Source :
Carment, David et al., eds. Canada Among Nations 2004: Setting Priorities Straight.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UP, 2005.
Aspects of my research found in the source:
Information on how the United States are justifying their war against Iraq, suggestions on what kind of role the Canada must play on the international scene and the recent developments in the US-Canadian relation.
Summary:
This book analyses how Canada acted on the international scene during the year 2004. It mainly focuses on the 2003 war in Iraq since it marked an important turning point in Canada’s foreign policy. There are mainly two chapters in this book that are relevant to my research: chapter 8 and 9 on the state of Canada-US relations in 2004. The book shows how the 2003 war in Iraq has influenced world politics, how the United States justify the war and how should Canada act in this new world. In chapter 8, John Higginbotham and Jeff Heynen discuss what they call the “Martin doctrine” which consists in “a more sophisticated approach to the bilateral relationship” (123). According to the authors, if a minority government is elected in 2004 (which happened), the politics concerning the bilateral relation would be much more complicated (125). Furthermore, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the US are more than ever preoccupied with security which leaves less place for Canada in the American priority list.
Interesting quotations:
“Instead the Canadian government is well-advised to focus on what makes the relationship work; namely, pursuing long-term Canadian interests incrementally, in part through mobilizing the extensive transgovernmental networks of collaboration.” (Carment, 124)
Interesting fact:
In 2003, the Canadian government allocated $300,000,000 to Iraq for humanitarian response. Some Canadian policy-makers thought that the Bush administration would view favourably this investment. (Carment, 94)
What I need to learn more about?
I need to learn more on the economic effects of Canada’s decision not to go to war in Iraq.
My opinion:
This is a really good source and it is recent. It is part of an important series of book published on Canada’s international role.
Source:
Hinnebusch, Raymond, and Rick A. Fawn. The Iraq War: Causes and Consequences.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006.
Aspects of my research found in the source:
This book shows how Canada’s decision not to go to war in Iraq was ambiguous. Canada’s Prime Minister showed signs that Canada would join the US and Bush’s administration were certain of Canada’s implication.
Summary:
This book strongly suggests that what angered the Bush administration was the ambiguity of Canada’s decision and that there were consequences for this decision. Before officially stating the government’s position, the Chrétien administration released many contradictory statements concerning Iraq. At one point, it is even said that Canada was ready to send troops in Iraq (Hinnebusch 117).
Paraphrases:
According to the authors, the consequences of Canada’s decision not to participate in a U.S-led intervention against Iraq were numerous. First, the US did not include Canada in their list of countries which helped them after 9/11. Instead, the White House issued a few statements saying how they were disappointed by the fact that Canada was not with them in Iraq. Also, it is said that a Canadian-borned ABC journalist was attacked during the Iraq conflict (Hinnebusch 122). Moreover, some Canadian truckers were refused the sale of gasoline while in the US. Finally, in December 2003, an American official policy stated that Canada, France, Germany and Russia were denied the right to bid for postwar reconstruction contracts in Iraq. France, Germany and Russia also disappointed the United States since they opposed Washington at the Security Council.
Quotation:
“(…) while Canada produced a contradictory position over Iraq that fulfilled neither of these predictive scenarios [the first scenario suggests that the Canadian would be highly supportive of its US counterpart and the second implies that Canada might follow its ideas and ideals instead of structural constraints or material interests as the US do], this resulted not from any deliberate short-term calculation to satisfy contradictory domestic and international interests, but rather from an incoherent domestic policy process.” (Hinnebusch, 2006, p.116)
My opinion:
This book is really important for my research. It shows how certain countries reacted to the 2003 war in Iraq. The introduction and the conclusion contain important basic facts on the topic and there is a whole chapter on Canada.
Source:
Carment, David et al., eds. Canada Among Nations 2003: Coping with the American
Colossus. Don Mills: Oxford UP, 2003.
