Yes, there were a few die hard conspiracy theorists who had braved the cold to hand out leaflets indicating that the Twin Towers had come down as the result of bombs planted by the US government, but even they could not prevent the warmth and excitement of an evening with Rudy:

“Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the next president of the United States, Mr. Rudy Giuliani”

I never thought I would hear this in a Vancouver theater, but last night I did and the audience was no less excited than an American one: Rudy is indeed still the mayor of the world. It is a reputation that gives him an incredible amount of currency abroad and it may be a crucial asset if this next president needs to enlist some real support in unifying the west in its struggle with global terror.

The presentation was centered around Rudy‘s principles of leadership (goals, optimism, accountability, preparation, communication and teamwork) which are all discussed in his book on the subject matter. I won’t bore you with the details as it has all been documented and equally well promoted over time, but Rudy can dive into a reservoir of endless anecdotes and turn these business and life lessons into highly entertaining stuff.

The evening was scripted and rather than have the audience fire off questions, local newspaper editor Patricia Graham probed the man who had just launched his 2008 exploratory committee. And that is where Rudy moved into more interesting territory. He was for instance quick to point out that last week’s election most likely would not represent a shift away from the major goal in Iraq: ensuring the establishment and survival of an accountable government. The one thing that differs from before was the bi-partisan nature of the effort, but the trick would be to accomplish that goal without deviating from that key objective. In that he also neutralized the expectation that Jim Baker’s Iraq Study Group would come up with any dramatic changes and he linked this argument back to his leadership principle: remain focused on your goals. So no return to Kissingerian realism and settling for some useful authoritarian partners if that would allow the US an early exit, at least that is how I interpreted Giuliani's message.

Graham then asked where he stood on stem cell research, abortion, gun control and gay marriage. Giuliani was a lot more forthcoming on this then he would be had he been performing somewhere deep in America’s heartland I suspect. He fully supports the right to opt for abortion (although using the standard qualifier that as a person he would never make that choice), he endorses stem cell research, control of handguns and did not see any obstacles to civil unions for gays. “Well, you sound like a Canadian liberal!” countered Graham which was a nice cue for Rudy to drill home his other, more conservative, side. Cutting taxes, balancing budgets and an aggressive foreign policy, Rudy’s list was even spontaneously interrupted by a round of un-Canadian applause when he insisted on a determined effort to pursue the war on terror. And the latter is probably safe in the hands of the man who tells his audience that he continues to think about 9/11 everyday, and who also quite perceptively believes that America still hasn’t fully absorbed what happened on that day.

Walking back to my car it occurred to me that the issues that some of the organizers had wanted to see addressed – urban decay and crime – had not gotten all that much attention from the man who vigorously cleaned up New York. But that was not what the smartly dressed crowd had come for. While they made their way home among the omnipresent panhandlers and drug addicts it became clear that an evening with Rudy is exactly like his term as mayor of New York: a rapid exercise in how to get tangible results with a prescient lesson in foreign policy at the tail end. Despite his perceived tendencies to ‘Canadian values’, that should position him well for his 2008 run. His track record, vision as well as his political capital outside the US is unmatched by any other candidate in the current field of contenders for 2008.

It's been a while since we looked at the state of US-Canadian relations and in particular at the various attempts to manipulate anti-American sentiments. And that practice wasn't just the provenance of some left-leaning politicians who had run out of good arguments to attract voter interest. One of their cheerleaders, market research analyst Michael Adams has been on a relentless campaign to point out the diverging values of the two North American nations. As a foreign observer active in both nations I have always been puzzled by Adams' fire and ice theory, and today some numbers were released to counter it:

But those who think that means Canadians are manifestly distinct from the folks next door may be disappointed by a study by Ronald Inglehart of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

The political scientist says his empirical findings will come as a "shock to Canadians." After all, he says, "The worst insult I can make to my Canadian friends is to say, 'Aw, you're just like us.' "

Inglehart's numbers put both nations very close in terms of balancing secular and traditional values as opposed to European nations which scored much higher when it came to secular and rational values. It would be interesting to correlate these findings with economic attitudes, but even there I suspect Canadians and Americans may end up far closer as opposed to the Europeans than both would like to believe. History, geography and demography do impact values in a very crucial way.

There now is solid evidence that Canada's Liberals deliberately fueled anti-American sentiments for campaign purposes during the last general election. More telling is that it is one of the Liberal Party's key people who has been frank enough to reveal this and he commented as follows:

"I don't think [Canadians] buy into the idea of gratuitously being offensive. If I had to speculate, I would say that playing that card during the election was not helpful at all to the electoral prospects of the people doing it."

And that's why it didn't work. Together with slandering conservative leader Haprer and his party the Liberals ran a terribly self-destructive and overly negative campaign. And they did this while they had a viable option to run on their economic record and possibly some new ideas. The inability to do that, combined with the latest revelations, underlines why they lost the recent election.

What it also tells us is that we will see more fingerpointing and skeletons coming out of the wretched campaign closet in the months ahead as the Liberals try and find a new leader as well as a new direction. It won't be a pretty sight, but it will be very revealing. And for some of us, highly entertaining.

At least that is the conclusion after two successive electoral defeats of Western leaders who had made anti-Americanism the center of their campaign platform. True, these two men were not the most appealing characters, but at one time their divisive message yielded some miraculous results at the ballot box. No longer. Here's an editorial from WaPo on the topic:

Mr. Martin becomes the second G-8 leader in four months to exit from office after discovering that anti-U.S. demagoguery is no longer enough to win an election. Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, also tried to rescue his political career last fall by parading his differences with Mr. Bush; the result was the victory of Angela Merkel, who has moved swiftly to repair relations with Washington.

