A rchive Date
[ 14-09-2002 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/stanway.html
We have to ask what is left for Canada?
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
September 11, 2002
We should find time this week, somewhere in the midst of the wall-to-wall coverage of the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, to ask what all of this means to Canada.
There's no doubt that Canadians reacted to those terrible images a year ago with a powerful mix of outrage and heartfelt compassion. Apart from Americans themselves, no other nation was closer to the event or felt its impact more keenly. The fear was real. The anger was real.
But we need to do more than relive those feelings and share vicariously in our neighbor's mourning and remembrance. We need to remember that we are not just pseudo-Americans and take a sober look at what the fallout from Sept. 11 may mean for the future of an independent and sovereign Canada.
There has been a lot of emphasis on the question of whether or not Canada should take part in any U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. It is, surely, a moot point. We are so weak militarily that we have little to contribute to such an operation (putting 800 or so combat troops in Afghanistan for six months stretched our capabilities to the limit). The Americans will do what they believe they must, regardless of whether any Canadians are included as window-dressing. The more critical issue for this country is the other thrust in the war on terrorism: the creation of a continental security zone, including Canada.
We've been here before. During the Cold War it was necessary for the U.S. to defend Canada if it was going to defend itself from Soviet bombers or missiles. In return, Canada had to give up any thoughts of an independent nuclear deterrent and accept the polite fiction of equality in NORAD. It seemed like a great deal. The American taxpayer would shoulder most of the burden of defending us from the Soviets, while Ottawa could concentrate on other, presumably more important, areas of spending.
Those who warned that allowing the Americans to, in essence, take over responsibility for Canadian defence would have dire long-term consequences for our independence were ignored - but they were right. In the four decades since, the social programs fuelled with money not spent on defence have come to define the Canadian state - and by extension its citizens. And despite our supposed joint control of NORAD and membership in NATO, our lack of offensive capabilities and disinterest in our own defence was rationalized into a new identity as the world's leading peacekeeper and everyone's pal.
Regardless of where you stand on these issues, there is no denying they have been the most significant developments in recent Canadian history. Heck, they are our recent history! It ought to lead us to at least wonder about the consequences of a new American defence policy, this time with terrorism as the threat, that once again must include Canada if it is to be effective.
The problem is not the American desire to defend against terrorism and bolster security. The problem is that Ottawa, once again, seems content to let the Americans formulate the policy and do the heavy lifting. The record since Sept. 11 speaks for itself. While Washington reacts to the real security concerns of American citizens, Ottawa's most meaningful response has been to agree to a new (American) initiative aimed at keeping trade flowing across the border.
Elsewhere, the Chretien government continues to claim Canada's immigration laws are "amongst the toughest in the world" when it comes to weeding out criminals and terrorists. Does anyone believe that? And while our neighbour is completing a highly public overhaul of its defence priorities, including an agreement to allow American forces to operate on Canadian soil, our government prefers a more modest "update" based on e-mail feedback and private consultation. As one Ottawa insider put it to me last week, "You don't launch a high-profile review unless you're actually going to do something."
The most significant aspect of Sept. 11, for Canadians, is that we are effectively leaderless and adrift at a moment when our closest ally and neighbour, the world's remaining superpower, has been galvanized into rethinking its defence priorities - and ours.
Unless Ottawa starts to take this seriously, Canadians may look back from the 20th anniversary of this terrible day and wonder where our remaining independence went.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@edm.sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|