Summary:
“When the United States, with the help of Britain, unleashed its military might on Iraq in March 2003, Canada remained on the sidelines. Ottawa’s refusal to participate without the sanction of the United Nations has made many Canadians uneasy. As the editors of this nineteenth volume of Canada Among Nations explain in their introduction, ‘War and empire, as practiced in President Bush’s Washington, have presented the international community with a daunting challenge: how to cope with an American colossus awakened from a deep sleep of domestic tranquility and economic good times, and absolutely determined to have its own way in the world.’”
Paraphrase:
The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 affected Canada’s economy: a young airline had to close its doors permanently, retail, wholesale and manufacturing plants had to shut down due to the lack of parts or lack of access to the American market.
The author identifies Canada’s five main concerns concerning a US unilateral intervention in Iraq: “(1) many other ‘rogue’ states are just as bad as Iraq and we 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.” (Harvey 212)
Quotations:
“Axworthy (Chrétien’s Minister of Foreign Affairs) was determined to show the world that Canada was not simply a pale reflection of the United States and used the greater freedom that the end of the Cold War seemed to allow Canada to encourage ties with Communist Cuba, to use the UN, multilateralism, and ‘soft power’ to achieve Canadian goals and to pursue goals – such as the anti-landmines treaty – that the US found diplomatically embarrassing.” (Bercusson 131)
“With $1.7 billion in daily cross-border trade at issue, it mattered much to Canada that the US was once again very concern about its northern border.” (Bercusson 133)
“As in the early days of the Cold War, the US is looking to Canada for help; unlike those days, Ottawa is spurning Canada’s only true neighbour and friend. If this policy trend is not reversed, the long-term implications for Canada will be devastating.” (Bercusson 133)
“The strength of our defence relationship is based on this history, which reflects shared values and experience.” (Mason 135)
“While US and Canadian law enforcement, intelligence, and border management co-operation continues to expand and to strengthen post-11 September, the story is different in the case of the Canadian military.” (Mason 136)
“Perhaps this is Canada’s destiny – as US power continues to expand and as the status and influence of a growing number of very active ‘middle powers’ continues to develop, Canada will, by definition, become increasingly marginalized.” (Harvey 207)
“The danger is that as Canada fades as a power in the world – in the reach of its military, the impact of its foreign aid, the influence of its diplomacy, the absence of foreign intelligence gathering – it risks becoming a fading presence in Washington, too.” (Harvey 215)
Source:
“The Importance of being good neighbours.” Economist 376.8441 (2005): 13-14.
Academic Search Premier. 14 February 2007.
http://search.ebscohost.comSummary:
This article is about the relationships between Mexico, United States and Canada. The author underlines the new problems that these countries must deal with since the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Concerning Canada, we learn that less Canadians and Americans cross the border either for shopping or for recreation (the U.S.-Canadian border is also called “the world’s longest undefended border”). Also, it is said that Canadians are disillusioned with NAFTA because they think that it “has failed to prevent the United States from unlawfully punishing their exports of, for example, lumber”. Finally, Canadians and Americans tend to disagree on certain important matters such as gay marriage. As a conclusion, the author suggests what the countries should do in order to ameliorate the relationship: the NAFTA could be deepened, for example by trying to create “a customs union with common tariffs on goods from other countries”.
Quotations:
“Under the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), trade among the three countries has more than doubled since 1994 and cross-border investment climbed even faster. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, the United States moved quickly to sign “smart border” agreements with both Canada and Mexico, to try to ensure that the demands of security did not interrupt trade.”
“(…) Americans rely on their neighbours for prosperity, energy and help with security.”
My opinion:
Although the author of this article is not named, I think it is very reliable since it was published in The Economist. It is very interesting to learn about the Mexico-U.S. relationship and comparing the Canada-U.S. one.
Source:
Hemel, Daniel. “Mending Fences: Warmer U.S.-Canadian Relations”. Harvard
International Review. Cambridge, Winter 2004, Vol. 25, no 4, p.12,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=9&hid=19&sid=44138d43-9816-4f39-b816-
3c6d26c761fc%40sessionmgr7 , February 4, 2007.