Mark Steyn has taken a closer look at the phenomenon and explains:

It would be a stretch to argue that Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schroeder and now Paul Martin in Ottawa ran into trouble because of their anti-Americanism. Au contraire, cheap demonization of the Great Satan is almost as popular in the streets of Toronto as in the streets of Islamabad. But these days anti-Americanism is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and it's usually a reliable indicator that you're not up to the challenges of the modern world or of your own country.

Yes. It also means that Washington will no longer be alone or solely reliant on Tony Blair and John Howard in stating the morally obvious when it comes to terrorism and the Middle East. Today for instance Angela Merkel - while visiting Israel - made it plain that Hamas can not count on European funds if it fails to recognize Israel while at the same time underlining the threat that Iran currently poses for the world. Expect similar comments from Mr. Harper soon.

We haven't heard a lot from David Frum recently, but his piece on a new era in American-Canadian relations is a gem. So do read Putting an End to Ottawa's Brat Act.

Yesterday vs. Tomorrow?

It’s one of the topics that we put to rest here on Peaktalk some time ago – here are the archives if you’re interested - but with a general election campaign in full swing here, anti-Americanism has raised its ugly head again. So much, that we can unfortunately no longer ignore it and are forced to speak out, once more. A similar concern was shared by the US Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins who offered scathing criticism of that peculiar Canadian practice in a speech yesterday:

It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly,” Mr. Wilkins said in a speech to the Canadian Club at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa. “But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship.”

It hard to say what Wilkins means by an impact on the relationship, but I wouldn’t want to guess. Canada’s economy is largely built around its exports to the US (85% of all exports find their way south), so the business community should take note. Equally important, in a world where the cross-Atlantic relationship between especially the US and Europe is under pressure, Canada will have to start thinking of its role on the global stage and wonder where from a security point of view its direct interests are and how they are best served. Economically and politically - and discounting Quebec – culturally too, Canadians will have to come to some sort of realization that in the 21st century its wagon is more than ever hitched to the United States. That by the way is a relationship that is already taking shape in a number of ways. Davids Medienkritik notes for instance that the German weekly Der Spiegel isn’t even able to distinguish between American and Canadian soldiers.

But on a public level Canadians prefer to be in denial. And that’s not because they dislike Americans or feel that they’re not benefiting economically from a close relationship with the US. From a cultural standpoint they have learned that their sense of nation is not being what it means to be Canadian, but what it is that makes them un-American. Privatized healthcare and gun ownership to name a few are apparently American virtues and that’s why anti-Americanism plays such a pivotal role in an election campaign. A vote for the Conservative Party could potentially mean that time-tested Canadian solutions are going to be changed and adjusted, or may even be abandoned. It may mean that market mechanisms and free individuals are often far better judges than the government in deciding certain matters. That’s why there was such an outcry over the conservative idea to let parents make their own childcare choices; it meant a decisive move away from time tested Canadian solutions for allocating resources. It’s telling that the fear of being identified with America runs so deep that even the leader of the Conservative Party feels compelled to distance himself from a right-of-center Washington newspaper that has recently endorsed him.

Canadians however are not by nature anti-American, nor do I believe after almost seven years of close observation that they are overly Canadian, whatever that means. When questioned or pressured, they can be very pragmatic and many even aspire to American virtues without directly saying so. They’re an odd blend of European and American traditions who somehow have retained a certain way of social-economic thinking much longer than some other parts of the free western world.

The anti-American rhetoric therefore appears to be a battle between the past and the future and given the rapid global changes, is now more intense than ever before. It’s a struggle over who is the dominant player in the economy, a fight over politically correct values, a debate over the extent of individual freedom. A country that has relied on publicly funded healthcare, a moviemaking industry bankrolled by the state and an economy with one of the highest degrees of unionization in the western world will be subject to a rude awakening in the 21st century. Remember the irrational and angry teacher’s strike discussed here a few months back? Part of the same battle. The tide is turning slowly but steadily, and we are seeing it in Germany, in France and we have seen it in Britain and The Netherlands earlier.

The overly institutionalized - and hence corrupt – left is fighting without argument, without logic and has little left but slandering and insulting those who challenge the perfidy of the past that somehow passes for tomorrow’s agenda. And the fear of the unknown, the fear of tomorrow drives Canadians back to those who can convincingly sell the past. There is your anti-Americanism and there’s your hidden agenda. To propose an alternative view, to look for a better tomorrow, it's all essentially un-Canadian.

It also explains the lack of real political progress in Canada as the one party with the ability to effect change and define a vision of Canada’s tomorrow is so fearful of being shut out of power that it campaigns in line with the songbook presented by the incumbents. Sure, they’ve floated a few interesting ideas, but they fail to take the debate beyond yesterday’s battle. No call to put an end to the poisonous anti-Americanism, and no agenda to really liberate market forces where even Europe is driving privatization and deregulation further than ever. Even increased military spending is draped in a sauce of Canadian sovereignty, ignoring the fact that a few generations from now Canadians may well be wearing an American uniform to defend what’s left of the western world. Canada can define the role its plays in that crucial partnership, but the absence of political guts has for now, again, prevented it.

Here’s a very interesting column by Virginia Postrel in Forbes. In it she debunks the notion that social conservatives have stifled the progress of biotech and life sciences in the US by contrasting it with the restrictive regulatory environment in Canada:

U.S. scientists and their supporters tend to assume biomedical research is threatened by know-nothings on religious crusades. But as the Canadian law illustrates, the long-term threat to genetic research comes less from the religious right than from the secular left. Canada's law forbids all sorts of genetic manipulations, many of them currently theoretical. It's a crime, for instance, to alter inheritable genes.

