[Mb-civic] Canada's Friends and Enemies in Washington

[Harold Sifton]

Article from EMBASSY, Canada's Foreign Policy Newsweekly

HS


By David Jones, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Canada's Friends and Enemies in Washington 
Getting behind the rhetoric in Canada-U.S. relations reveals more than a few surprises about who Canada's buddies and bullies are in the Executive and in Congress.
The aphorism governing the U.S.-Canadian relationship has been that our countries are "best friends, like it or not." And the reality over the past five years has been that while this assessment remains accurate, we are definitely in the "not" portion of our cycle. It is also reflective of the power relationship between the United States and Canada that while the U.S. could give less of a damn whether it is loved or not by its northern neighbours, Canadians do indeed care whether the United States moves from its tradition of blandly placid indifference toward those "nice Canadians" to something less amicable. 

Friends and Foes in the Executive 

One can assume that following the Three Amigos' meeting in Cancun on March 30-31, U.S. President George W. Bush would now be able to pick "Big Steve" from a police lineup. And even the presidential press spokesman, who seemed Martin-focused at a March 28 press conference prior to the NAFTA meeting, is no longer living in the past and has internalized that Canada's prime minister is Stephen Harper. The latter point, however, illustrates how little attention is directed northward: despite all of the frenzy across Canada about various economic bilateral concerns, the White House at its senior most levels has had no time for Canada. 

Mr. Bush politely indicated in his pre-Cancun trip press conference that he had no hard feelings about the various ad hominen slurs directed at him over the past several years and regarded the Liberals hyper anti-American hype during the December-January election campaign as business as usual. But what else could he say? One supposes he could echo Pierre Trudeau's line in response to reported slurs by Richard Nixon: that he had been called worse things by better people. 

Nevertheless, aside from the ritualized shin-kick by Mr. Harper immediately after the election to the effect that the international waters of the Northwest Passage are Canadian property (they are not), the Conservatives have not looked for fights to pick. Canadians can be sure that Washington appreciates the almost three-month hiatus during which we have avoided having our eye impaled on your finger. 

So, with Cancun messages from the horse's mouth, what you have heard is probably what you will get: U.S. insistence on more secure borders with tough ID requirements, an interest in resolving the softwood lumber dispute before North America is clear-cut, and a recognition that at least until the body bags stack up, Canada's military contribution to the "Long War" will be in Afghanistan. 

And the State Department and other executive agencies will follow this lead. For their part, U.S. government bureaucrats, diplomats, and trade reps are well aware of the essential animosity directed toward the Bush administration by ordinary Canadians -- who profess to like Americans as individuals, but not our government. Sorry, but even when we don't like our government, we are not terribly sympathetic to non-Americans who try to draw such a distinction. Nor should one put too much stock in points such as U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins accompanying PM Harper on the plane to Cancun. This is pretty standard diplomatic politesse. For example, the Mexican Ambassador in Ottawa, María Teresa Garcia Segovia de Madero, went ahead to assist in the Summit preparations, but returned on the plane with Mr. Harper. 

Nevertheless, the executive agencies are working to manage (at least) and resolve (at best) the myriad day-to-day problems and "maintenance" work that characterize our convoluted bilateral relationship. The NORAD agreement will be extended officially at some mutually convenient point, perhaps when Mr. Harper makes his hinted-about forthcoming Washington visit. So far as the softwood lumber dispute is concerned, the NAFTA Summit outcome sounded like what Mr. Wilkins has been quietly recommending for months: resumed negotiations. Likewise, increased border security will be a given. When a returning U.S. citizen will require secure identification to enter the country how can Washington require less from a foreign visitor? 

In short, Canada has no Executive branch "enemies" on the level of those countries that have generated deep, historic animosity. In that regard, think Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, or Cold War USSR. Canada does not even approach the irritation level generated by France. 

Frankly, however, it also helps that "Frank" is gone. Canada's former ambassador to Washington Frank McKenna was as much a part of the problem as any ambassador is likely to be. In retrospect, it remains surreal that he should declare the United States to be a "dysfunctional" society and describe Congress as akin to having 535 Carolyn Parrishes in one place. This was mad dog diplomacy. 

More generally and unfortunately, Canada's "street cred" is minimal. The degree of trust and comity that featured in our bilateral relationship for decades has slowly dissipated; it will take as long to restore as it did to deplete. Our relations are likely to be case-by-case, ad hoc. Nor will the Executive branch be investing too heavily in Mr. Harper; one Joe-Clark-like miscount could tumble the government into an election. President Bush will be in office until January 2009; he has already worked with three Canadian prime ministers, and he is prepared to work with a fourth. 