Summary:
This article is about the state of the US-Canadian relationship since the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York. According to the author, the relationship is threatened. Hemel points that anti-US sentiments appear to be common in Canada which scares Canadian business leaders. The writer explains how the election of Martin as the Canadian Prime Minister should mend the relationship. Martin has committed to some measures destined to strengthen the relationship between the two neighbours: he has promised “Canadian assistance to the US-led construction of a space-based missile defence shield”, Martin has vowed to augment Canadian military outlays and he has committed to creating a cabinet committee chaired by him to develop a strategic approach to the relation. The US made some comprises. For example, they partially lifted the ban on Canadian beef, but they kept the border closed to Canadian livestock.
Quotations:
“Not since US President James Polk threatened to invade British Colombia in 1845 have tempers flared so hotly along the US-Canadian border.” (Hemel 12)
“The last prime minister to personally monitor day-to-day affairs with Washington was Brian Mulroney, and his tenure from 1984 to 1993 saw the most cordial relationship between the United States and Canada in history, (…)” (Hemel, 13)
Source:
Noble, John J. “Canada-U.S. Relations in the Post-Iraq-War Era: Stop the Drift Towards
Irrelevance”. Policy Options, May 2003, p.19-24,
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may03/noble.pdf, February 4, 2007.
Summary:
“Relations with the United States must be the top priority of the Canadian government, writes John Noble, a former diplomat and long time student of Canada-US relations. In refusing to support the US and British led invasion and liberation of Iraq, Jean Chrétien broke with Canada’s historic allies and put the UN ahead of the US in Canada’s ordering of priorities. In so doing, Noble asserts, Chrétien is not only breaking with history, and neglecting our interests, but allowing Canada to drift towards irrelevance with the US. George W. Bush’s cancellation of his scheduled May visit to Canada, and the Ottawa’s PM’s inability to reschedule it, is a worrisome confirmation that relations will not improve until Chrétien leaves office.”
Paraphrases:
The author thinks that, by deciding not to participate in the US-led war against Iraq, the Chrétien administration sacrificed Canada’s first foreign policy priority. Some researchers are persuaded that Chrétien did so to avoid the kind of schism that Canada experienced during the two world wars. Noble also saw a bit of confusion in Chrétien statements’ before the decision was officially stated. Some Canadians were concerned with Canada’s decision, especially within the business community. The consequence of this decision was mainly to increase Canada’s irrelevance in Washington. Noble states that Canadian jobs and the maintenance of our social welfare system are at risk if nothing is done to mend the ties. To do so, the author suggests that the Canadian government develops a national security strategy also the government should be prepared to discuss with the US on some issues instead of “constantly carping from the sidelines.” Noble adds that the Canadian refugee policy should be ameliorated since it is the US’s main concerns (because it leaves easy access to potential terrorists). Noble attests that Canada has placed its security in the hands of the United States and NATO allies long time ago, instead of in the hands of the UN.
Interesting ideas and quotations:
“Canada’s indirect contribution to the US effort was greater than many members of “the coalition of the willing”, as US Ambassador Paul Celluci has pointed out.” (Noble 19)
“Canadians, for their part, have a long history of not wanting to become part of the United States but of wanting to share in the economic benefits of a close association.” (Noble 21)
“The report (The Canada-U.S. Border: An Automotive Case Study) concluded that the “border crossing is an integral part of approximately C$1000 of Canadian components in U.S. built vehicles and approximately US $7,400 of U.S. content in Canadian built vehicles.” (Noble 22)
“The key point is that any foreign investor looking to invest in the North American market will be concerned about the uncertainties of the border and more likely to invest on that side of the border where he sells most of his product, which in almost every case is not Canada.” (Noble 22)
“I am concerned that rising level of knee-jerk and anti-Americanism within the Liberal Party and its elected members, and in other parties, too, is putting at risk a lot more than our economic interests, but also our ability to bear influence with the administration and Congress on foreign policy as well.” (Noble 23)
Source:
Statement by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in Support of a Motion in the House of Commons.
