Commentary
U.S. Ambassador Cellucci and Canadian Sovereignty
Last week, the Bush administration, through U.S.Ambassador Paul Cellucci, expressed its "disappointment" with Canada over Canada's failure to support the United States in its illegal war against Iraq. Cellucci stated that the U.S. would "be there for Canada" if Canada were under attack and that our failure to "be there" for the U.S. would likely result in economic retaliation by the U.S. His remarks were echoed by the U.S. ambassador to Mexico who similarly criticized the Mexican government's opposition to the Bush war.
Of course, Cellucci failed to advise us as to precisely which country is attacking the United States or which country, other than the United States, has ever attacked Canada in the past or is likely to do so in the future. In actual fact, Iraq has not attacked the United States; on the contrary it is the United States which has attacked Iraq. Therefore, the issue of "being there" for the Americans simply does not arise.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 events in which Americans actually were the victims of a terrorist attack, there was an immediate and genuine outpouring of support and aid to the American people from the Canadian people and the Canadian government. American planes were even allowed to land at Canadian airports, despite the fact that it was deemed unsafe by American officials to allow them to land at American airports. By contrast, as many Americans have pointed out in the past few days, the American government is rarely "there" for anyone except American capitalists. The ongoing U.S. trade harassment of Canadian softwood lumber, wheat, steel, potatoes and a host of other products is a case in point.
Cellucci's attack on Canadian foreign policy was reportedly in response to Fisheries Minister Herb Dhaliwal's comment on the failure of U.S. President George W. Bush to act like an international statesman. Dhaliwal's comment was a simple statement of fact which would find agreement amongst the vast majority of the world's people, including a significant section of Americans. His was actually a principled political statement, unlike the various anti-American outbursts that have been made by other Liberal MPs.
Normally, such blatant interference by an American ambassador in the internal politics of a foreign country would merit an official complaint from the offended government. However, for all its anti-American posturing, the Chretien government meekly accepted the reprimand from the Americans and protested that it sincerely hoped for an American victory in Iraq. Meanwhile, a chorus led by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, Ontario Premier Ernie Eves and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper, demanded that Canada should "support its ally", right or wrong in order to avoid the threatened economic retaliation.
It is interesting that those, such as Klein, Eves and Harper, who campaigned for the North American Free Trade Agreement and argued that it would not constitute a threat to Canadian sovereignty, are now demanding that Canada should abandon any semblance of sovereignty over foreign policy because the exercise of such sovereignty will jeopardize our economic relationship with the United States. These elements are rapidly exposing themselves as shameless fifth columnists for the United States who actually disagree with any form of sovereignty for Canada, be it economic, cultural or political. Their agenda is to turn Canada into the 51st state of the United States.