If ever there’s a juncture where social conservatives and the enviro-left are able to shake hands then this is it. But where the American drive for profit has apparently kept research going, a moralizing left that’s also deeply suspicious of pharma-profits has been able to throw up some decisive roadblocks in Canada.

To be clear, this is a tough one and I intuitively reject excessive manipulation of nature and wasn’t all that excited with the emergence of genetically manipulated foods. It seemed unnatural with a potential for creating new and largely unknown health consequences.

The flip-side is of course that it is ridiculous to bar pharmaceutical and life science businesses from moving their groundbreaking research forward and discovering new cures for debilitating diseases. It’s the incentive to make money that is keeping many of us alive and well. The benefits of stem-cell research for Alzheimer’s are a case in point and I consequently believe that our quality of life should pre-empt undue government interference. And therein lies the ultimate test for the regulators: impairing progress should be subject to demonstrating potential negative side effects. That’s a heavy burden of proof to carry, and not an easy one too.

Interesting piece in the Economist on America's northern and southern borders. In the south as always, porous:

Some 124,000 illegal immigrants have been caught in the Yuma sector of the Arizona border alone since last October, a 46% increase on the same period a year before. Americans are at least right to see the border-control system as out of control.

And to the north, politcal sentiments appear to determine ross-border traffic:

But other issues on which Americans and Canadians tend to disagree—gay marriage, cannabis, Iraq—also play a role. Americans cite Canadian anti-Americanism as a reason why they do not head north more. Greg Hermus of the Canadian Tourism Research Institute, an industry body, has studied the issue from both sides and says Canadians have similar fears about American attitudes. “Both sides feel less welcome in the other country.”

Reasons for concern, both north and south.

The US has opened its border again to Canadian beef. Since I spent a week with one of the affected parties a little while ago, there’s a few comments I want to make here.

It’s not just good news for Canadian cattle ranchers; it is even better news for the US consumers who have been paying artificially high prices for beef ever since the border was closed. The whole ban had little to do with mad cow disease with only a few isolated cases on both sides of the border. More than anything it was a deliberate move influenced by US meatpackers to manipulate prices. Even in Canada prices somehow remained higher than where they should have been despite the glut of beef. There’s one solution to fix this problem effectively, and that is order your beef directly from the ranch. The cost of the big freezer I have to purchase to store half a cow which will be delivered this fall is still more than covered by the cost savings generated by the direct order. And not only that, I am getting excellent cuts straight for the ranch rather than processed and pricey stuff from a the retail sector.

In case you weren't paying any attention, there was a meeting at a Texas ranch earlier today:

During a summit in Texas, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and [Canadian Prime-Minister] Mr. Martin agreed to boost border security and forge common approaches on cargo inspection and maritime and aviation safety, and co-operation on a wide range of economic and law-enforcement matters.

And it all ended on a positive note as you will see from the transcript of the joint press conference, which by the way failed to yield even one memorable quote.

Some polls have now revealed that a significant majority of Canadians supported their government's decision not to participate in the North American Missile Defence plan, much to the dislike of the Bush Administration. What is revealing though is that missile defence as such was not the issue:

Pollster Bruce Anderson says opposition to the plan has little to do with missile defence and a lot to do with opposition to Mr. Bush's foreign policy, particularly his prosecution of the war in Iraq as well as White House trade policies.

Really, there's nothing like making some solid and uninformed decisions based on an emotional overreaction. I am waiting for some conservative Canadian number cruncher who will be able to assess the damage to the country's economy and possibly its future security. Not that it will matter for now, North American relations are pretty much on hold and expectations for today's Bush-Fox-Martin summit in Texas are very low:

Fox is a lame-duck president, nearing the end of his term and unable to seek re-election. Martin is hemmed in by the realities of minority government in Ottawa.

"Bush is the only one of the three with a lot of political capital," said Sands. "But he's pretty well determined that he's spending it on things other than North American issues."

Short term attitudes all around.

Following the much hyped exodus of liberals to Canada, Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard decided to travel north and find out for himself. Personally, I think this whole issue is blown out of proportion and in the end the number of Americans migrating north because of Bush will be very, very small. Still the discussion has helped to uncover some interesting facts as Labash found the following:

What many don't consider is how much Canada has oversold itself in the areas where it purportedly does succeed. While it's true that the government has been much friendlier than ours to gay marriage, only 39 percent of Canadians decidedly support it. While Canada is supposedly more environment-friendly, it has been cited for producing more waste per person than any other country. While Canada is supposedly safer, a 1996 study showed its banks had the highest stick-up rate of any industrialized nation (one in every six was robbed). And while a great deal is made of Americans' passion for firearms, the Edmonton Sun, citing Statistics Canada, reported that Canada has a higher crime rate than we do.

Bet you won't read that in the Globe and Mail.

The US-Canadian missile defence saga continues and in the absence of real developments the media have started to focus on diplomatic snubs and other cross-border issues such as beef and softwood lumber. But Paul Martin and George Bush spoke on Saturday and it appears both parties are talking again, even about defence, here’s the Globe and Mail:

"The president expressed his understanding of the prime minister's decision but underscored the importance of redoubling our security co-operation efforts," said spokeswoman Erin Healy. "Both leaders expressed the importance of our ongoing co-operation in Norad to continental security."

Officials from both countries are already working on an agreement that could expand Norad, which began as an air warning command in 1958, to include collaboration on maritime and land defence. The issue is of paramount importance to the U.S. following the terrorist attacks Sept. 11, 2001.

