Profiles in Cowardice

The CP reminds us that the Cons are hardly the only recent federal government to have thrown Canadian interests out the window out of fear of doing anything which could meet with U.S. disapproval:

Fears that the White House would retaliate against the Liberals drove the Chretien government to take on British Columbia over a controversial weapons range, says the author of a new book.

Military historian John Clearwater used documents obtained under the Access to Information Act to trace this and other incidents where Ottawa appeared to bend to Washington's will over weapons testing...

The book alleges that the Chretien government worried that the American response to B.C.'s threatened closure of the Nanoose ocean range in the spring of 1997 could be "out of proportion," and lead to punishing trade sanctions, similar to what New Zealand faced in the 1980s for similar defiance.

"Rumours began to circulate of a covert attempt to undermine the government," Clearwater writes.

Nowhere does Clearwater present evidence the U.S. made direct threats, but he paints a picture of an almost paranoid reaction among Canadian officials and decision-makers.

The book also chronicles the 1970s testing of the U.S. artillery shell that was meant to carry the neutron bomb, as well as tests involving cruise missiles and the B-2 stealth bomber.

It's worth noting that there's no apparent reason to believe the conclusion held any basis in reality. And indeed the New Zealand comparison doesn't appear to have been based on a particularly solid foundation - due to both the difference in U.S. regimes and attitudes toward free trade at the time of the respective disputes, and what would seemingly be a massive difference in the policies involved (surely denying ships access to public harbours has to be considered a far more antagonistic act than merely ending a single lease).

Mind you, Clearwater apparently thinks that the combination of the Libs' fears and John Diefenbaker's legacy of paranoia somehow proves otherwise. But both the Libs (on missile defence) and the Cons (on Arctic disputes) have occasionally shown a spine when it suits them politically - which makes it clear that Canada can afford to do more than merely act as a yes-man to the U.S. And it's long past time for a federal government which doesn't insult both Canadian influence and American rationality by pretending that as a general principle, Canada can't afford to say "no" to our southern neighbour.