January 12, 2004
WARY EYED:
Border Blues: In Washington's eyes, has Canada become the pariah next door? (NATHON GATEHOUSE, January 19, 2004, MacLean's)
SUDDENLY, the obsession is mutual. After a long history of Canadians keeping a wary eye on our oblivious neighbours to the south, Americans have turned their attention to us. And it appears, they're not always enchanted with what they see.For months now, instead of the traditional Mounties and maple syrup, the U.S. media has been filled with tales of SARS, coddled terrorists, same-sex weddings and decriminalized pot. Each passing day seems to provide fresh fodder for those Americans inclined to believe that a pariah has taken up residence next door. Last week, it was confirmation that a Washington state cow infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), was imported from Alberta.
It's like someone bought an old house in your neighborhood and turned it into a crack den.
MORE:
Deconstructing Canada's reconstruction whine (MADELAINE DROHAN, January 12, 2004, Globe and Mail)
First, Canadian firms weren't planning to bid on the prime reconstruction contracts anyway because they knew they wouldn't win. SNC-Lavalin, possibly the only Canadian company with the size and international experience to take on one of the megacontracts that were put to tender last week, said publicly it had no expectation of getting any of the work. A company spokesman pointed out that they did not receive any contracts in the rebuilding of Kuwait after the Gulf war, and that was a battle in which Canada took part. The U.S. announcement did not dash any hopes, because none existed.Posted by Orrin Judd at January 12, 2004 7:56 PMSecond, Canadian firms have been told all along that they would be eligible for the subcontracts. This is probably what President Bush was talking about when he told former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien not to worry. Once the prime contractors have been established, they will parcel out work in smaller amounts. These subcontracts are more in keeping with the experience and capability of Canadian firms. A host of companies, ranging from Atco Ltd., which builds camp facilities, to Nexen Inc., an oil-and-gas concern, have said they are readying bids. Canada is not being completely shut out by any means.
Third, Canadian firms can bid on the work that will be funded with Canada's $300-million (Cdn.) contribution to the reconstruction effort. There have been some very misleading statements made about this money, implying that Canadian taxpayers have put up money that Canadian companies won't have access to.
That's simply not true. One-third of this money is being put into the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq, which is controlled by the United Nations and the World Bank. It was set up precisely because donor nations did not want the United States deciding where their money would be spent. The rest of the Canadian contribution has been directed to Canadian and international organizations, such as CARE Canada, the World Food Program and Unicef -- all of which are open to Canadian participation.
Fourth, and this has a direct bearing on the first point, Canada has a long history of tying its own international aid to the purchase of goods and services from Canadian companies. For example, 90 per cent of the food aid disbursed by the Canadian International Development Agency is tied to the purchase of Canadian crops.
I think is worse. The crack heads don't have delusions of moral superiority and don't lecture you. I think is like a cult buying the house next door, blasting propaganda all day and night, warning your children they are going straight to hell, and then blowing up the house as a form of communal suicide pact.
Posted by: MG at January 12, 2004 8:42 PMMore like a brothel,the crack den is to the south.
Posted by: M. at January 12, 2004 8:56 PMThe last sentence in his article is extraordinarily telling.....
"With elections looming in both countries, bilateral relations will soon take a back seat to domestic concerns, at least for the short term. For all their current worries, Canadians have a history of punishing leaders they deem too cozy with the U.S."
"And Americans, as always, have much bigger things to fret about."
Posted by: Andrew X at January 12, 2004 9:54 PMCanada wasn't exactly chummy with the U.S. during the late Vietnam era -- outside of happily accepting draft dodgers -- but American citizens in general never thought Canadian opposition to that war directly affected them, something cannot be said for the current al-Qaida threat (plus they had a ditzy good-looking wife of the prime minister who was a source of comedy relief in the United States, which was a bit of a mitigating circumstance during the early 70s).
However, Canadian indifference and a leaky border are now seen by Americans as a direct threat to their lives. Given that fear, a condesending attitude from up north is going to result in people in the lower 48 pointing out any flaws in the Canadian system, the same way anyone else who sets themselves up as intellecutally or morally superior is going to have their flaws and failures gleefully pointed out by others.
Posted by: John at January 12, 2004 10:12 PMa condesending attitude from up north is going to result in people in the lower 48 pointing out any flaws in the Canadian system
You mean like the way the latest B.C. provincial government is, like its predecssors, going down in flames due to corruption, and how they seem to have infected nation Liberal Party of that province in the process? They're making Louisiana's or Chicago's politics look clean, or California's sane.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 12, 2004 11:34 PMWe can't be too hard on our north and south neighbors. It's not their fault they were/are under frogistan's thumb. It shows.
I still say make Alberta an offer it can't refuse.
Posted by: Sandy P. at January 13, 2004 12:11 AMCanadian's "holier than thou" attitude toward the US, coupled with Canada's Francophile progressive policies (decrim of marijuana, homosexual marriages, government interference in all aspects of life, etc.) gets a tad annoying.
Sandy's idea is right. Western Canada is like a different country, sharing many of US's ideals. Think of taking an interstate highway for a drive from Washington state to Alaska.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at January 13, 2004 8:11 AMJohn:
Be careful what you wish for. Canada has never had a socialist government at the federal level, but there have been about ten socialist provincial governments since WW11. Nine were in the West. British Colunbians are quite capable of tying up your interstate in a never-ending environmental assessment process.
Also, the policies you are decrying are being pushed by good old Anglos as much as by Quebec, which I believe is actually more against gay marriage.
Andrew X has his finger on the pulse. Too little responsibility for, and contribution to, the things that really matter.
Posted by: Peter B at January 13, 2004 8:35 AMI think this excerpt from David Warren (available online at http://www.davidwarrenonline.com) puts it nicely:
--There remains a certain reserve of seemingly inextinguishable goodwill, but it is based on events receding into the past, when Canada was a much different country. For the present and foreseeable future, the "special relationship" is gone, and Canada is looked upon across a considerable breadth of the U.S. political spectrum as an unreliable and irritatingly mouthy neighbour. Or, in the entirely off-the-record words of one of my Republican correspondents, "Something rotting at the back of our freezer."--
I would be surprised if one of the long-term goals of U.S. foreign policy (along with the prevention of a federal European state) isn't the breakup of Canada and the absorbtion of B.C. & Alberta, and possibly the basket case Atlantic provinces.
Posted by: Thom at January 13, 2004 1:01 PM