Look at the bold part and how it manipulates the discussion: the entire debate in Canada is crafted around the notion that 9/11, rogue nations, wayward missiles, dirty bombs and terrorist attacks are a purely American affair. Nothing to do with Canada. The notion that somehow Canada could be attacked, could be affected by any of this is swept under the carpet, which is why a majority of Canadians really believes that UN-membership and safely distancing yourself from George Bush is a free-pass from terror. It’s a scary way to look at the world and the National Post’s endless editorials and op-eds have yet to make a single dent in this false sense of security. It will probably take a container with nuclear materials floating around Vancouver harbor to get some real attention for this issue but even then I suspect that that the unconverted will somehow find a way to blame it on the US, or on George Bush.

UPDATE: In the absence of a meaningful debate between Bush and Martin we can as always count on our friend Cellucci to hit the right notes.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's a Canadian voice arguing it's time to get working together:

And we need frankness. Canada's new U.S. Ambassador Frank McKenna is well able to help in this, just as was Cellucci. But instead of doing a collective freakout every time someone speaks plainly — a particular habit of Ottawa's overwrought media — how about considering what is actually said? That's part of a healthy relationship.

Finally some common sense. Harvard scholar Michael Ignatieff, who is rumoured to be the handpicked new leader of Canada's Liberal Party came up with some astute remarks about Canada's decision not to participate in the North American Missile Defence plans yesterday:

"The decision will be popular in the party. But we need clarity on our national defence policy," Ignatieff said, telling the convention in his keynote address last night that Canada needs to balance a principled opposition to the future weaponization of space to the equally principled commitment to participate in North American defence.

"We do not want our decisions to fragment the command system of North American defence, and we do not want a principled decision to result in us having less control over our national sovereignty," he said. "We must not walk away from the table. We must be there, at the table, defending what only we can defend."

A Blairite touch I would say and in a way that's welcome news. Ignatieff's potential leadership role however would once again enable the Liberal Party to monopolize the political center, attract a fair chunk of Canada's right of center voters and remain in power for years to come. It's once more proof of the Liberal Party's shrewdness and the cluelessness of the conservative opposition. The one-party state is no longer a concept, it's a Canadian reality.

Missile Defence, that is.

So in the week the Economist bills him as dithering, Canada’s Prime Minister is unable to confirm whether Canada will participate in North American Missile Defence, ignoring his own Ambassador to Washington who says Canada is “in” and his own party who are saying Canada’s “out”.

The fact of the matter is that technically speaking they’re in but just as with healthcare where the word “private sector” is unspeakable, when it comes to defense, the words “America” and “missile” are believed to equate political suicide. I say believe because no one has dared to try it out yet. That is also why Canada’s Conservatives have failed the test of political competency as their leader has also remained solidly on the fence, even after George Bush explained to him personally that political success can only be achieved through applying courage and common sense. Both of these virtues are absent in Canada’s political scene which is why there’s no debate, no creativity and no real progress. Canadians may satisfy themselves with this sad state of affairs, but outsiders and potential partners may become so exasperated that they will eventually ask themselves: why bother? And that will hurt Canada.

UPDATE I: Old Peaktalk regular US Ambassador Paul Cellucci is equally baffled:

"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

UPDATE II: It's now an official no. Perplexed? Check out Bob and Debbye who have some good comments.

During my most recent trip to the US I was baffled to see what a European accent yielded in terms of a response. It ranged from the “We’re Sorry” type of exclamation to instant Euro-celebrations (that deep envy of rich government entitlements and long vacations) leaving me wondering if I should remain the calm, friendly and quiet diplomat or reveal my orphaned status, throw in a few Gipperisms, and engage in a full frontal reality-check. Problem is that I am too much of a diplomat to do the latter but there are folks, like Kate, who are happy to give Americans of the moonbat type variety a harsh rendez-vous with the facts. Maybe something to try next time.

Americans shop in Canada because it’s cheaper than at home, Canadians go south because American retail outlets have something that consumers normally look for: choice. Before he leaves his current posting, longtime Peaktalk favorite Paul Cellucci suggests that cross-border shopping should now be deregulated:

U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci is backing a proposal that would allow hassle-free cross-border shopping for both Canadians and Americans. The outgoing diplomat told the National Post that he supports the move by Maine Senator Susan Collins that would allow Canadian and American shoppers to buy whatever they wanted and to bring it over the border without paying duties.

Makes sense. Of course, Senator Collins is not acting out of charity or a deep belief in economic freedom. Maine residents apparently are clobbering their local retail sector by crossing the border north to stock up on cheap Canadian imports.

The amazement that someone would not be willing to see his or her country defended against incoming missiles is nowhere better illustrated than by the words uttered by George Bush when during a meeting with Canada’s Prime Minister he was told a missile defence shield was a politically difficult proposition:

‘I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' ”

It’s hard to believe, but that appears to be the case. In the Canadian press this exchange of words has now been branded as bullying, but Bush couldn’t have been any more diplomatic when he argued that:

I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?'

Ouch.

Here’s a perceptive reader:

“I find tax levels in Canada to be higher only because Canada is now more realistic about having its citizens pay for the cost of its extremely huge government. The overall size of government in the US is at least as large (and getting much much larger alarmingly fast), but the administration is deferring the tax bill for a later generation. These things take time to work themselves out, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if, 20 years down the road, you'd read some popular blog celebrating Canada's lower taxes and healthier attitude to freedom.

