The Continental Divide

Last month, when Defence Minister Bill Graham noted in his speech to the Royal Canadian Military Institute Conference that the government was currently in the process of discussing Canada's possible participation in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system, he lit a political powder keg that promptly exploded in his face. In so doing, Graham spotlighted the next big-ticket drama in the ongoing saga of Canada-U.S. relations: missile defence.

It is interesting to note a good part of the resulting fervour was caused not by the notion that Canada might take part in missile defence, but by the implication that doing so was justified in the name of maintaining good relations with the U.S.

“It's a ridiculous way to organize your foreign policy,” said Sid Lacombe, campaign coordinator of the Canadian Peace Alliance. “In a nutshell, it means we are completely capitulating to whatever sort of ideas they [the U.S.] want to put forward, however ludicrous they may be.”

Graham's subsequent statements regarding the possible “consequences” of Canada not joining the American system, and claims that contributing to missile defence will be a way of protecting Canada's sovereignty drew criticism.

Lacombe said, “He is talking out of two sides of his mouth on this issue. We're in a situation whereby we need to maintain our sovereignty and we need to do exactly what they say? These aren't exactly compatible.”

But Robert Bothwell, a professor in the International Relations Program at the University of Toronto, sees the logic behind Graham's thinking, up to a point. “The Americans have made it quite explicit that the missile defence shield is a sine qua non for Canadian participation in the organizations that run the defence of North America.” Bothwell figures Canada will end up agreeing to the system.

"But," he cautioned, "this could make for mischief in the future, particularly if we have to contribute the $6 billion figure I've heard. I mean if we have to pour $6 billion down a technological rat hole, will not people be more sceptical next time?"

The words “next time” are key. Missile defence is just the latest in a long line of “major” issues (the Wheat Board, softwood lumber disputes, the war in Iraq) that have brought Canada-U.S. relations to a head. But missile defence, coming as it does under Martin's minority watch, should provide an interesting test of Liberal tact. How will Martin reconcile the pro-Canada stance of his election campaign with the pressure to rekindle good relations south of the border?

When Paul Martin first assumed the prime ministership, the general consensus was that he would repair the damage to Canada-U.S. relations wrought by the famous odd-couple of George W. Bush and Jean Chrétien. “I suppose you could say that to the extent he is not Jean Chrétien the Americans welcomed him,” noted Bothwell. “But there is no evidence that he and Bush are soul mates.”

But relations at the top are not always the indicator people think it to be. As Bothwell pointed out, “Poor relations are sometimes overcome by the strong sense that Canadian-American relations are too important to be held hostage to personal pique. But good personal relations can't always get what you want.” He cites the good relations between Trudeau and Carter, which did not result in a satisfactory settlement to the Gulf of Maine boundary/fishery dispute, and the friendship between Mulroney and Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr., which led to a backlash against Mulroney in Canada.

With the upcoming U.S. elections temporarily shifting the Canadian spotlight from Martin to Kerry, there will be a brief hibernation period in relations between the two countries. But after November 2, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office, the give and take of Canada-U.S. relations will go on.

The fine art of negotiating with our neighbours to the south has given rise to several insightful analogies. Pierre Trudeau famously likened Canada's geopolitical situation to sleeping with an elephant; with Canada affected “by every twitch and grunt.” Lloyd Axworthy, who served for a time as foreign affairs minister, favoured a riff on an old Canadian joke: How do you make love to a porcupine? Carefully.

To many Canadians there is too much give and not enough take in our government's relations with the U.S. In other words, to bastardize Axworthy's analogy, Paul Martin may soon find out what happens when Canadians realize we’re not making love, but getting screwed.

Illustration by Trevor Turner