Privy Office Council. April 8, 2003, http://www.pcobcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=archivechretien&Sub=Speeches&Doc=statementoniraq.20030408_e.htm, January 26, 2007.
Summary:
This is a speech delivered by Prime minister Chrétien concerning Canada’s decision not to participate in the war in Iraq. Chrétien favours a multilateral approach through the United Nations in order to enhance the international legitimacy of military actions. Chrétien compares his decision to some comments made by Mr. Pearson, a former Canadian Prime Minister, on the war in Vietnam. Chrétien says that this speech did not affect the U.S.-Canadian relationship. Chrétien insists that Canada hopes for a quick victory in Iraq.
Quotations:
“From the beginning our position has been clear. To work through the United Nations to achieve the goals we share with our friends and allies. Disarming Saddam Hussein.”
“Close friends can disagree at times and can still remain close friends.”
“But we, as an independent country, make our own decisions based on our own principles. Such as our longstanding belief in the value of a multilateral approach to global problems.”
Source:
Barry, Donald. “Chrétien, Bush and the War in Iraq”. The American Review of Canadian
Studies, Summer 2005, p. 215-245,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=19&sid=44138d43-9816-4f39-b816-
3c6d26c761fc%40sessionmgr7, February 4, 2007.
Summary:
In this essay, Barry tries to examine the rift between the Bush and Chrétien governments over Iraq. According to him, Canada decided not to join the US in the war in Iraq because of scepticism about President Bush’s reasons to go to war. Furthermore, Barry is persuaded that due to the “close intertwining of the Canadian and U.S. economies” retaliation from the US was very unlikely. As consequences of this decision, the author identifies the cancellation of George Bush’s visit in Ottawa during spring 2003, a widening of differences in values and outlook between the two neighbours and the decision complicated any future efforts to improve the relations between Canada and the United States. This article offers a great overview of the months before Canada made its position clear to the world.
Interesting quotations:
“(…) Canadians became (in the post-cold war era) more socially liberal, skeptical of traditional authority, and supportive of a cooperative approach to the resolution of international issues. Americans, by contrast, became more socially conservative, deferential to authority in a highly competitive national environment, and inclined to survival of the fittest view of the world.” (Barry 216)
“Displeased with the government’s non-committal response, the U.S. military excluded Canada from meetings and training exercises until Ottawa clarified its stand.” (Barry 221)
“A State Department official said that the Bush administration was ‘disappointed’ that Canada was withholding its support, although he expressed appreciation for its contribution to the war on terror. Significantly, he did not indicate that the decision came as a surprise.” (Barry 228)
“Cellucci (US Ambassador) added that although the government’s actions would not likely ‘have any long-term effect on the relationship…there may be some short-term strains.” (Barry 230)
“However, confirming recent rumors, the White House announced that Bush had cancelled a planned visit to Ottawa, which was to have taken place on May 5. The announcement cited the pressures of dealing with the war, although Bush pointedly invited Australian Prime Minister John Howard, whose government had contributed troops to the invasion, to visit his ranch in Texas two days before the president was scheduled to be in Canada.” (Barry 231)
Important quotation:
“However, new tensions threatened to emerge in December when the Pentagon declared that only ‘coalition nations’ would be eligible to compete for primary contracts from $18 billion (US) in reconstruction projects funded by Washington. (…) , Bush told Martin that Canadian firms would be able to bid on a second round of contracts worth a reported $6 billion (US). Later that month, Martin announced that Canada would forgive $750 million in Iraq’s debt.” (Barry 233)
Source:
Haglund, David G. “Relating to the Anglosphere: Canada, ‘Culture’, and the Question of Military
Intervention”. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 3 (2) 2005, p.179-198., February 4, 2007.
