Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party defeated the long entrenched Liberal Party in Canadian elections on Monday. A Conservative victory is a striking turn in the country's politics and is likely to improve Canada's strained relations with the Bush administration....I suppose I'm one of those Americans who don't spend much time thinking about Canada. I know it's up there, disapproving of us, like a sanctimonious older sibling. But I like the idea of this change, with new leadership that is closer to ours, friendlier to our goals. It will be interesting, perhaps, to see how things unfold.
Mr. Harper, 46, is a free-market economist who expressed strong support for Washington at the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq and shares the Bush administration's skepticism of the Kyoto climate control protocol, which Canada has signed and ratified. His party was formed three years ago as a coalition of two conservative parties.
Such positions are in sharp contrast with those of Prime Minister Martin, who rejected cooperation with President Bush's missile defense program, ratcheted up criticism of American trade policies and caustically criticized Washington during the campaign for not supporting the Kyoto protocol.
Mr. Harper did not emphasize his closeness to the Bush administration during the campaign, and there was no indication that Canadians had suddenly embraced American foreign policy. Mr. Harper pointedly promised not to send Canadian troops to Iraq, and said he would be a tough bargainer in trade talks with the United States.
But he did promise $5 billion in new military spending, which would go to forming a new airborne battalion and buying large transport aircraft to airlift troops and supplies during world crises.
January 24, 2006
"It is in the DNA of this Harper government to improve the relationship with Washington."
Said Janice Stein, director of the Munk Center for International Studies at the University of Toronto, according to the NYT:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Ann
Nothwithstanding the hysterics of people like Bill O'rielly, I think the overwhelming majority of Canadians share Harper's friendly disposition towards America. (Martin's anti-American rhetoric was used for the same misguided and feckless purpose that Schroeder used it in his failed reelection bid in Germany: as base political pandering to rabid Party loyalists.)
Indeed, the real question about US-Canada relations is why Americans like you are so condescending and dismissive of Canadians....
Like you, I'm an American who pays too little attention to what's going on in Canada. But on the surface of things, this seems to reflect what has just happened in Germany. On the strength of good showing and after piecing together a "grand coalition," the new leader of the German government is an advocate of strong ties with the US, supported the invasion of Iraq, and believes in a more robust market capitalism than her predecessor. Is this a trend?
Mark Daniels
I've always lived in the northern tier of states and grew up quite close to the border. When I was growing up, we received three broadcast TV stations and one of them was the CBC. I'd agree that the vast majority of Canadians, regardless of province, are well disposed toward the United States. Sure, there may not always be support for some of our policies, but that's not the same as "disapproving of us" generally. We're not twins, but no other country is more like us and, as a people, no country is a better friend to us. Critics of Canada, in my experience, often lack direct experience in that country and conflate the leadership elite with the general population. I'm not sure where Ann is coming from on this issue and she may not be doing this. I'll admit that her last paragraph surprised me a bit given that she has spent most (all?) of her life in the northern tier of states.
The election results don't look to be a sea change. Canada's a diverse country with even more significant political differences by region than we have, and yesterday's results reflect that. The Conservatives will form a minority government with a 21 seat or so edge on the Liberals. The Conservatives received 36% of the popular vote vs. 30% for the Liberals. Most of the rest went to the NDP and the BQ. My perception is that the election result was more about clean government than a major ideological shift. The corruption scandals of the last few years were a millstone around the neck of the Martin government. I expect that Stephen Harper's promised accountability act will be the first legislative initiative. This is supposed to include more power for auditor and ethics officer positions in government, expanded whistleblower protections, expanded freedom of information provisions, a ban on corporate and union donations and a $1,000 personal cap on donations to federal politicians, and a 5 year waiting period before former senior officials may lobby. I think more oversight of federal grants is included too.
While the Conservatives won seats in all regions, their greatest strength is in western Canada, particularly the prairie provinces, and especially Alberta. They are a more conservative party than the Liberals (although the Liberals balanced the budget) and if they can achieve success with their accountability initiative it will be followed with other items from their platform on reducing taxes (GST), more spending on law and order, some reform of the health care system (guaranteed wait times), and more devolution of revenue and responsibility to the provinces within the federal structure. There will be changes in foreign policy and the tone will be more cooperative with us, but the Harper government's priorities will be on domestic changes and positioning themselves for the next election.
This election, it seems to me, was primarily a rejection of the Liberal party due to its repeated scandals. I do not suspect their is a groundswell of support for conservatives per se. I wish it were otherwise.
For alh ipinions, Americans are dismissive towards Canada because its isolationism has rendered it largely irrelevant except in trade matters. The decisions are made by the people that show up, and in world affairs, America shows up.
