On standing for nothing

Luiza Ch. Savage's Maclean's BMD column in a nutshell: We're already under the U.S.' boot. So we'd might as well be proud to be there.

Savage rightly points out that Canada has contributed a lot more to global stability than has Australia, but that Americans are suspicious of Canada due to political disputes such as BMD and involvement in Iraq. But in pointing out Canada's moral opposition to Iraq, Savage utterly fails to ask a fairly obvious question: namely, was Canada justified in its opposition?

(Note to reader: if that answer seems to be in doubt, please stop by this blog again after all the Bushco Kool-aid is out of your system.)

The value in Savage's column is the point that Canada has continued to cooperate with the U.S. in substantive ways - some where should be proud to have done so (i.e. in Afghanistan), some where we should be much less so (i.e. tacit mission support in Iraq, participation in BMD-related activities).

The converse to Savage's position is that we need to be careful to make sure that our support abroad ultimately goes to positive ends: if the U.S. is leading others in the wrong direction, our best course of action is to reserve our cooperation for worthy goals. And the complicit involvement in BMD pointed out in the article is a solid example of that. In a world where the vast majority of states are committed to disarmament, Canada shouldn't be encouraging proliferation either directly or indirectly. And Martin should have to answer for every step he takes which has the effect of boosting BMD, even if he publicly claims to be against it.

Savage rightly points out that Canada's actions haven't always matched its rhetoric. But the problem is with actions that undercut positive goals, not with the position of opposing proliferation and invasion.

When we're right, nobody wins out if we either claim or act otherwise. Even if standing up for what's right (in both words and actions) makes Australia more popular in Rupert Murdoch's book.