Canada-eh?

[RFL]

Polls, Quebec determine Chretien war stand

Barbara Yaffe

Vancouver Sun

Friday, March 28, 2003

The Chretien government's position on Iraq, months in the making, has baffled some, pleased others.

A great deal is at stake for Canada. Taking a stand independent of the U.S. can't have been easy and, based on U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci's remarks this week, may cost the country dearly.

So, what were the considerations that went into Ottawa's decision?

- Polls pointed the way. The Chretien government prefers the path of least resistance; nearly 70 per cent of Canadians are against war.

- Jean Chretien also believes Canadians feel a sense of pride when their country takes a stand independent of the U.S. The Liberals like to pretend they are the only party that can properly protect Canadian sovereignty.

On Tuesday, Mr. Chretien crowed in the Commons: "This prime minister showed to the Canadian people and to the world that Canada is an independent country."

- This same theme is also popular within Liberal circles. Several members of Mr. Chretien's caucus have shown their attitude toward the U.S. Mr. Chretien, who has experienced a fair degree of caucus disloyalty of late, is currently enjoying the support of his team.

- Canada has a strong interest in promoting multilateralism, through institutional associations such as the United Nations. Given our small population and lack of military prowess, multilateralism serves our geopolitical interests.

- Had Canada become involved in fighting on the ground in Iraq, its military would have been under scrutiny, as it was in Afghanistan.

Remember the criticism about Canadian service personnel lacking appropriate uniforms? And having to piggyback a ride to the theatre of fighting? As long as troops and equipment suffer from underfunding, it can be assumed Mr. Chretien would prefer not to confront the public relations headache of active participation in any war.

- But the most intriguing reason for nixing the war relates to Quebec -- namely, a provincial election set for April 14 with the incumbent Parti Quebecois leading in the polls.

Quebecers traditionally have been less supportive than English Canadians of participating in conflict.

An Ipsos-Reid poll shows 83 per cent of Quebecers oppose the U.S.-led war against Iraq -- quite a bit higher than the Canadian average.

Of course, Mr. Chretien represents a Quebec riding and his chief foreign affairs adviser is a Quebecer. Claude Laverdure, a former ambassador and long-time foreign affairs department official, was Mr. Chretien's personal representative for La Francophonie before becoming adviser to the PM in 2000.

Both Messrs. Chretien and Laverdure would, of course, be highly sensitive to Quebec sentiment.

Quebec's election campaign initially highlighted issues like health care, family policy, municipal mergers and taxation.

That changed abruptly when the war started last week. All three party leaders immediately declared themselves against it.

If voters are distracted by the war, conventional wisdom is that this would favour the PQ. Quebecers might see the PQ government as a symbol of stability at a time of instability, and Premier Bernard Landry as a stable elder statesman.

Such preoccupation also gets Mr. Landry off the hook in terms of having to defend his government's record.

Last week, he telephoned the prime minister: "I said to him personally and vocally that we were backing totally his position to consider that no one, not even our friend and the first power on earth, can launch a war without the approval of the United Nations."

Clearly, Mr. Chretien would want to do what he could to remove war from the radar screen in Quebec to help Jean Charest's Liberals make headway during the campaign.

What's noteworthy is that the federal government has not similarly taken heed of public opinion in Alberta, where half of Albertans believe Canadians should be fighting in Iraq. And where Premier Ralph Klein has gone so far as to write to Mr. Cellucci to lend his support for the Americans.

While no election is taking place there, one has to wonder whether Alberta sentiment would ever play any role in Ottawa's decision about participating in war.

byaffe@png.canwest.com

[Guest GDR]

Gimme a break. If you disagree in Iraq you're shot. We disagree in Canada, and American citizens are likely to use their freedom to fly on anyone other than Air Canada. I don't blame them. If I were in their shoes I wouldn't either.

Greg Robinson

[CD]

The phrase that is applicable here is "Manifest Destiny" and it's been applied by the US since about 1845 or so... ;-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The phrase Manifest Destiny was first used by the American journalist and diplomat John Louis O'Sullivan, in an editorial supporting the annexation of Texas. In 1845, O'Sullivan gave the movement its name in an attempt to explain America's thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America's claim to new territories he wrote:

".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth."


The phrase was later used by expansionists in all political parties to justify the acquisition of California, and the Oregon Territory. By the end of the 19th century the same phrase was being applied to the proposed annexation of various islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Manifest Destiny was what the United States saw when it looked at Asia and the Far East.


America had a presence in the Hawaiian Islands since 1810. But this presence came from only a few shipping pioneers who dared to leave the safety of the American shores to pursue their own personal destiny in the unknown waters of the Pacific. America's International Manifest Destiny came in 1898 when America decided that it wanted total control of Hawaii and walked in and took it. The idea of Manifest Destiny specifically related to Hawaii came full circle in 1959 when America made Hawaii its 50th state.

There were some who truly believed that the Manifest Destiny Doctrine was based on the idea that America had a divine providence that was destined by God to expand its borders. Others believed that America simply had a mission, the altruistic right to extend its liberty to new realms. Both reasons could be considered the most classical of definitions. Whether a person believed that America's expansion was driven by God or a sense of mission, those promoting Manifest Destiny were certainly not in short demand or variety.

Manifest Destiny
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/manifest/manifxx.htm

Manifest Destiny Introduction Page
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/manifestdestiny.html

[Guest GDR]

We have the freedom of speech and they have the freedom to choose who they do business with. No double standard at all.

I also agree that economic reasons are not sufficient to back them., but I believe that circumstances are.

We are obviously only going to know the outcome of the course of action that was taken. However there is no doubt in my mind that hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved by having this conflict now instead of later. At some point in time the western world was going to have to deal with Hussein.

One likely scenario would see Iraq gaining the strength to attack Israel, which would in all likelihood draw in not only the US but all the other Arab countries.

I guess we are going to disagree but I am one Canadian who is grateful to the Americans for what they are doing.

Greg Robinson

[Guest GDR]

Maybe we can agree. Nice post. All we can express are our opinions, and seeing as how I happen to believe that Bush and Blair are taking the correct course of action I sure hope my opinion is the right one.

Even after this ends re-establishing government in Iraq is going to be incredibly difficult.

In the meantime I hope and pray for the best, but I sure wish that we were standing with our friends and allies the Americans and the Brits.

[Guest flax]

Have you even considered that the Americans have been responsible for our security for the last 40 years. We contribute nothing towards NATO or the security of north america.

Our political leaders have recently referred to Americans as &%$@!s and their leader as a moron. Yet our economic livelihood and prosperity is directly attributable to the having the largest economy in the world right next door. We provide cheaper goods due to our pathetic dollar valuation, not any level or productivity, ingenuity or efficiency.

This government has sold us down the river and only a few realize it. I feel our government has shown a great deal of audacity and foolishness in recent policy. We are too busy funding new and expensive bilingualism programs to be concerned with even modest military spending. (Oh yes don't forget the 2 billion dollars that Jane Stewart lost in HRDC.) If i were an American i would be &%$@! too and i would certainly take it out economically on Canada.

Keep waving the flag ladies and gentleman... keep being proud of our stand simply because it is contrary to the USA.... this country is headed for tough times and it serves us right.