This train of thought has some merits and it has crossed my mind before. There are however two points that make this scenario somewhat unlikely. For starters, increasing taxes in the US are close to political suicide and it may be far likelier to see ongoing reform of the US Government in order to avoid presenting Americans with a hefty bill. It’s tough one but in the current climate it will be an easier option. Secondly, while my reader’s assessment about Canada is correct it doesn’t mean that it will ultimately result in lower taxes and more freedom. On the contrary, the fact that government after government gets away with taking a big slice from Canadians’ paychecks without any real popular revolt points to little change down the road. Some tinkering here and there, but no dramatic reform. And in a way this a logical step: lower levels in the US will continue to put Canada at a competitive disadvantage which in turn will prompt the government to help sustain the economy with endless tax credits, subsidies and heavily funded job-creation programs. That’s has been the traditional approach and there are no indicators that radical change is imminent.

If any economist (or anyone else for that matter) wants to rip this apart let me know, and I will post it.

Interesting revelation yesterday that the Canadian government had pretty much accepted its participation in the North American missile defence shield together with the US as early as late-2003. Signing an agreement was apparently only months away after some sound advice from the Canadian National Department of Defence:

The National Defence documents lay out many reasons why Canada should join the American missile shield network, in the opinion of military officials, and few counter-arguments.

A strategy paper prepared by Defence and Foreign Affairs says that while Canada is not threatened by incoming missiles now, the risk is likely to increase over the next 15 to 20 years.

I never doubted that sound judgment would prevail, but unfortunately an election intervened and Canada’s dithering leader, Paul Martin, ended up with a minority government. Rather than applying common sense and cobble together workable majorities on an issue by issue basis, he let fear of the left determine his entire agenda and in particular missile defence. The Canadian left saw its window of opportunity and started to play on nationalist feelings and notions of sovereignty: the latter would surely be squandered away if Americans would be able to set the nation’s defence policies. A flawed argument as the briefing notes from the Department of Defence note that:

“ … if Washington goes ahead on its own and chooses not to place the missile defence system under the command of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, Canada will be shut out of decisions crucial to its sovereignty”

The other argument often used, never explained, and now recycled by Paul Martin to appease his left flank is the nightmare scenario called “weaponization of space”. No one really knows what it means and why it would be such a problem if we need to defend ourselves, after all we’ve already weaponized the sea. And as Canadian Comment notes, we actually have already pretty much weaponized space, imagine operating your army without satellite guided GPS capabilities.

Martin time and again fails to show guts. If he had them he could have done two things: sign up for missile defence as a national security necessity and tell his leftist detractors to get a life or he could have told the same to George Bush and be clear about it: no weaponization of space, it contradicts our core values, they're peculiar but that's the way it is, period. Yet, he failed to do either and continues to stumble and bumble the most incomprehensive things in a desperate effort to save his political skin. The end result is that Canada has indeed voluntarily undermined its sovereignty not only by failing to follow-through on clear recommendations from its own defense experts, but also by revealing itself to be an unpredictable, clueless and dithering neighbor. I would be surprised if the Pentagon had made all its planning contingent on the erratic friend up north. As it stands today it has indeed become totally irrelevant if or when Canada joins the North American defence shield.

One more piece of history for the Canadian leadership. In the mid-1980s the US expected its European allies to deploy Pershing-II cruise missiles as a counterweight to the steady build-up of Soviet SS-20 missiles and the overwhelming conventional capabilities of the Warzaw Pact. The anti-war and peace movements had a field day with this and in my native Holland month after month was characterized by mass protests, mail-ins, road blockades, you mention it, it almost seemed like a people’s revolt focused one thing: no missile deployment on Dutch soil. The saner minds, like me adhering to the slogan “better a nuke in the garden, then a Soviet in the kitchen” appeared to be a silent and powerless minority. But deployed they were as former Dutch premier Ruud Lubbers took a political gamble and calculated that Russian intransigence at the negotiating table would justify deployment. Within a short time span of the Pershings arriving in Europe it had become a non-issue and a few years thereafter the Soviet empire collapsed, leading many to conclude that despite massive public opposition the nuclear build-up did do its work in protecting Western Europe and in speeding up the collapse of the Soviet empire.

So a missile defense test failed yesterday. This is not a big deal from a technical point of view, implementing these systems takes time and ups and down are part of the process. Nor is it a political issue, although some will try to exploit the news to argue that the entire missile defense plan is flawed. That in particular was to be expected from the freeloaders.

What I first thought was a joke seems to be true; many Americans are considering leaving everything behind, and making a move north to Canada. Since life is always about politics and markets what is truly baffling to me is that they are not only prepared to move to a high tax environment, they are willing to swallow a bitter pill that sees some 25% of their net worth wiped out due to the very unfavorable exchange rate at the moment. Not only that, the lengthy immigration process may well see to it that the value of their holdings may be eroded even further given the pessimistic outlook for the greenback. If that’s the case however, then the US has become an incredibly attractive bargain for Canadian residents willing to move south, discounting future economic uncertainties. All of a sudden a villa in Orange County is within reach thanks to Bush's prolific spending, something that he can actually be blamed for.

Anyway, it seems to me there’s a deal here and the ruling parties in both countries stand to gain from making it work. The conservative and ambitious can move south and trade their residency papers with disgruntled idealists moving north. Republicans can roll out the carpet for some potential voters and Paul Martin and his Liberals can welcome some new constituents who are so driven by sheer idealism that they are totally ignorant about the cost of their move. Prime targets for new tax initiatives: welcome to Canada!

UPDATE: More nonsense.

You know what it is like to take a kid to the dentist, screaming and kicking but after the visit you hear “it wasn’t that bad, in fact it was pretty good”. It seems that is how the Bush visit to Canada earlier this week is playing out. Here’s David Frum:

Meanwhile, I spent yesterday afternoon fielding calls from Canadians and especially Canadian journalists by no means friendly to the president who just could not stop enthusing about the wit, charm, warmth, and understanding of the president’s speech.

