The question of the
hour for Canadians is how our country will survive the age of imperial
America. All the other issues � globalization, the environment, the fate
of medicare, control of our fresh water, the struggle for Canadian
sovereignty in the High Arctic � are subsets of the dominant issue. In
this country, real politics is waged between continentalists and
nationalists. So far the continentalists are winning.
It is no longer controversial to assert that the United States is
the global successor to the British Empire and Imperial Rome. The gap
between American military prowess and that of any other power is so huge
that would-be allies vie for admission to the Bush administration's
coalition. The long-term effect of Sept. 11 has been to expose to the
world an old-fashioned military empire that no longer bothers with the
niceties of international covenants.
That is the real import of George W. Bush's unveiling of the
concept of the "Axis of Evil," the reference to Iraq, Iran and North
Korea, in his State of the Union address. The Bush II administration is
determined not to repeat the mistake of Bush I. The current war will be
kept going, at least until the economic downturn is over, and likely much
longer than that.
The traditional Canadian strategy � attempting to offset naked
American power by encouraging multilateralism and by participating in
structures such as NORAD that provide at least a nod to Canadian
sovereignty � lies in tatters. In the new American command structure for
homeland defence, Canada will be cut very little slack. We either place
our forces under American command or we're left out.
A century ago, a British general who was appointed by the British
government commanded the Canadian militia. Unless we are prepared to sink
back to that level of formal colonialism, we are going to have to think
through a strategy for sustaining sovereignty. The Liberal government's
practice of talking loudly and carrying a small stick will not do.
Since Sept. 11, the Chr�tien government's strategy has been to
curry favour with the Americans on border issues, refugee and immigration
policy and by participating in America's new war. Canada's illiberal
anti-terrorism law was explicitly drafted with one eye on Washington. And
what has been the payoff for all this pandering? Precisely nothing. On
softwood lumber, the U.S. is as implacable as ever. On streamlining
commercial traffic across the border, there has been no change since Sept.
11. On the status accorded to prisoners taken by Canadian or U.S. forces
in Afghanistan, or on whether the U.S. is to invade Iraq, Washington cares
not a bit what the Chr�tien government thinks.
Jean Chr�tien and John Manley have been trying to delude us into
believing that if we do something the Americans want us to do, before they
insist on it, we are somehow exercising Canadian sovereignty.
The continentalists, who have dominated Canadian politics for the
past two decades, can point to few ways their years at the helm have
benefited Canadians. In terms of the trend of living standards, the 1990s,
the decade that followed the free trade deal with the U.S., was the worst
of the 20th century for ordinary Canadians, with the exception of the
1930s. Instead of the stronger, wealthier, more productive country the
continentalists promised Canadians, we have become more marginalized and
relatively less productive.
Putting us in an economic straitjacket where we can no longer
fashion government programs to foster the excellence of Canadian companies
has been a disaster for Canada. The continentalist cure for the ills they
have wrought is to call for yet more integration with the U.S., the
scrapping of the loonie and lower taxes that will render our social
programs unsustainable.
The nationalists need to fashion policies in the interest of the
majority of Canadians who have been left behind since the 1980s. That
means dropping the free market religion.
Raising the living standards of Canadians, protecting medicare and
widening access to higher education can never be entrusted to an economic
regime that believes markets and multinationals act in our interest. On
national defence, our priority should be to rebuild the Canadian forces to
patrol our immense coasts. Placing our forces under a continental American
command structure will reduce, not enhance, our sovereignty.
We will do better with Washington by defining our interests and
pursuing them prudently. American companies make billions every year in
Canada and ship more than 50 per cent of our exports to the U.S. That
gives us more freedom to manoeuvre than our timorous elites imagine.
Since 1993, a sizable proportion of voters has backed the Liberals
as the party that can provide a realistic defence of Canadian values. For
such voters, the priority has been to keep out the parties of the right
whose policies point the way to national dissolution.
The recent cabinet shuffle, however, has put new power in the hands
of the continentalists, while the nationalists have been downgraded. For
those who want this country to survive, the first priority must be to find
a pro-Canadian political party. The Liberals are no longer it.
History teaches that nations outlive empires. We have survived the
decline and fall of the French and British Empires. What destroys empires
is imperial overstretch, the unwillingness of rulers to understand the
limitations of their sway. That is the likely the fate of the American
Empire in the 21st century. With judicious realism though, Canada has
every prospect of surviving as a country and not merely as a geographical
expression.
James Laxer is a professor of political science at York
University. He is writing a book about the Canada-U.S. border.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServerpagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1013814150497&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion&col=968350116695 |
1pixel.gif