Some people hate us for it, but we tend to reach out to those in need. Our actions may lack grace or subtlety, but we learn from our mistakes.
Canada seems to be like the underachieving uncle, satisfied he's got a good job with benefits like health care and a pension. He'll bowl, and drink at the bar, but he'll never aspire to greater things. He's satisfied, and he'll grouse at his neighbor (the one who runs the neighborhood watch, volunteers at the shelter, and goes to night school) because Uncle Canada knows how to fix the world. And if that couch weren't so comfy, he'd get up and show you how it's done the right way. Well, maybe tomorrow.
Canada, land of the satisfied. Let's hope the conservatives can revive the self-satisfied uncle.
I'm just curious: in what way are relationships between Canada and the US strained? My goodness, we were there this Summer and had a blast, and I rather doubt any Canadian was sneering at us. Nor would I, or anyone I know, sneer at a Canadian. (I'm an American, if that wasn't clear)
I think the strained relationship is a bogus media-invented thing.
Am I a "northern tier" person and if so would that make me think more about Canada? As to the first part of the question, I grew up in Delaware, which I regarded as "mid-Atlantic," but later in life, I found out that lots of folks think that's where the south begins. I've also spent a lot of time in New Jersey (5 years) and New York City (10 years), and I consider them mid-Atlantic too. I have been in Wisconsin for 22 years, however, but in the southern part of the state. Northern Wisconsin is quite a different place, and I've never been all the way north. But there's still a rather large lake separating northern Wisconsin from Canada. So I can't say I experience any sense of physical closeness to Canada. I've only ever set foot there once when, long ago, my parents took us to see Niagara Falls and we spent part of the day on the Canadian side.
Mark assumes I said I was paying "too little" attention to Canada, but actually I didn't. If I made a list of all the countries in the world I should pay more attention to, Canada would not be high on it. I don't think people suffer very much there, and I don't think it threatens us much.
Anglo Canada has long had an identity problem, and unfortunately this has often been resolved by emphasizing the ways in which (Anglo) Canadians are unlike Americans.
It strikes this American -- who has lived several years in Canada, has a Canadian wife, and who visits there a couple times a year -- that this is an oddly stunted way to construct a national identity.
For the most part, individual Canadians you meet are quite friendly to individual Americans -- that's in the realm of personal relations. But when it comes to defining what Canada is, and where it stands in the world, that's when you see the anti-American attitude.
At this point, it's way too early to tell how much of a change has actually occurred. I have long thought most Canadians believe the Liberals should run the country forever, except for brief intervals after they get caught with their hands in the till. On those occasions, there's a short interregnum of (usually) Conservative rule -- then it's back to the Liberals, and business as usual.
Maybe this pattern will change with Harper, maybe not. (My bet is not.) However, the arrival of the blogosphere as a factor in Canadian politics will give conservatives (small-C) a louder voice in the national discussion. And maybe the ages-long leftist monopoly on the media is beginning to crack.
But even if it breaks completely, I doubt the majority of Canadians (again, I mean Anglos) will ever end up much to the right of, say, Joe Lieberman.
The most fundamental difference between Canadians and Americans is that Canadians trust their governments and bureaucracies, and believe in Big Government, far more than Americans do. This isn't just a post-WW2 thing, either. The attitude goes back to the founding of both Canadian societies, British and French.
Actually Canada might be crucial for the United States 20 years from now for two important reasons, fresh water and oil.
If global warming is as dire as some scientest suggest then fresh water will become a more precious commodity and the Great White North has plenty of it locked up in those glaciers.
Also they have massive oil shale deposits and should oil stay above $80 dollars a barrel then extracting oil from oil shale becomes profitable, desirable, and large enough so we can say a big fat 'screw you' to SW Asia, Nigeria, Venezuela and any place else that wants to play games with their reserves of liquid oil.
So friendly relationships with Canada could be critical for cheap access to our two main fluids if current trends can be expected to continue on for the next decade or two.
Canada's prosperity has always been linked to the United States, but in the future the U.S. might find it's prosperity dependent on Canada, locking in long term agreements while they have a friendly government will be key for the U.S. economy if all the worst case scenarios play out over the next 20 years.
But more importantly, did you celebrate by quaffing a Molson Canadian or a Labatt Blue?
Last comment reminded me that the biggest industry in Golden (CO) is now Canadian, with the merger of Coors with Molson (technically a buyout with Molson surviving).