And so when asked, Americans now say that the UK is our best friend; Canadians should hardly be surprised at such a judgment. It will take more than a throwaway line in the Throne Speech proclaiming that the United States is Canada's best friend to reverse that perception. 

And On the Hill 

Nor do Canadians generate any special reaction on Capitol Hill aside from those few individuals in border states or those with special economic interests. Nevertheless, it is not always bad news to be ignored when your ambassador is declaring that dealing with Congress is akin to having 535 Carolyn Parrishes in one place. 

Thus, you will have a gaggle of senators such as Conrad Burns (R-MT), Byron Dorgan, (D-ND), Mike Enzi, (R-WY), Tom Harkin, (D-IO), Tim Johnson, (D-SD), Craig Thomas, (R-WY), and John Thune, (R-SD) whose pet peeve is Canadian "mad cow" beef. No one who has seen the video clip of the thrashing, BSE-afflicted cow in extremis and mentally extrapolated it to a human condition can be blithe about BSE. To be sure, their constituents also have beef that they would like to sell in the U.S. market without Canadian competition, and protectionist cant comes easily to the lips, but a lot more will have to be done regarding testing before full confidence in North American beef is restored in the global sales market. 

On BSE, however, Canadians should recall that it was the frequently despised Bush administration that stood up for resumed beef imports--at no political benefit to the Administration. One additional supporter was Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) a veterinarian in pre-electoral life who argued for sound science in BSE rather than rhetoric. However, presumed friends of Canada such as Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) were foursquare behind a continued export ban in the 2004 election year. Politics is as local in the U.S. as it is in Canada. Canadians should not expect their Hill "friends" to hesitate a nanosecond before sacrificing Canadian interests for their political benefit. 

Canadians need to appreciate that opposition is issue-specific, not Canadian-specific. A North Dakota senator supporting water diversion to relieve the flooding of Devil's Lake (presumably against the interest of Canadians, who believe that such water is the devil's own brew) may very well be in Canada's corner when it comes to resisting a requirement for complex secure documents for border crossing. In both instances, the senator is looking out for constituent interests; in the one case, Canada gets sideswiped; in the other, it gets a free ride. 

Caucuses for Canada 

Congress has a "caucus" for everything. They range from the "Afterschool Caucus" to the "Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus." On the Rolodex listing, two can be regarded as Canada directed: the "Northern Border Caucus" and "Congressional Friends of Canada Caucus." The former, headed by Congressman John Sweeney (D-NY), is characterized as "semi-active" by one observer. Congressman Henry Brown (R-SC), reportedly a friend of U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, is regarded as the driving force of the latter caucus whose membership reportedly is now over 60 members. There has, however, been something of a question mark associated with the "Friends of Canada." A newspaper article discussing Colin Robertson's activities at the Canadian Embassy's Washington Advocacy Secretariat included description of the "Friends" in the midst of dialogue with Mr. Robertson, leaving the impression with some that the "Friends" are an adjunct/construct of the Canadian Embassy. 

Colin Robertson and the Washington Advocacy Secretariat 

Canadian ambassadors and American-watchers have long appreciated the reality that influencing the Executive branch is only a small part of obtaining Canadian objectives. Key members of Congress can have a defining effect on specific Canadian interests and, to that end, Ottawa created the Washington Advocacy Secretariat as one element of a multi-pronged effort to raise Canadian visibility in the United States. 

Operational since Sept. 2004, the Secretariat under Colin Robertson has the straightforward objective of advancing Canadian inter 

ests on Capitol Hill. Doubtless, he has been energetic; by one account, he and/or his team have visited 250 congressional offices since the Secretariat's inception, and designed a variety of creative programs to win friends and influence people (or at least Hill staffers and schedulers). Whether the motion has produced movement gets a "mixed" rating. Observers differ regarding whether the embassy resources devoted to the Secretariat are detracting from potential effort elsewhere. Thus, the three major bilateral economic issues in the past 18 months can be identified as: softwood lumber; BSE beef; and border security. Arguably, the Secretariat has been no more than nominally effective on these issues as BSE was determined by presidential decision; softwood remains unresolved; and there is no indication of a lessened requirement for a high security document to enter the United States. 

Summing Up 

No surprises, really. In short, Canada is neither an eternal enemy nor an eternal friend in Washington circles (just as we assume is the case for Ottawa). It is easier on the ear not to be damned by every Liberal seeking a cheap shot target; however, we recall that Paul Martin came to power postulating improved relations with the United States. The coincidence of interests rather than inconsequential rhetoric will be determining. 

David Jones is a former U.S. embassy political counsellor who worked at the U.S. embassy in Ottawa from 1992-96. editor at embassymag.ca 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060419/144f16d3/attachment-0001.htm