Summary:
This article examines how culture can explain military intervention. The author argues that Canada has become less integrated with the US in terms of military and security matters since the decision not to participate in the US-led war in Iraq. However, Haglund states 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.
Interesting quotations:
“Indeed, for the core group of old Europe, the Iraq war convinced them that Canada, situated on the far shores of the Atlantic, might continue to be a European place after all.” (Haglund, 179)
“For a short time during the late winter of 2003, Canada’s position was so closely aligned with France’s as to become virtually identical with it; and though few would actually state things as boldly as I am about to, just prior to the outbreak of the war you could say that Ottawa’s grand strategy had very much become hostage to France’s preferences [since France threatened to use its veto].” (Haglund 180)
“That is why when France’s president, Jacques Chirac, announced during a nationally televised interview on 10 March 2003 that France would not approve the war that everyone saw coming, he not only settled his own country’s policy on the war, but Canada’s as well.” (Haglund, 180)
“(…) ‘Anglosphere,’ a term of singular popularity among certain conservative and neoconservative policy circles in the US and UK. This was especially so during the Iraq war, when it seemed to many commentators that there existed a close, if curious, fit between a country’s maternal tongue and its proclivity to engage in military interventions.” (Haglund 181)
“When it comes to military intervention, this Anglosphere – let us call it the ‘English-using’ community – turns out to be very much a stay-at-home phenomenon.” (Haglund 185)
“(…) both Britain and Australia have learned to calculate their security interests in such a way as to make it likely that American support for them will be there, if needed. (…) Things are different with Canada. For it, unlike Australia and the United Kingdom, there is no major downside risk in abstaining from American-led interventions.” (Haglund 193)
“(…), but is is simply not possible to detect any quantifiable (especially economic) costs associated with that decision.” (Haglund 193)
“More to the point, and this sets Canada very much apart from Australia, there exists no need to buy into US interventions abroad in a bid to maximise the likelihood that America can be called upon to safeguard the country’s security in the event of dire necessity.” (Haglund, 194)
“Because of its outsized role in Canadian politics (…), the Quebec ‘fact’ in Canadian political culture, coupled with the involuntary American security guarantee, makes it always a dubious undertaking to include Canada as a whole-hearted player in Anglosphere heavy.” (Haglund, 194)
Source:
Melnyk, George. Canada and the New American Empire: War and Anti-War. Calgary:
Calgary UP, 2004.
Summary:
“The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 sent shock waves around the world. The unilateral decision to invade Iraq and overthrow its government was opposed by many nations and its citizens. Prior to the invasion tens of millions of people around the globe marched with one voice demanding peace and calling for restraint against the looming threat of war. This outpouring of global protest was an unprecedented expression of popular sentiment that challenged self-serving political and corporate interests.
Recognizing this open opposition from governments and the public, Canada refused to join the invasion, even though it was a longtime ally of the United States and enjoyed a beneficial relationship with the superpower. The influential contributors to this book discuss the ramifications of this decision for Canada-U.S. relations from the standpoint of multilateralism and national sovereignty.”
Interesting quotations:
“Fifty-four per cent of our entire trade surplus with the United States comes from our exports of oil, natural gas, and electricity. We supply 99 per cent of U.S. electricity imports, 94 per cent of their natural gas imports, 17 per cent of oil, and 35 per cent of their uranium used for power generation. To suggest that these exports are in any way vulnerable is absurd.” (Melnyk, 248)
“We buy more goods and services from the United States than all fifteen European Union countries combined. U.S. exports to Canada, plus their investment income from Canada, exceed their income from any other country by an enormous $177 billion!” (Melnyk, 248)
“Chrétien’s logic led him to believe he could finesse Canada’s public position so that it would never have to actually say no to the United States.” (Melnyk, 17)
“Canada-U.S. relations in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq reflect Canada’s perceived need to continue to support the primary role of the UN in authorizing the use of force to settle disputes, while at the same time avoiding antagonizing the Bush administration and risking devastating economic consequences.” (Melnyk, 19)
Source:
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.
