Allan Gottlieb: U.S. and Canada
I heard Gottlieb, one-time Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., speak yesterday.
He had two messages for us.
1. The U.S. treatment of our common border has changed, tightened up, and this is not going to go back to pre-9/11 anytime soon--it might even get worse. This is costing Canadian industry a lot--perhaps as much as tariffs were costing before NAFTA.
Any restriction on trade will hurt Canada more than the U.S.
We need to lobby as hard as we can for a common economic and security space. This does not mean immigration policy has to be the same--right now the U.S. uses humanitarian (family reunification) standards in admitting immigrants much more than Canada does. (Canada uses economic standards--already having credentials that are needed). Refugee policy is not different now in its main elements, but there are some differences in procedures that should probably be reconciled.
Gottlieb's proposal would not mean a loss of sovereignty. The European powers are more united than ever, yet no one doubts their sovereignty in setting out foreign policy--for example over Iraq.
2. In foreign policy, Bush is Woodrow Wilson on steroids. He wants to save the world by spreading a commitment to human rights, human dignity, and security. One can question the wisdom of this approach--Bush himself was opposed to nation-building before 9/11, and Gottlieb identified himself as an old-fashioned realist. But it is precisely realism that requires that Canada recognize what many Americans are thinking.
Bush forces us to realize some harsh truths. Who is going to help the suffering people of the world--whether victims of genocide, war, chronically vicious government, or whatever? International law has never done so. The UN basically gives an institutional face to the failure of international law. The sovereignty of each nation-state has been considered the keystone of the international system. What happens inside a country is basically that country's business. The international convention on genocide probably doesn't even speak of another country's or group of countries right to stop genocide. At most there is a mechanism to appeal to the Security Council (subject to veto), and then if everything goes well, intervene, but only if the genocide in one country somehow threatens the peace of other countries. Genocide in itself isn't a problem that "needs" to be solved, as Darfur is demonstrating. (Update: To give Brian Mulroney some credit--as PM he appointed Gottlieb--he said at the time of the Iraq invasion that human rights violations inside a country can no longer be considered that country's business alone, any more than domestic violence is protected any longer by the principle that "a man's home is his castle.")
It will take a powerful country to truly address the world's problems (or several countries working together); and if they are determined to do so, they will probably help a great many people. (Collective action combined with some kind of consensus or "legitimicacy"?) What will Bush's critics, beginning with the Democrats, do then? How can you be against saving the world? (Update: "Even" Michael Ignatieff, a critic of Bush, has said that if the U.S. is actually improving a country, unilateral action is OK. Gottlieb also joked that Bush now sounds like Lloyd Axworthy, except that in Axworthy's writings, he has said the main obstacle to protecting human rights around the world is the U.S. Those passages would have to be whited out. Also Axworthy, admitting the problems with the Security Council, has recommended appeals to the General Assembly, which is surely a much more complete waste of time).
Americans (at least the Bush supporters in a very divided country) see themselves as a 19th century nation state. So does China and India--two other powerful countries. Europe seems to have more of 21st century model ("the greatest political experiment of the 20th century"). Great powers benefit from co-operation; and they need more or less enforceable rules. It simply won't work to go it alone, 19th-century style. The Americans may need to re-discover this fact, and if they do, this should benefit Canada.
He didn't quite say the Americans are acting out of anger and fear, and they may eventually calm down a bit. His emphasis was more that Canada needs to smarten up. He said with heavy sarcasm that we are fortunate to have so many brilliant people working on Canada-U.S. issues.
My comment: It might be true that 9/11 woke the U.S. from a kind of slumber. We might not like everything they do, but they are likely to do more good than harm. There are already signs, such as with torture, that they are not only convinced the UN and international law are dead; they think they can do whatever they find convenient, or even experiment to find out what might be convenient, without appealing to their own traditions much less to any foreigner.
We might say they have gone from a kind of passive indifference to much of the world to this angry, moralistic determination to improve things, and indifference to what others think about their methods.
But even on whether "they have always been indifferent," Gottlieb put in a good word for the old days, with a story about Lyndon Johnson, way back when he was Majority Leader in the Senate. One of Gottlieb's predecessor's as Ambassador dealt only with the State Department, and never went to Congress on issues. (The latter practice really started with Gottlieb). In one case he was worried that a bill that had been introduced in the Senate, if it passed, would hurt Canada. His contact at State suggested he meet with LBJ, and even made the appointment for him. As soon as LBJ heard the facts, he said "son, is this the only problem you have?" Why yes, it is. "Well then, you don't have a problem." I don't quite follow. "I just fixed it." A tribute to the old days when the majority leaders and a few committee chairs, mostly in place because of seniority, actually ran things; but also a sign that if Americans actually thought about Canada, which they probably did very rarely, they really meant us good rather than harm.
|
