiculous thing. Australia has never been invaded, and probably never will be. Australia is a useless lump of resourceless rock so tantalizing that to the British its use was immediately clear: the world's largest prison. Why does an island, removed from all inland conflict, need a strong military? Political autonomy.
When the Australian government decided to support the coalition invasion of Iraq, and sent troops to the fight - a hotly contested decision - they had a military force of considerable strength and have gained a seat at the table of the decision making nations of the world as a result of their decision.
When France declared that they would not go to war, it was a hotly debated topic. Other nations began to question the validity of coalition action in Iraq when France's well-trained and well-equipped army was withheld.
When Canada declared that our military would not be involved in coalition activity in Iraq, it was a hotly ignored topic. Who cared? Nobody. Perhaps they recalled when we declared that we would be involved in operations in Afghanistan, and sent one frigate. There was not a single naval helicopter in the country with which to equip our frigate. None were deemed air-worthy at the time. This ship, before reaching the halfway mark, cited equipment failure and the lack of aviation support as the reason for which it was heading back to home, dragging our national pride behind.
We have failed our soldiers. The Canadian military is a well-trained unit, respected in the international community. But they are hopelessly underfunded, and under-equipped. The recent disaster on board the HMCS Chicoutimi and the subsequent withdrawl from service of our entire submarine force - which, at last count, had four subs - is a perfect example of this failure.
Canada has a history as a peaceful nation, and I believe that should be an issue of national pride. But Canada is moving towards creating a legacy as a weak nation. The peaceful nation is that which, having the strength to create war and destruction, chooses instead to promote peace and international understanding. Countries promoting peace and understanding because they do not have the power to survive international conflict are not peaceful nations. They are wussy nations. |