I think that Robert Burnham brings up some very good points. I would answer the Canadian identity problem by noting that the vast majority of their population lives within 100 miles of our border, and often can get U.S. TV signals. We have more than 10 times their population, and are, arguably, one of the most self-centered peoples on earth. (I would throw the Chinese in there too).
So, they have a relatively small population living right next to this self-absorbed collosus which pretty much ignores them. And, I will suggest, that makes it very hard to maintain a separate national identity.
The French-Canadians try to do it through language. From an American point of view, their language laws are ridiculous - for example, specifying that all signs in Quebec have to be in French, when their biggest customers, by far, only speak English. I suspect that if they were transplanted next to France, this wouldn't be happening.
But what about the English speaking Canadians? To me, at least the western Canadians I have dealt with, sound like they were from Minnesota or North Dakota, only more so. How does a people like that distinguish themselves from us down here in the States? IMHO, pretty hard to do.
As a note, I pop up to Canada most years to ski right along inside the BC border with Alberta. What is interesting to me is that the Canadian Customs check for guns when entering that country, while ours is more interested in drugs. As I understand it, they will check your guns when you enter, letting you pick them up upon leaving. But, being American, I don't exactly trust any government, so I leave such at home when driving to Canada.
I do agree with Robert that the Canadians I have met are the nicest people I have met. I just haven't run into the AH that you find here up there. I wish them the best of luck - I don't envy them trying to survive unchanged just north of our border like they do.
It's a minor point, but I'm tired of reading the MSM's refrain of "the Bush Administration's opposition to Kyoto". Before President Clinton ever signed the treaty, 95 Senators voted in favor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which expressed the sense of the Senate that President Clinton ought not sign it without significant changes. Those changes were not made, which is why President Clinton never bothered to submit it for ratification. When 95 Senators express opposition, it's probably safe to call that American opposition, rather blame a particular party.
Don't know 'bout other Americans, but I:
(1) Never hold individuals responsible for the behavior of their government's leaders, and therefore find my opinion of Canada and my opinion of Canadians to be two largely unrelated things.
(2) Like the relatively few Canadians whom I know but know relatively few Canadians, having spent most of my life in Oklahoma and Texas. For whatever it's worth, one of my kids has a Canadian godmother...though I can't imagine, really, what difference that could make.
(3) Have paid very little attention to Canadian politics because the Canadian politicians who have been in power espouse an approach to economics and foreign policy that renders them impotent on the international stage and therefore no threat, and no potential source of assistance, to America, in the arena of international affairs. Canada has been, internationally, an irrelevance. On economic matters the effects of the policies of our own leaders overwhelm whatever effects Canada's leaders might have on us, and so again I have little attention left over to spare for the follies or wisdom of our northern neighbor -- especially since the policies of Mexico have far more impact on us here in Texas than do the policies of Canada.
There is, however, one aspect in which Canada and her leaders matter very much to America, and that is in whether she is willing to cooperate with us in keeping our northern border from becoming the point of entry for terrorists. Therefore the election of a government that shows signs of being serious about our two countries' mutual defense against terrorists, is most welcome indeed.
I think Pogo is fishing, but I'll chase the lure anyways. For a country that is a long-term ally and collaborates with us on continental defense projects, you are pretty harsh on our neighbors to the north. Both in economic and national security matters, we have to cooperate. And we are both geographically large, culturally diverse, free societies with developed economies on the same continent.
I'll grant that the metaphor of a satisfied uncle describes Canada in some respects, but it is neither isolated or unengaged in world affairs. The Pentagon publishes an annual report titled "Allied Contributions to the Common Defense," which reviews the different levels of commitment both in absolute levels and adjusted for size of nation. This includes joint military operations, peacekeeping, foreign aid, etc. This is available here. Canada does grade out low in defense spending as a share of GDP and in ground and air combat capability as a share of GDP. They are in the middle of the pack in most other measures and edge us out in one of the peacekeeping metrics and in foreign assistance as a share of GDP.
In the GWOT, Canada committed ground troops to the coalition in Afghanistan and naval forces to the operations in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf/Red Sea. They have taken a pass on committing military forces to Iraq, but it's not accurate to say they haven't shown up at all in recent years.
And in the last century Canada did show up, sustaining casualties as a percent of population that exceeded the United States in both World Wars. The country has a military tradition, but it has de-emphasized it as a tool in external relations in the last few decades. They have focused more on foreign assistance and peacekeeping, although there are those in Canada who would argue their effort should be stepped up in those arenas.
And I agree with WXL that our long-term destinies are intertwined in important ways and that attempts, on both sides of the border, to exacerbate differences are not in the interest of either nation.
