Toronto Star Article

Coming to aid of 'family' a myth
The idea that the U.S. would rush to save us is touching. The reality is less comforting, says historian James Laxer

When U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci said that his country was disappointed because Canada was not at America's side in the Iraq war, he claimed that if Canada faced a security threat "there would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada."

That's the way things ought to be when you're dealing with "family," the ambassador told a Toronto business audience.

The idea that the United States would rush to our side is touching.

The only problem is that there has not been a single case to which anyone can point when the U.S. has come to our side to meet a security threat to Canada since the Thirteen Colonies declared their independence in 1776.

The two countries have been allies in previous conflicts when Washington and Ottawa decided that their interests were parallel. In the two world wars, the Americans sat out the first couple of years of the conflicts while Canada was at war.

Indeed, during World War I while it was still neutral, the United States continued to export Canadian nickel to Germany.

As an Ontario Royal Commission later reported, some of that nickel went into the production of munitions that were used against Canadian soldiers in the trenches.

Early in World War II, when Canada dispatched an RCMP vessel to Greenland to ensure that the island not be taken over by the Nazis, the Americans, perhaps fearing the rise of a Canadian empire, issued a stiff official complaint to Ottawa.

Later, in the war, the U.S. occupied Greenland.

By no stretch of the imagination could anyone claim that the United States entered any of its many foreign conflicts over the past two centuries out of concern for the security interests of Canada.

The truth is the U.S. has relentlessly stood up for its own interests in a long list of security conflicts with Canada.

Several acute boundary disputes between the two countries — on the East Coast, the West Coast, and over the Alaska boundary — came close to generating military conflict between Canada and the U.S.

At the end of the American Civil War, the U.S. secretary of state suggested that Americans would get over their hard feelings toward the British for selling naval vessels to the Confederacy if Britain would hand over Canada to the United States.

Indeed, there remains a very potent territorial dispute between the United States and Canada over the question of Arctic waters.

While Canada claims the waters of the High Arctic as Canadian territory, the U.S. rejects that claim, insisting the Northwest Passage is an international waterway. Twice the U.S. has sent warships through that passage, without seeking the permission of Ottawa, to keep its claim alive.

In his speech to the Economic Club of Toronto, Cellucci said "we'll have to wait and see if there are any ramifications" as a result of the current squabble. Analysts and right-wing Canadian politicians who have warned darkly of the economic consequences that could flow from offending our largest trading partner, apparently have not given much thought to the nature of Canadian exports to the U.S.

The overwhelming bulk of our exports to the U.S. are autos and auto parts, pulp and paper, nickel, oil and natural gas, and other primary products — most of this shipped south by U.S.-owned corporations.

To punish Canada, Washington would have to shoot itself, or more exactly, General Motors, in the foot.

In the few acute trade disputes Canada has with the U.S., it seems not to make much difference how Canada behaves.

Sending Canadian troops to serve under a U.S. commander in Afghanistan did nothing to win Washington over to Canada's position on softwood lumber.

The Chrétien government decided that it was not in the interest of Canada to participate in an arguably illegal assault on a small country that poses no direct threat to the United States.

For a middle size country like ours, multilateralism and respect for international law are essential to our survival as a sovereign country. The government of Canada was acting in our national interest.

Cellucci was not wrong when he suggested that the U.S. and Canada are like members of a family, although a rather dysfunctional one. The older sibling left home early, while the younger sibling stayed home hoping that mom would help fend off assaults from big brother.

In practice, living next door to a superpower means that the superpower can be counted on to defend you against everyone except itself.

Former Social Credit leader Robert Thompson got it right when he remarked, "The United States is our best friend whether we like it or not."

---

James Laxer is a professor of political science at York University. He is writing a book on the Canada-U.S. border.