November 13, 2005
THE PETER PAN OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Sometimes, making peace means making war (J.L. Granatstein, National Post, November 12th, 2005)
The harsh truth is that Canada has largely had a free ride while the United States has taken most of the risks, paid the lion's share of the bills and, for its pains, borne the brunt of the world's abuse. The Canadian Forces, its strength shrunken, much of its equipment obsolete, cannot even credibly defend this nation's air space, sea approaches and land mass. The only question is how much longer the United States will wait before it declares that its own national security makes it necessary for Washington to openly assume responsibility for Canadian defence. Can we still call ourselves a sovereign state if that occurs?Canadians need to be more clear-headed about the world. They have national interests, not just values. They must defend them or see them overridden by others. The Americans have their own national interests, and have demonstrated they will do what is necessary to protect them.
Sometimes, the Americans make mistakes, and Canadians will let them know they're wrong. But is shouting abuse the way to be heard in Washington? Or is co-operating with the U.S. politically and, if it serves Canada's interests, militarily a better way to proceed? It worked for Mike Pearson during the Korean War. It might still work in a very different but no less dangerous world.
Canada is part of Western civilization, and we share the values and beliefs of that civilization. So do Americans. We must get beyond the reflexive desire to criticize the superpower next door and to understand that if the United States is crippled, we too will suffer. We can pretend we keep the peace if it pleases us to do so, but we simply must recognize that without America's strength and will, our civilization will disappear. More realism, fewer myths, please.
"We'll never grow up, we'll never grow up..."
Posted by Peter Burnet at November 13, 2005 2:18 PMCouldn't this exact article have been written with "continential Europe" plugged-in wherever the word Canada appears?
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at November 13, 2005 2:30 PM"... makes it necessary for Washington to openly assume responsibility for Canadian defence. Can we still call ourselves a sovereign state if that occurs? "
It's what's known as a protectorate. Sort of like the relationship we have with Puerto Rico, but with hockey players instead of baseball players...
But I think this is just a ploy to get the US to protect Canada from those Danish Viking mauraders who threaten to take Hans Island away.
Then again, countries like Iceland, Costa Rica and Panama take pride in their lack of armed forces, and have no problem with the US doing it for them, and are considered "sovereign". So why all the whining from Canada? It's like the Martin gov't has a goal of becoming the world's leading exporter of whining.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 13, 2005 2:53 PMSomething like 68,000 Canadians died in WWI. Canadian losses in WWII (around 39,000 men, I think) which on a per capita basis is the same or slightly greater than the US (I think).
Posted by: carter at November 13, 2005 3:06 PMThe author says that Canadians "have national interests, not just values".
I know Canadians already have national interests, but what values do Canadians have? "Values" is a judgmental term that Candians deep sixed decades ago, considering values archaic and only of interest to Neanderthal species like Americans.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at November 13, 2005 3:14 PMHow aboat that!
The military/industrial complex survives North of the border.
I wish them the best.
Posted by: Genecis at November 13, 2005 5:47 PMYour Honor, I rest my case.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 14, 2005 12:33 AMcarter,
Did Canada decide to sever relations with the rest of the world after WWII?