Summary:
This article discusses the relationship between Canada and the U.S. The author thinks that their relationship is facing problems and may never recover. Not only did Canada’s decision not to participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq angered the U.S. but the ambivalence of the decision did too.
Interesting quotations:
“(…), the Iraq war underlined a difference between Canada and the U.S. in their preference for, and willingness to pursue, unilateral initiatives (and conversely, multilateral ones).” (471)
“The war also revealed significant differences in the manner in which the two states believe that force can be used to resolve conflicts, and the conditions under which the use of force is appropriate.” (Richter, 471)
“Ultimately, Canada’s position on Iraq demonstrated not only increasing divergence with the U.S. over geo-political interests and goals, but also revealed a lack of trust between the two countries, (…).” (Richter, 471)
“(…) it has been the Canadian government that has refused comprehensive bilateral agreements, as Canada’s preference has been to create ah hoc institutions that highlight particular issues and developments.” (Richter, 472)
“(…), in spite of Canada’s dependence on the U.S. since World War II, Canada has scrupulously managed to avoid directing its foreign policy gaze too heavily on the U.S.” (Richter, 472)
“Thus, Canadian governments looked upon multilateralism as an instrument for supporting a global order that would provide peace, security, and prosperity.” (Richter 473)
“Given this background, it is clear that President Bush is hardly the first unilateralist American president. At the same time, he has embraced unilateralism with renewed vigor and enthusiasm.” (476)
“According to statements and comments made by government officials both prior to and after the war, Canada’s decision to decline involvement encompassed three core tenets: 1) Canada does not support the goal of regime change; 2) Canada only supports interventions sanctioned by multilateral consensus by the UN Security Council (UNSC); and 3) Canada must retain independent control of its foreign policy.” (Richter, 478)
“By Spring 2003, the Canada-U.S. relationship had been deteriorating for several years, highlighted by disputes over a number of key issues, including Canada’s support for the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC), Canada’s strong backing of the Kyoto environmental accord, and a host of ill-advised remarks made by several Chrétien aides and Liberal party officials in the prelude to the war.” (Richter, 478)
“So, while Canada made its position dependent on a multilateral consensus, the realities of global politics and national self-interest resulted in diplomatic deadlock, effectively blocking Canadian action.” (Richter, 488)
“As this paper has revealed, the relationship has been further strained by Canadian indecision.” (489)
“In sum, the Canada-U.S. relationship is in flux. Canada will be at a disadvantage should this continue, as it is the more dependent of the two states, and has a large percentage of its wealth tied to the timely movement of goods, services, and people across the border.” (Richter, 490)
Source:
Beltrame, Julian. “Canada to Stay Out of Iraq War.” MacLeans Magazine. 31 March 2003.
http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Params=M1ARTM0012327,
23 Feb 2007.
Summary:
This article is very interesting since it was written not long before Canada made its decision official. The author tries to guess how the United States would react if Canada decided not to participate in the U.S.-led war against Iraq, which he thought was improbable since Canada has a long tradition of intervening when Western interests are challenged and because Prime Minister Chrétien was trying to establish his legacy before leaving the world of politics. According to the author, the Iraq war could change significantly the face of the Middle East.
Paraphrase:
The United States want to intervene in Iraq because they thought that Hussein was determined to acquire nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. To this assertion, Chrétien answered that Iraq was not a bigger threat to the West than North Korea, Iran or Libya.
Source:
“Interview given by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to ABC’s This Week with George
Stephanopoulos.” March 9, 2003.
http://www.pcobcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=archivechretien&Sub=NewsReleases&Doc=thisweek.20030309_e.htm. February 23, 2007.
