Posted on Wed, Mar. 09, 2005
Times are tough for U.S.-Canada relations
By MATT STEARNS
Kansas City Star
WASHINGTON - With President Bush focused on rebuilding U.S. relations with Europe, big problems continue to brew with a longtime ally much closer to home.
Canada: The new France?
Not quite, but from long-simmering trade disputes over lumber and beef to a spat in recent weeks over missile defense, Canada-U.S. relations are at their lowest ebb in decades.
"They're viewed as national, emotional issues there, that `the Americans are out to get us,'" said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which is in Washington.
A report issued last week by the American Assembly, a think tank at Columbia University, found "disturbing and persistent currents of anti-Americanism in Canada," while also decrying "the emergence on the American right of a troubling anti-Canadianism."
O Canada! Our largest - $460 billion in 2003 - trading partner! Supplier of vast tonnages of oil and natural gas, particularly to the Midwest! Where did it all go wrong? And could it get worse?
Even a recent episode of the television series "The West Wing" mocked U.S.-Canada relations, portraying the Canadian ambassador as slightly bumbling and thoroughly ineffective.
Speaking of Canadian ambassadors, the new, real-life one arrived in Washington last week. A headline in a leading Canadian newspaper said he would have to address "festering irritants" in the two countries' relations, which conjures decidedly undiplomatic images.
It's a long way from 1989, when Washington wags dubbed the new Canadian embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue "the Department of Canada" both for its location near other federal buildings and for Canada's relatively deferential attitude toward the United States.
Now, the American Assembly report said, "on important bilateral issues, Canada sometimes feels no one is answering the phone in Washington."
The latest flare-up came in the past two weeks, when Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin announced that his country would not participate in the development of the missile defense system, a Bush administration priority. Martin also said American commanders would need Canadian permission before firing missiles over Canadian airspace.
That decision came as a surprise to the United States, because the two countries have worked closely together since the 1950s on defense issues through NORAD, with Canada generally accepting the U.S. lead.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been on a sporadic international goodwill tour since taking office, postponed a planned trip to Canada, citing a scheduling conflict.
That's the same reason Bush canceled a trip there in 2003, right after Canada decided not to participate in the war in Iraq; a decision that then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced in a speech to a cheering Parliament before telling Bush.
The new Canadian ambassador, Frank McKenna, suggested that the missile defense decision was based in part on trade disputes that had riven Canada and the United States.
One is over lumber, in which Canada believes the United States has repeatedly taken protectionist stands to help the U.S. lumber industry against a Canadian industry generally regarded as having a better product at lower prices.
International trade organizations have repeatedly sided with Canada on the issue, and Canada wants to recoup $4 billion in duties paid to the United States by the Canadian lumber industry.
The other issue is mad cow disease. Two Canadian cows were found in the past year to have the disease, as was one U.S. cow that had come from Canada. The United States then closed the border to northern beef and cattle, costing the Canadian economy about $7 billion - so far.
The Bush administration wants to reopen the border. But to the chagrin of Canada, a federal court temporarily halted it, and the Senate voted Thursday to try to block Canadian cows.
"Canadians don't always understand the president can't control the Senate if they want to pass an amendment," said James Blanchard, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada. "The average Canadian is going to view any delay as a retaliation on missile defense. It's got nothing to do with that."
But trade disputes have a long history in muddying U.S.-Canada relations without larger consequences, said Robert Bothwell, a historian at the University of Toronto who specializes in the two nations' relationship.
In the 1940s, it was oats and barley. In the 1950s, lead and zinc. In the 1960s, uranium. Salmon has leapt up as a hot topic now and then. And the lumber dispute has been going on, in one form or another, for decades.
"At the moment, political relations aren't hot, but what does that have to do with the number of Canadians going to Florida, or the price of natural gas flowing from Alberta, or the number of duck hunters coming to northern Manitoba?" Bothwell said. "The political side is only a part of the relationship."
Indeed, Bernard Etzinger, a spokesman for the Canadian embassy, noted that 96 percent of the trade between Canada and the United States remains free of disputes.
He also pointed out that Martin recently raised the Canadian defense budget by more than $12 billion over five years - the biggest increase in decades - to help work with Washington on issues, including Afghanistan.
Still, it's important for two neighboring countries so tied together economically to have a good political relationship, Biette said.
"Perception is reality," Biette said. "It does need mending."
The White House announced last week that Bush would meet with both Martin and Mexico President Vicente Fox in Texas on March 23 to discuss security and trade issues.
"It's always a good thing when leaders meet ... and keep the dialogue open," Etzinger said. "You'll not always agree, but it's a chance to work on the shared agenda."
Some experts say healing the rift may have to wait until Bush leaves office, because the simple fact is that most Canadians have low regard for Bush, and Canadian leaders must respond to that.
One poll indicated that the Canadian antipathy toward the United States was Bush-centric: It found that 64 percent of Canadians had an unfavorable opinion of Bush, but only 18 percent of them had an unfavorable opinion of Americans in general.
There is, however, potential in Bush's recent European charm offensive, Blanchard said.
"President Bush is changing his ways, changing the way he deals with our historic allies," Blanchard said. "Eventually, that should help with Canada. I think things can only get better."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...d/11089474.htm