Bush’s visit was a diplomatic triumph, from the failure of Canada’s small but vociferous anti-American minority to turn out in the cold streets of Ottawa to the new tone taken by prime minister Paul Martin – and perhaps above all to the laughter and cheers of the president’s audiences.

Here’s Paul Martin’s acknowledgement, which is significant:

“We are in a war against terrorism, and we are in it together: Americans and Canadians"

But the detractors are still vocal, make no mistake about it. Lawrence Martin writes in one of Canada’s largest newspapers, The Globe and Mail (subcriber link only), that the speech was crafted to play to the conservative crowd back home and he tries to dispel some of Bush’ comments and historical analogies:

To compare the gigantic military might of Germany that was rolling over Europe and toppling countries like dominoes to the threat of terrorists who hijack planes and detonate car bombs every now and then may well rank as one of the most preposterous exaggerations on record.

But fear-mongering works. In terms of the power it gives Mr. Bush to bend the world to his wishes, there are still great gains to be made from the political exploitation of the terror threat. So why not compare it to the Third Reich?

Like many others, Lawrence Martin doesn’t get it. The intent of totalitarian ideologies remains the same; it’s the tools and strategies that have changed over time. But even then, today’s loosely organized rogues may be able to wreak the same amount of devastation as the Third Reich if we let them develop their capabilities unhindered. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, our friend Pervez Musharraf may fail to keep Pakistan in line and then there’s Saudi Arabia, the biggest question mark of them all. The Third Reich was a timeless lesson about the outcome of history if threats and early warning signs are ignored; today we’re acting on them. But Martin is right that the comparison to the Third Reich is flawed. It’s precisely because of that valuable lesson we are now able to identify the early stage radical Islam is in and compare it to Nazism. We’re not dealing with a Third Reich equivalent yet, it’s in Weimar Republic stage and that is all the more reason to act early, and decisively.

Thanks to Bush the debate is now front and center in Canada and not only that, he also managed to give Conservative leader Stephen Harper some lessons in decisive leadership by suggesting the latter should be clear in his support for missile defence rather than obfuscate the issue for short-term political gain. With the usual blather from the left and the unproductive dance in the middle we can only hope that Canada’s right can force the issue but don’t count on it.

The road will have to go through the center with some compromises domestically as well as some steps by Washington to take the edge off the plans so that Canadians can eventually accept it. It reminds me all of the cruise missile deployment in Europe in the 1980s: lots of debate and anti-American rhetoric but in the end common sense prevailed and the weapons were put in place without too many complaints. The same will happen here.

Apart from the fact that joint missile defence is a very logical consequence of its geographical location and the direction of Canada’s overall foreign policy, in the end it will be the lobby from a thirsty business sector that may prove to be the decisive factor. Industry stands to reap billions in subsidies and tax credits in order to help implement the shield or just use it as a great milking cow to fund decades of research and development. That would play right into a time-tested Canadian tradition: let government pick up the tab for innovation, growth and job creation. From that perspective Canada’ participation may well be a done deal, it will just be a while before the song and dance is over and everyone can get to work implementing it.

This morning Bush delivered a strong, at times witty and conciliatory speech to conclude his visit to Canada. Here’s the transcript and you will see that it’s vintage Bush, hitting the right notes to comfort his hosts while at the same time pointing to their responsibilities in the new world. He did that effectively by reminding Canadians of their past:

In the early days of World War II, when the United States was still wrestling with isolationism, Canadian forces were already engaging the enemies of freedom across the Atlantic. At the time, some Canadians argued that Canada had not been attacked and had no interest in fighting a distant war. Your prime minister, Mackenzie King, gave this answer: "We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting for the enemy to attack us. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada.” Of course, we should protect our coasts and strengthen our ports and cities against attack.

But the prime minister went on to say, "We must also go out and meet the enemy before he reaches our shores. We must defeat him before he attacks us, before our cities are laid to waste."

Yes, it once existed, a pro-active and pre-emptive Canada.

UPDATES
Mike Campbell has more on the final day of Bush’ northern visit.

Kate McMillan liveblogged the speech.

The Bush visit to Canada starts today and of course media on both sides of the border have started to analyze the differences between the two nations and assess where they may find common ground. Personally, I have written more than enough about this, there’s an entire archive devoted to it.

In short, my view is that further integration of Canada into the US from an economic and security perspective is both inevitable and preferable, but then I am a pragmatic European with a strong inclination to free-markets and a soft spot for US foreign policy. Such integration will however not result in Canada ceasing to be a sovereign entity: Republicans in the US wouldn’t favor diluting their marginal hold on power by inviting millions of statist liberals into their midst (even if they bring lots of oil) and neither would the northern elites look kindly at diluting their power base for the sake of security and jobs. So whatever shape or form further US-Canadian co-operation takes, Canada will probably remain a renegade northern province for years to come. The separation will largely be social-economic in nature, from a cultural perspective Canadians are not that dissimilar to Americans as they like to think, no matter how hard some try to argue that case.

The real problem is that Canada is beset by the same legacy as Europe. Remnants of a centre-left elite continue to have a hold over government, media, judiciary, education and the framework of public debate and thus the overall direction of the country. From a social perspective that’s probably fine as Canadians have been willing to experiment in that department , although we shouldn’t overstate it: government owned liquor distribution and the inability to creatively solve drug addiction and help legalize prostitution are hardly the hallmarks of a socially progressive country, whatever Canadians think. What’s constraining progress is the continued grasp that government and unions have on economic life and the defeatist peacemaking instincts when it comes to foreign policy. Both are no longer of this day and age. A well organized conservative campaign, a severe economic downturn or a terrorist attack or a combination of all three are examples of a potential cure for Canada. The folks over at Diplomad pointed in the direction of hard medicine last week, although it shouldn't be administered by the US. When it's homegrown or from an alternate source Canadians are probably more likely to respond to it in a positive way.

