Monday, February 18, 2008

The Great Debate


Axworthy, Granatstein weigh-in on Canada's role in world affairs and their remarks are telling.


Axworthy:

Our present international policy is guided by an outdated set of co-ordinates arising from a slavish adherence to the Bush administration's misguided efforts at empire building, military adventurism, continental border security and bilateral trade deals, while avoiding international collaboration on environmental and disarmament initiatives.

Ottawa has been so preoccupied with keeping in sync with these Washington missteps that we have lost sight of the global-sized tectonic changes that are altering power relationships. We have ignored the looming risks of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and abandoned the multilateral diplomacy that gave us a voice and influence on a wide range of significant issues.

Successive governments have allowed themselves to be pushed into making this faraway, disputatious land the centre point of our foreign, defence and development policy, chewing up vast resources ($7.8-billion and counting), endangering our Armed Forces, and constricting our abilities to play a useful role on any number of other global files. And, for what purpose? To support a government that is corrupt, run by warlords harbouring the world's largest heroin trade, and increasingly hostile to a mission that is seen as an occupying force.

Parliamentarians must use the debate on Afghanistan to liberate ourselves from a one-note, obsessive military combat role that is not working; to redefine our actions in the region in realistic ways that fit the security needs of the Afghan people, not the failed strategy of the generals.


Granatstein:

Above all, given our geographic location, we must have close relations with the United States. The U.S. is our best friend, as a now-forgotten politician said 45 years ago, "whether we like it or not." Strong in their anti-Americanism, Canadians took a long time to learn this, and some never have. But unless we can learn to eat grass to survive, we must have access to the American market, the largest, richest in the world. We need Americans' investment, and access to their brainpower and culture. We will need their military support in extremis. And the Yanks aren't going away — Canada is not an island, nor can we hide behind psychological or trade barriers.

Some Canadians foresee the Americans being surpassed in the coming years by others such as China, India, Brazil, or the European Union. If that occurs, and it may, then Canadians must realize that we will inevitably be forced even closer to the U.S. in our own economic and defence interests. The bulk of our trade will almost certainly continue to flow in a north-south direction, and we will only prosper if it does. Who dares to contemplate a future in which Beijing, say, occupies the economic role that the U.S. now plays for us? Could anyone, even the most fervent anti-American, believe that would be better for Canada?

We can be as independent as we want to be, as interdependent as we must be. But too much independence or interdependence can carry a high price, and Canadians must weigh their nation's interests — and their own — in making choices about where we go.


I guess if one thing is apparent in Axworthy's and Granatstein's views, it's that they're both totally predictable. Axworthy wants Canada's foreign policy aligned to meet the real issues threatening the world while Granatstein would have us commited to be America's faithful water boy, subordinating our foreign policy to Washington's.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't for the life of me think, why it would be so bad to develop trade with China, India or whom ever. We do not have to be tied to America but neither do we have to dislike them. What is wrong with moderation. Could it be the people in Ottawa as well as people like Granatstein are too lazy to pursue new avenues of trade? Cheers

900ft Jesus said...

Climatologists are predicting that Canada will be in one of the best situations globally for a few decades. I doubt we'll be eating grass while the US flourishes - unless, of course, we let the SPP get its way.

Either way, that's short term thinking, continental thinking as well and Axworthy is right to take a global, long term perspective.

The Mound of Sound said...

I suspect Canada has at least as much to offer the US if we pursue an independent foreign policy than we ever will as a complacent subordinate. It has served America's interests quite well in the past to have us available as an honest broker to bridge diplomatic chasms between the US and other states.

Unknown said...

I think Axeworthy is a forward thinker. The "stand by and hold on to our hats" doesn't quite cut it with me.

Weenie