Summary:
This is an interview given by Prime Ministre Chrétien weeks before he made his decision that Canada would not participate in a U.S.-led war in Iraq. It is very interesting because it was aired in the United States and had Bush’s administration talking. During the interview, 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 act by the presence of American and British soldiers ready to invade Iraq. Moreover, Chrétien clearly explains that he wants Iraq to disarm but that he, like other countries, does not like the idea of a change of regime. He defends his position by saying that Canada has always been clear that a UN resolution was necessary before being involved in the war. Also, he compared this Iraq war with the Gulf War of 1990 in which Bush senior had a resolution allowing him to go to war and during which Canada participated. Finally, Chrétien stated that Canada’s decision would not affect Canada-U.S. relation because the two countries have always been close.
Source:
Waddell, Christopher. “Deep Freeze.” CBS News Online April 30, 2003.
http://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/waddell.html, Feb.21 2007.
Summary:
According to Waddell, the relation between Canada and the U.S. has changed a lot since the end of the Cold War; both economies are now tied together because of free trade. For that reason, Waddell thinks that economic retaliation in reaction to Canada’s decision not to participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq is unlikely. 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. As consequences of this decision, Waddell identifies that Canada will no longer receive the benefit of the doubt in Washington until Chrétien leaves office, the North American Free Trade Agreement will not be renegotiated any time soon. However, “work will continue on reducing impediments for goods and frequent travellers crossing the Canada-U.S. border”.
Quotations:
“It’s back to the 1984 days of Pierre Trudeau and Ronald Reagan to find the last time the two capitals were governed by different philosophies. Those days were pretty rocky days in Canada-U.S. relations.”
“That means a huge amount of cross-border trade is now intra-company trade. That creates a strong incentive for business to lobby both governments to avoid economic disruptions or retaliation no matter what the nature of the relationship at the top.”
“Canada was too slow to recognize the new threat terrorism posed to the U.S. and to respond with security changes at the border. The U.S. was too slow in acknowledging Canada’s crucial role in taking in people and aircraft on September 11, 2001.
“Canada-U.S. relations have not been irreparably damaged but there will be work for Martin to do.”
Source:
McHutchion, John. “A Bump in the Road.” CBC News Online May 2, 2003.
http://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/mchutchion.html, Feb. 24 2007.
Summary:
Sometimes, political tensions threaten the economic relation between countries. For example, Canada’s decision not to support the U.S. in its war in Iraq strained the relations.
Quotations:
“Every day thousands of cars, trucks, trains and planes roll across the Canada-U.S. border as more than $1 billion in trade circulates between the countries.”
“The longtime relationship is worth hundreds of billions annually, and has only become richer with the advent of free trade agreements, such as NAFTA.”
“Canada’s exports to the U.S. accounted for $348.4 billion – about 84 per cent – of the $410.7 billion in goods shipped out of the country last year. Conversely, about 71 per cent of Canada’s #356 billion in imports last year arrived from the U.S.”
“When U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci told a Canadian business audience in March that there was ‘disappointment’ in Washington that Canada was not supporting the U.S. fully in its war on Iraq, executives from this country hurried to Washington to do damage control.”
“Weeks later, Cellucci said the relationship had hit a bump in the road, but added that no serious damage was done.”
“These frictions could be attributed, in part, to political disagreements related to Iraq. A bigger concern than Cellucci’s comments is the possibility of rising protectionist sentiment south of the border, she said.”
“Protectionist tendencies tend to rise during periods of economic weakness, and the slow U.S. economy has shed jobs over the past two years, Warren said.”
“But many exporters are more concerned right now with disputes that have been around longer than issues related to Iraq. Canada’s U.S.-bound exports of softwood lumber and wheat are the more prominent recent sources of trade tension.”
“In the wake of Sept. 11 and heightened U.S. emphasis on domestic security, Canada needs to establish a seamless border with our neighbour, (…)”
“The first and only priority for Canadian diplomacy over the next few years is to reach a new accommodation with the United States because it is only when that relationship is comprehensible, predictable and sound that the country can again assume a meaningful world role, (…).