Canada is not Europe, nor is it America. The country has the right ingredients to become a huge success story alongside its southern neighbour; it’s a matter of time and apt management of events. So the best thing to come out the Bush-Martin get together would be for the US to promise significant movement on lifting softwood lumber tariffs and beef imports and for the Canadians to sign up for missile defense and to commit to working towards a North American security perimeter. Again, pragmatic instincts would warrant such an outcome, but it hardly ever works this way. Let’s what happens in Ottawa and Halifax today and tomorrow.

Further Reading
Kate points to the experiences of an American living and working in Canada. And Jay Currie points a crucial difference between the US and Canada. Finally, read the long post I received from a reader below: A Canadian Bush Backer Speaks Out.

UPDATE I: Of course our American in T.O. has lots of comments.

UPDATE II: A reader from California writes to say that Canada could join the US using the 'Quebec formula': give up sovereignty and be part of the US but on day-to-day matters you can pretty much do your own thing, like yes, healthcare. Not likely to happen but Canada is indeed migrating to a scenario where most of the integration takes place without giving up sovereignty.

UPDATE III: And of course good stuff from Frum.

UPDATE IV: So far, protests are hardly impressive:

A few pro-Bush demonstrators on Parliament Hill were drowned out by a crowd of several hundred protesters who screamed at the U.S. President to “go home.” A march planned for later Tuesday is expected to draw a bigger crowd.

UPDATE V: But then of course, there are a lot of Friends of America in Canada.

UPDATE VI: Lots of pictures of the "protests" here, even the Trotskyites made the effort to welcome the President!

Canada is getting ready for the visit by President Bush and it’s encouraging to note that in addition to the standard Bush-bashing and the knee-jerk anti-Americanism there are many Canadians that support Bush. Not only that, they are frustrated and want express their views and a few have asked me to post their comments. So take a look at Aidan Maconachy’s criticism of anti-Americanism and his informed and very accurate assessment of Bush as a leader. I couldn’t have done it better myself, a must–read for Americans and Canadians alike.

Recently I got into a discussion with a few Canadian friends about the Bush victory in the 2004 Presidential election and the ongoing war in Iraq. These friends are well educated and cultured people with a preference for European wine and movies with sub-titles. I suppose they could be described as middle-of-the-road liberals and made for pleasant company at dinner over a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau ... at least until the subject of George W. Bush came up.

Their reaction to the re-election of the President was unequivocal. Choice of language included adjectives such as "dreadful", "shocking", "appalling" and even "bizarre". Their self-righteousness was more akin to arch inquisitors passing judgement on a proven devil worshiper, rather than dinner companions airing views on a President of the United States.

When I offered a contrary opinion, there was a hush and eyes widened with genuine horror - as though the late hour had induced the first physical evidence of my ‘werewolf within’. One of them even said - "are you feeling alright Aidan?"
You see, I’m one of those anomalies in the Canadian dominion - a Bush backer. A partiality that induces some of my fellow citizens to regard me as ... if not exactly a brown shirt ... then at the very least a tan shirt.

In the majority of Canadian minds the standard Bush caricature reigns supreme; the idiot cowboy with his finger on the trigger of the greatest arsenal of weapons ever assembled in the history of mankind. They buy the stereotype of the phonetically challenged goofy guy with big ears who would seem more at home eating beans under a starry sky than sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office. So why don’t I see this also? Is it possible that an emissary of Karl Rove has slipped a President enhancing drug into our rural Ontario well?

I’ve always been a little suspicious of iconic Presidents. Clinton for example, with his majestic white mane and inclusive body language; master of the language and equally at home with an Ohio pig farmer and the head of the PLO. Reagan with his star appeal and charming malapropisms; shielded from accusations of idiocy by his transcendental belief in "the good" as personified by America. These legendary Presidents almost compelled belief by sheer force of presence. By comparison, Dubya seems human and entirely fallible.

He reminds us of a guy we might encounter at the local sports bar or rub shoulders with in the bleachers during a ball game. Like most of us run-of-the-mill humans he screws up from time to time, mangles his grammar and even chokes on food at inopportune moments. He has daughters who have been known to act out and a wife who holds it all together with a stoicism that is instantly recognizable to those of us with an appreciation for self effacing, strong willed matriarchs. George is simply "that guy"... the only difference being that he also happens to be President of the greatest superpower in the history of the planet.

In internet chat rooms and when talking with friends, Bush backers like myself are constantly accosted with the idiot word. "Bush is an idiot" has probably been recited more times than the Hare Krishna mantra, and yet despite a stratosphere that reverberates with the "Bush is an idiot" echo, I don’t buy it.
My reluctance to give the nod to the ‘Bush as idiot’ consensus doesn’t reflect either willfulness or perversity. When I observe Bush speaking off-the-cuff to reporters I see a guy with a folksy style who addresses the issues in a direct down-to-earth fashion. There are occasional moments of levity when he upstages a journalist or offers a witticism or two. Clearly this is a regular guy talking and not an icon, and therein lies the offence. For some, Bush is simply too human and they wonder how a President who looks and sounds like the guy next door, can ever be relied upon to do and say the right thing. But to leap from that assumption to the conclusion that Bush is therefore an idiot, is facile in the extreme.