Well, if we are to believe a 60 Minutes segment--I know, I know--the oil in Alberta could make ME oil irrelevant. This is good for Canada and for the world. I don't think, however, it would do us much good to economically destroy the ME, leaving it and its nukes to the fanatics, but that's another post.
I think most people distinguish a country from its inhabitants. Candada, like Europe, has been able to live in a socialist paradise because the US provides the military power for the free world. And why shouldn't they take us up on our generous offer? This has led to some unhealthy thinking, though, and ratcheted up the anti-Americanism. In the end, if you think Pax Americana is bad, wait till you see the alternative.
I just want to add that Canada is an experiment still in progress. Several powerful forces are working against it, including:
There's no settled resolution regarding Québec's place in the confederation. The Anglos I know generally view Québec's periodic separatism attempts as political blackmail, and most say, "Let 'em go."
For the Anglos themselves, there's this huge English-speaking country right next door, into which you can mingle invisibly.
While the US-Canadian border runs east-west, North America's natural geographic and economic pathways run north-south. That is, the economy of southern Ontario is much closer to that of New York and Ohio, for example, than to the prairie provinces. Similarly, Calgary, Alberta, has a lot more in common ecomically and socially with Denver than with Toronto or Ottawa. Vancouver and San Francisco share many affinities, and so on.
If you think the fuss over NAFTA was a big deal here, it was nothing compared to the debate on the Canadian side.
The border is relatively porous: Any Canadian who feels dissatisfied with nanny-statism at home can move pretty easily to the States -- and enjoy a higher standard of living, better pay, and more opportunities. Faced with this "incentives-gradient," it's hardly to be wondered that the most ambitious (and impatient) Canadians boil off from that society and recondense on this side of the border. Thermodynamically as well as socially, it's a no-brainer reaction.
There's an interesting book on some of these trans-border migrations: Jeffrey Simpson's Star-Spangled Canadians. It's journalism, not sociology or economics, and it could do with more analysis. But it's a good look at a phenomenon that is more widespread than many down here think. (Canadians, you know, can pass unseen among us....)
As an American with many Canadian connections, there are things I like about the place -- and things that drive me up the wall. The "we're better because we're Canadian" attitude can be pretty in-your-face at times. But I generally write it off as coming from the deep well of insecurity that runs through a lot of the Canadian historical experience.
French Canadians were abandoned by the French crown after 1789, and the British created Anglo Canada largely as a way to keep a presence on this continent after the American revolution. Unlike the Americans, who made their own country by force of arms, Canada was mostly created by forces and people elsewhere.
That would leave me feeling pretty insecure, too.
Military power is one dimension of national power. A very important one, but still just one dimension. Greater military contributions from our allies is a two-way street. More burden sharing means more consultation and in recent years we have enjoyed the freedom to act with latitude.
In its own way, Canada is adjusting to the more apparent set of threats, which it defines as rogue states, terrorism, WMD, and regional conflicts. For the first time in a long time, defense spending is being raised and ground forces are being increased. Externally, Canada tends to focus on stabilization operations (like in Afghanistan) because it's easier for smaller militaries to do that vs. fielding heavy combat forces.
In terms of continental defense (or "defence" in Canada), Canada has two key priorities. These are defense of its population centers in the south vs. threats and defense of Canadian sovereignty in the lightly inhabited north, abundent in natural resources. The Arctic is a lot bigger driver in Canadian defense policy than is generally understood in the United States, which means more maritime and aviation forces to maintain a presence up there vs. expeditionary ground forces.
My sense is that Canada knows their eggs and our eggs are in the same basket, given our economic integration and so much of their population being proximate to us. Their latest defense policy statement seems to support that.
Robert Burnham is making some great observations on the social/cultural dilemmas Canada wrestles with.
I see no reason for a separate Western Canada. Why don't they ask to be taken into the Union, and let Quebec go its own way? Health care is concentrated in the hands of the eastern wealthy in Canada and that means Western Canada is shortchanged terribly.
I never had a problem with empire as long as its our empire. Hawaii is lovely, Alaska is beautiful, and I wouldn't mind buying a new American flag with a few more stars on it.
Stiles, thanks for that analysis. I can't say the Accountability Act makes this Canadian government sound closer to our own, though. When you say Harper's coming focus will be on domestic issues, what do you think those will include?
"Mark assumes I said I was paying "too little" attention to Canada, but actually I didn't. If I made a list of all the countries in the world I should pay more attention to, Canada would not be high on it. I don't think people suffer very much there, and I don't think it threatens us much."
You're right, Ann, that I made an incorrect assumption about what you meant in your post.
