On fiction-based policy

The softwood lumber file may tell us all the more about what a "mature" Canada/U.S. relationship actually means. But with the release of the U.S.' Country Report on Terrorism, it's worth asking whether it's possible to have a mature relationship (even on Harper's terms) with a country which is even more obviously than usual basing its foreign policy on fantasy rather than reality:

The Bush administration on Friday said Canada has become a "safe haven" for Islamic terrorists who exploit lax immigration laws and weak counterterrorism enforcement to raise money and plan attacks...

The State Department's harsh language on Canada contrasted with its statements in the report of Iraq, which it said was "not currently a terrorist safe haven" despite the continued attacks carried out by al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi and other groups in the country. (Ed. note: The article later notes that according to the same report 30% of all documented terrorist acts, and 55% of all resulting fatalities, took place in Iraq last year.)...

(According to the report), "The Arar case underscores a greater concern for the United States: the presence in Canada of numerous suspected terrorists and terror supporters."

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation accused two Muslim youths from Georgia of traveling to Toronto in 2005 to plot attacks against American military bases and oil refineries. The arrests were part of an ongoing FBI investigation into Islamic terror cells in Canada, the agency said.

The State Department cited the presence of five other terror suspects -- Mohamed Harkat, Mohamed Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei and Adil Charkaoui -- as further evidence of an ongoing Canadian problem with Islamic extremists.

Harkat, Mahjoub, Jaballah and Almrei are being held on security certificates in the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, dubbed "Guantanamo North" by human-rights activists. Charkaoui is free on bail.

With respect to the last paragraph, the Globe and Mail's coverage points out that such "freedom on bail" includes surveillance and reporting conditions. Also of note within the Globe and Mail's coverage is that the U.S. report doesn't bother to tell the truth about the Canadian suspects' status:

The latest U.S. report takes the unprecedented step of naming “other known terrorists in Canada” and then lists five. It doesn't mention that all but one have been detained, without charge, for years on controversial Canadian security certificates.

In other words, the Bush administration considers itself entitled to omit the fact that every example of a potential threat in Canada has already been addressed. Which to me makes it appropriate to point out the U.S.' failure to address the grave threat to Canada posed by Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Zacarias Moussaoui and other terrorist suspects who at last notice were "present" in the United States.

Once that minor omission is rectified, the evidence to claim that Canada is a "safe haven" is based on a total of seven suspects arriving or living in Canada, all of whom are already either detained or under regular surveillance. And the dangers associated with the monitoring of those suspects is considered to make for a worse situation than actual attacks which killed over 8,000 Iraqis last year.

Of course, it's also worth noting the U.S.' treatment of the Arar situation. The report not only refuses to acknowledge Arar's innocence in the matter, but cites the Canadian public outcry over Arar's torture as evidence that Canada is soft on terrorism. From the tone of the article, this appears to present Bushco's real problem with Canada's security certificate system: while suspects are detained or supervised indefinitely and thus pose no actual threat to the U.S. or to anybody else, their documented presence in Canada means that any suspects also face no apparent risk of being illegally rendered elsewhere. And one could technically argue that the suspects are thus to some extent more "safe" in Canada than in the U.S. or Iraq. (Even more cynically, I suppose the Canadian-held suspects are more "safe" in their likelihood of survival than Iraqi insurgency members, 360 of whom died in suicide bombings last year.)

By any remotely reasonable standard, though, the U.S. has classified one of the safest countries of the world as a worse risk than the world's leading terrorist breeding ground. And one would think that Bush's newest and best international friend would have a close enough relationship with the U.S. to be able to point out the problem. But instead, Canada's response to date seems to indicate that Stockwell Day's office will respond to the report with immediate cooperation - regardless of whether or not the U.S.' position is even faintly based in reality:

"What I can tell you is that Canada's new government believes in maintaining a vigorous counter-intelligence program to safeguard our nation's security," said Day's communications director Melisa Leclerc.

"This government does not tolerate inappropriate activities and will restore our reputation as a leader and dependable partner in defending freedom and democracy in the world."

Which means that Canada may soon look forward to being just as unsafe as the U.S. for any person (whether Muslim or Quaker, environmentalist or whistleblower) who happens to find his or her way onto one of the Bush's hit lists. The problem is that it's hard to see how anybody besides Bushco's collective imagination (and the echo chamber which sustains it) will be any better off as a result.