After 9/11 he rallied Americans with his down-home appeals to the nation. When he stood on the smouldering debris of the towers with an arm around a fireman and spoke into a megaphone, he was one of us ... a surrogate doing what we all wanted to do most ... reach out to a nation reeling in a time of crisis.
When he made speeches at the U.N. and at military academies around the country, his words were of course scripted ... and yet there was nothing about either his diction or his delivery that was suggestive of an idiot. He speaks well, despite the occasional mangled word, and sometimes even speaks with energized power and conviction. All of which makes the ‘idiot fixation’ such an odd phenomenon.

Of course, these detractors will argue that going into Iraq was idiotic and will predictably cite the non-discovery of WMD as proof positive of idiocy. According to them Bush was acting from the most venal of motives; indulging his appetite for a personal vendetta and sacrificing young lives on the alter of his ego. For some reason these detractors feel more inclined to call Bush’s motives into question, rather than examine the despicable nature of the Iraqi regime and the long term consequences of leaving Saddam in power.

Even though the entire world, and maybe even Saddam himself, believed that the regime was in possession of proscribed weaponry, the non-discovery of WMD was seized upon as evidence that Bush had launched a war without justification. The compelling information that has surfaced concerning links between Saddam’s Baathist regime and Al Qaeda is simply disregarded by the President’s detractors. The genocidal excesses and expansionist tendencies of the Iraqi regime are similarly overlooked. Saddam’s funding of suicide bombers is disregarded, as is the presence in pre-invasion Baghdad of that most sinister of terrorist godfathers ... Abu Nidal.

In her book The War Against America, Laurie Mylroie claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was captured in Pakistan, may not in fact be Kuwaiti as he claims, but rather an Iraqi agent. Since Mohammed was an Al Qaeda operational leader, this information could well create direct ties between Iraq and the 9/11 New York attack, and so has important implications. Yet even such potentially damning information fails to move the die hard ‘idiot brigade’ who see in the person of Bush an atrocity that far exceeds even the rape room activities and genocidal excesses of the Baa’thists.

This odd fixation with Dubya’s inner idiot is compounded by the latter’s candid admission that he is a man of faith. Liberals by and large become alarmed at the prospect of God insinuating his way into the affairs of state. Some like Ann Coulter, have argued that this aversion is due to liberals’ devotion to the 'golden cow' of political correctness - something akin to a secular religion in and of itself. Coulter points out that while hundreds of references to the "Christian conservatives" and "religious right" occur in the New York Times, a Lexis-Nexis search of the entire New York Times archive did not succeed in unearthing even a single reference to "atheist liberals" or "the atheist left". Her not unreasonable conclusion, is that demeaning references are reserved for entities to the right of center.

Unlike his predecessors in the Oval Office who kept matters of personal faith in the closet, Bush has the temerity to refer candidly to God as if He actually exists and doesn’t hesitate to characterize terrorism and the states that support it as "evil". Such candor is deeply disturbing to those liberals who view God as a type of quaint metaphor that nobody in the final analysis, takes seriously. Such Presidential utterances shocks them deeply - in much the way the psychiatric nurse was shocked by the ravings of the Jack Nicholson character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

In attempting to get to the roots of the knee jerk tendency to characterize the President as an idiot, I must also make some reference to ‘the line’.
There are some lines, such as union picket lines, that right wingers cross at risk of death and dismemberment. Even though all of the evidence and the call of destiny might necessitate the crossing of a non-negotiable line, the actually crossing of it brings unforeseen consequences. Bill Clinton knew this very well. So while he was prepared to make shows of American military power by bombing a factory in the Sudan and ordering an air campaign in Kosovo, he was too much of a liberal to cross the scariest line of all. When Al Qaeda began testing the American will with bombings in the Middle East, most notably the attack on the USS Cole, the Clinton administration declined to act. Even when Dick Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, counseled a bombing campaign against terror camps in Afghanistan, the administration twiddled its thumbs and deferred. Opening a front with Al Qaeda was a scary line to cross and Bill Clinton wasn’t about to fire up the Arab world and ruin fun times at home, let alone turn himself into a potential target for assassination.

The task of crossing that line fell to George W. Bush, and once he stepped over the line with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq - all hell, as they say, broke loose. The Iraq attack in particular, in the eyes of many liberals was the act of an idiot. To others, it demonstrated tremendous courage and a willingness to defend the United States at any price. The jury is still out, debating the final verdict. As Jacques Chirac recently remarked ..."history will judge". Of course, it’s easy to play the proctor when you are comfortably ensconced on the sidelines sipping a pernod.

The reflex tendency to dismiss Bush as an idiot trivializes the very real threat of international terrorism. The demonizing of the USA and its President simply provides a pillow for the enemy who are greatly comforted by the sight of the western media reducing America to a loathsome caricature.

In the final analysis, war polarizes and compels people to choose sides. The Bush detractors in N. America are operating in shrinking neutral territory. When the final verdict comes in, they may well find themselves further out to sea than they had ever dreamed possible.

Posted by Pieter Dorsman at 11:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (2)

George Bush is going to pay an official visit to Canada later this month and his hosts, rather than thinking through important bi-lateral issues, are now focused on discussing the risk of certain members of parliament heckling Bush during a speech he might give in the House of Commons. The conservative opposition is at pains to avoid this and are calling on the potential troublemakers to think through the consequences of interrupting and jeering the US President. A typical Canadian reaction: let’s try and keep things nice. I completely disagree. If Bush ever wanted to score a publicity coup in Canada and reveal how depraved and clueless the anti-Americans in parliament are, then there’s no better way than to let them make fools of themselves during what will surely be a smart and well-crafted speech. Bring'em on!