But I do think that Canada warrants our attention for several reasons:
(1) We share a massive border with it and we need the Canadians' cooperation in thwarting the efforts of terrorists to get into this country.
(2) If the '60 Minutes' report of this past Sunday is to be believed, Canada is home to extraordinary amounts of oil that, until we develop alternative forms of energy, could supply our country's needs for decades to come.
(3) I like Moulson Beer. (What can I say? I'm a Lutheran.)
Mark Daniels
Don't get too excited, folks.
The average minority government in Canada lasts 18 months however the last Conservative government (13 years ago) lasted 4 months.
Reuter's gave a more sober assessment than any US media calling this a weak Conservative government. They are 20-some votes short of a majority and can be easily outvoted by a Liberal Party members alliance with the New Democrats.
They will try to mind their p's and q's but the backbenchers are going to start crawling out from under their rocks and from their ratholes and the Conservatives will soon be exposed for their true party platform.
Mentormuse: "The average minority government in Canada lasts 18 months however the last Conservative government (13 years ago) lasted 4 months"
Unless I missed an election, the last Conservative government (which ended 13 years ago) was a majority and lasted 9 years. I'm thinking you're referring to when the P.M. at the time (Brian Mulroney) resigned and his successor only had a few months before the next election – which she and her party lost.
Forgive me for not reading all the comments. I wouldn't expect great changes. The Conservatives have a minority government - Harper has no grand mandate. The Liberals have been in power for a decade and most folks I've talked with in Canada feel like they're not really better off now than 12 years ago. They take that feeling in conjunction with the rampant corruption in the Liberal party and figure it's time for change.
I noticed a post about which beer to celebrate with. Skip both Molson and Labatt. If you ever go to southern Ontario, try a Creemore from Creemore Springs Brewery.
Ah, Aidan - didn't you love how Martin reverted the scare tactics he used in the last election? Only this time they didn't work. Beautiful. Gives me hope for the rest of North America.
Beyond introducing the accountability act, even Stephen Harper may not be able to say with certainty what his exact domestic focus will be. The Conservative Party Platform presents what he might like to do if he led a majority government, but he needs to practice the art of the possible. The Right in Canada has been fractured for a while and out of power. Harper has worked for years towards this point and will keep his eye on the long term. But he'll have to work with the other parties and he'll also be leading an inexperienced government.
There should be multi-party support for the accountability act. He'll even be able to work with the NDP on that. He will need to pass that, as half of those voting for conservative candidates indicated that change was their main issue, not simply supporting a conservative candidate.
After that, it will depend on where he can pick popular initiatives and obtain the support of another party. Decentralizing more revenue and programs to the provinces might draw support from the BQ and offer some electoral upside in Quebec. Trying to reduce wait times in the health system might be a good vote getter too. Same with enacting tougher sentences for crime, especially crimes committed with a gun.
Reducing the GST, scuttling the gun registration law, and swapping the proposed national daycare system for a $100 a month grant for every young child are in the platform and would be popular with the Conservative base. The open question is whether they would be supported by either the NDP or BQ, and also whether they would be vote getters in Ontario or Quebec.
The Conservatives have pretty much maxed out their electoral yield in the prairies, and the possible gains in BC and Atlantic Canada aren't that great. To form a majority government after the next election, Harper will need to make more headway in central Canada. That goal, plus taking what he can get with the NDP and BQ will shape the agenda of his minority government.
But I'm not a Canadian and no expert, so I could be completely off on this.
Stiles said:
To form a majority government after the next election, Harper will need to make more headway in central Canada. That goal, plus taking what he can get with the NDP and BQ will shape the agenda of his minority government.
But I'm not a Canadian and no expert, so I could be completely off on this.'
On this point you're not off at all.
The difficulty he faces is not pissing off the voters who voted for him yesterday because they couldn't live with voting Liberal, or rather Paul Martin. He is on a very short leash and will likely be facing another election before the year is ended.
Wow. Eye opening and rather sad commentary on American citizen's thoughts for my country.
Good luck getting that oil and water. With attitudes like those displayed here, I'd say your chances are next to nothing.
As for Canada "showing up" for both World Wars? Uh, we were actually there first. And we covered the USA's butt to an embarrassing degree.
As for being insecure. That's your projection of your own insecurities. We've never been insecure. We just want the USA to butt out. We don't care how much you love yourselves. You are entitled to your way of life. And we are entitled to ours. Stop interfering.
By the way, Canadians are watching and listening to the USA very closely while we suffer for the 17% of us who truly believed Harper. I'd be more careful what you say and how you say it if I were you.
Post a Comment