Julie Goulet
Professor Gabrielle Saint-Yves
ANG- 22369 : Written Communication II
27 February 2007
The 2003 Iraq War: A Challenge to the U.S.-Canadian Relation
When Jean Chrétien officially announced that Canada would not participate in the United States (U.S.)-led war on Iraq, many Canadians were relieved and others were concerned. In the months that followed, political analysts discussed whether the partnership between the two neighbours had changed and if so, what the consequences of this decision were. For Canada’s Prime Minister of the time, Jean Chrétien, and for certain researchers, it was obvious that the relationship had only hit a bump in the road and that it would not suffer from this decision. By examining and analysing Canada's decision not to participate in a U.S.-led war against Iraq, I will demonstrate that this decision had no political impact in the long-run on the partnership between both countries.
1. Why Canada did not participate in the war
There are many ways to explain why Canada chose not to support the U.S. in their war on Iraq. According to Carment, Canada had five main concerns about a U.S. unilateral intervention in Iraq:
“(1) many other ‘rogue’ states are just as bad as Iraq and we [Canada] can’t attack them all; (2) there is no clear proof of a link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks of September 2001; (3) there is no clear proof of WMD proliferation by Iraq; (4) there is no clear proof of WMD deployment by Iraq; and (5) there is no clear proof of an intention to use WMD (Canada Among Nations 2003, 212).”
Also, the Canadian government of the time doubted the Al Qaeda connection (Carment, Canada Among Nations 2004, 45). Moreover, Chrétien did not understand why the U.S. was rushing to war and he favoured a multilateral approach through the United Nations (U.N.) in order to enhance the international legitimacy of military actions (Chrétien’s speech). In “Relating to the Anglosphere: Canada, ‘Culture’, and the Question of Military Intervention”, Haglund argues that Canada’s decision was dependent of some European countries’ decision such as France because Prime Minister Chrétien said that Canada would participate in the war only if the U.N. passed a resolution to approve the war, which was dependent on France’s veto (180). In this perspective, we can argue that while Canada wanted to show its independence towards the United States, it became dependent on France. Finally, Beltrame reports that Chrétien clearly asserted that Iraq was not a bigger threat to the West than North Korea, Iran or Libya.
2. The relationship is not challenged
On one hand, some authors think that Canada’s decision not to participate in the U.S.-led war on Iraq did not affect the partnership between the two neighbours (Barry, Haglund, Melnyk, Beltrame and Waddell). Barry and Waddell are persuaded that due to the “close intertwining of the Canadian and U.S. economies”, retaliation from the U.S. was very unlikely (215; 193). Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien did everything in his power not to insult the American administration. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Chrétien stated that the United States had already won the war because there was evidence that Saddam Hussein was destroying some missiles. Chrétien explained this by the presence of American and British soldiers ready to invade Iraq. According to Melnyk (19), Canada wants to continue to support the role of the U.N in authorizing the use of force to settle disputes, while also avoid antagonizing the Bush administration and risking devastating economic consequences. Haglund extrapolates that Canada has become less integrated with the U.S. in terms of military and security matters since the decision not to participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq (179).
3. The relationship is challenged
On the other hand, other authors such as Fawn & Hinnebusch, Carment, Hemel, Nobel, Richter and McHutchion think that Canada’s decision not to participate in the U.S.-led war on Iraq affected the partnership between Canada and the United States.
A few authors advance that what angered the American administration most was the ambiguity of Canada’s decision (Fawn & Hinnebusch, Richter and Waddell). In their book, Fawn & Hinnebusch argue that Canada produced a contradictory position on Iraq that fulfills none of the scenarios the United States was getting ready for. According to them, it was a result of an incoherent domestic policy process (116). Richter, on his part, identifies the Canadian indecision as the factor that strained most the relationship between Canada and the United States (489). Like in Richter’s article, the author argues that the way Canada made its decision not to support a U.S.-led war against Iraq strained the relationship between both countries (Waddell). Furthermore, Carment thinks that the United States were deceived of Canada’s decision because they relied on Canada’s credibility, more than Canada’s hard power military assets (Canada Among Nations 2004, 63).
4. How the partnership was affected
The two most obvious consequences of Canada’s decision that are identified by the researchers who think that the relationship has changed are economic and diplomatic consequences.
First, Fawn & Hinnebusch found out that Canadian truckers were denied the sale of gasoline while in the US in December 2003 (122). More significantly, Barry points out that tensions emerged in December when the Pentagon declared that only coalition nations were eligible to compete for contracts worth $18 billion (US) in reconstruction projects funded by Washington (233). However, a few months later Bush told Martin that Canadian firms would be able to bid on a second round of contracts worth a reported $6 billion (US) (233). Noble reveals that Canadian jobs and the maintenance of Canada’s social welfare system are at risk if nothing is done to mend the ties (21). Richter, on his part, summarizes the changes in the U.S.-Canadian relation by saying that it is in flux. However, the two states are more and more interdependent since a large percentage of its wealth is tied to the movement of goods, services and people across the border (Richter, 490).
According to McHutchion, the relationship is evaluated to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The Canadian business community was nervous when U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci told a Canadian business audience that Washington was disappointed by Canada. Following that speech, Canadian executives hurried to Washington in order to do “damage control”. However, some weeks later, Cellucci said that the relationship had only hit a bump in the road but that no serious damage was done. This issue is not the most important according to many exporters; at the time the article was published, Canada’s exports of softwood lumber and wheat in the U.S. were the more important sources of trade tension (McHutchion).
Second, there were diplomatic consequences to Canada’s decision. Fawn & Hinnebusch identified a few of them: the U.S. did not include Canada in their list of countries which helped after 9/11 and statements were issued by Washington expressing its disappointment (122). Hemel made a striking comparison: “Not since President James Polk threatened to invade British Colombia in 1845 have tempers flared so hotly along the US-Canadian border” (12). According to Noble, the consequence of this decision was mainly to increase Canada’s irrelevance in Washington (20). One of the most obvious diplomatic consequences of Canada’s decision not to participate in the war on Iraq was the cancellation of George W. Bush’s visit in Ottawa during spring 2003 and the inability to reschedule it (Barry, 215).
5. How Canada should act in the “new world”
A few authors that were reviewed for this paper made several suggestions on how Canada should act in the aftermath of Canada’s decision not to participate in the U.S.-led war on Iraq. Carment insists that Canada should work on building a mature, self-confident relationship with the U.S. (63). He also states that Canada must avoid being caught in a squeeze-play: “shut out of Europe, and ambivalent about an increasingly unilateral (or preoccupied) U.S.” (64). In an article published in Economist, it is remarked that the North American Free-Trade Agreement should be deepened. Noble, on its part, suggests that the Canadian government develops a national security strategy and that the government tries to discuss with the American administration when issues are threatening the relation (21).
In conclusion, the researchers do not seem to agree whether the relationship was or was not challenged by Canada’s decision not to participate in the U.S.-led war on Iraq. Both sides have valid arguments. However, I think that the partnership was not challenged in the long-run.
Works Cited
Barry, Donald. “Chrétien, Bush and the War in Iraq.” The American Review of Canadian
Studies (Summer 2005): 215-245.
.
Beltrame, Julian. “Canada to Stay Out of Iraq War.” MacLeans Magazine 31 March 2003.
23 Feb. 2007.
.
Carment, David et al., eds. Canada Among Nations 2003: Coping with the American
Colossus. Don Mills: Oxford UP, 2003.
---, eds. Canada Among Nations 2004: Setting Priorities Straight.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UP, 2005.
Chrétien, Jean. “Interview given by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to ABC’s This Week with
George Stephanopoulos.” 9 March 2003. 23 Feb. 2007. .
Chrétien, Jean. “Statement by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in Support of a Motion in the
House of Commons.” Privy Office Council. 8 April 2003. 26 Jan. 2007.
.
Haglund, David G. “Relating to the Anglosphere: Canada, ‘Culture’, and the Question of
Military Intervention.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies 3.2 (2005): 179-198.
<http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=12&sid=64624684-6d1a-4660-%20%20%208a3d-%20%20%20%20ee73e26fed9c%40sessionmgr2>.
Hemel, Daniel. “Mending Fences: Warmer U.S.-Canadian Relations.” Harvard
International Review Cambridge. 25.4 (Winter 2004): 12.
.
Hinnebusch, Raymond, and Rick A. Fawn. The Iraq War: Causes and Consequences.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006.
McHutchion, John. “A Bump in the Road.” CBC News Online 2 May 2003. 24 Feb. 2007.
.
Melnyk, George. Canada and the New American Empire: War and Anti-War. Calgary:
Calgary UP, 2004.
Noble, John J. “Canada-U.S. Relations in the Post-Iraq-War Era: Stop the Drift Towards
Irrelevance.” Policy Options (May 2003): 19-24. 4 Feb. 2007.
.
Richter, Andrew. “From Trusted Ally to Suspicious Neighbor: Canada-U.S. Relations in a
Changing Global Environment.” The American Review of Canadian Studies (Autumn
2005): 471-502. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=19&sid=44138d43-9816-4f39-b816-3c6d26c761fc%40sessionmgr7>.
“The Importance of being good neighbours.” Economist 376.8441 (2005): 13-14.
.
Waddell, Christopher. “Deep Freeze.” CBS News Online 30 April 2003. 21 Feb. 2007.
.
