"WE
SHOULD EXPECT AMERICAN INTIMIDATION"
Paul
Cappon
April 1, 2003
The U.S. Ambassador to Canada was correct about one issue in his address
to Canadian business people on March 25: This country is at a critical
juncture in its relationship to the United States.
Quite apart from the strategic debates on Iraq, it is the thrust towards
geopolitical hegemony of our neighbour to the south that now defines
American foreign policy. The Americans have displayed their disdain
for other countries that refused to bow to their will by supporting
the attack on Iraq. Why should Canada be any different? In the case
of all countries that have refused support, the U.S. has expressed
its "disappointment" — just as Mr. Cellucci has —
together with a series of thinly veiled threats. These expressions
of "disappointment" are often accompanied by undiplomatic
and improper judgment on divisions internal to those countries. In
the case of Canada, it was the ambassador's support for politicians
who declare adherence to American actions.
Canadians need to understand that American intimidation is only beginning.
The U.S. continues to withdraw from the constraints of the multilateralism
that Canada so prizes. We will have to stiffen our resolve if we wish
to retain our values, freedom to dissent, and freedom even to think
and express ourselves without fear of retaliation.
Consider the issue of Iraq. The United States, through its Ambassador,
is demanding explicit political and military support for its war.
This, despite the fact that the U.N. Secretary General has questioned
the legitimacy of the attack, and that most experts in international
law consider it illegal. Despite the fact that American aims in the
war relate mainly to exercise military supremacy in the service of
its singular political ambitions. Despite the certainty that participation
in such an attack would expose Canadians far more than before to terrorism
against our own citizens, a strong majority of whom oppose this war.
The Ambassador suggests that we will cease to find favour in American
eyes if we refuse to abandon our interests, our values, and our very
security in order to serve the fanaticism of an aberrant administration.
This is a critical time in our relationship with the U.S. because
it will demonstrate whether we have learned from past and current
tensions with our neighbour. It will also show whether we have the
will to remain true to ourselves. We should already have learned that
there is no transferability of American favour from one file to another.
Support for American foreign policy would not advance any of our interests
in trade, in environmental conservation, in international criminal
justice, in protection of instruments promoting Canadian culture,
in nuclear disarmament. This means that we have nothing to lose by
expressing independence of thought and action in foreign and defence
policy because we have nothing to gain in any area by grovelling.
Is it not true that Americans respect strength, not obsequiousness?
One small example of the nature of American "hardballing"
comes from international negotiations over the liberalising of trade
in education services. The U.S has taken an aggressive position in
demanding access to educational markets abroad. If Canada acquiesced,
there would be subsequent little domestic control over most aspects
of public education at the postsecondary level. At a recent OECD conference
on trade in education services, I expressed a Canadian view, sharing
the podium with the representative of the U.S. on this issue. The
American representative thought it humorous to declare at the conference
that "taking over Canada" was the real agenda behind U.S.
positions favouring opening up trade in education. To her surprise,
no-one in the Tokyo audience laughed at this joke. But the mere fact
of such gross insensitivity about perceptions of foreigners about
American intentions speaks volumes about our chances of defending
our interests and values by a series of indecent compromises with
such a neighbour. I have no doubt that the sight of Canadian soldiers
attacking Iraqis would not diminish one iota American determination
to penetrate Canadian public education.
Let us then be mature enough not to complain and cry over realities.
One reality is that American aggressiveness in pursuit of their perceived
interests will continue on all fronts, no matter what our response
on any particular file. Another is that aggressiveness will become
intimidation over issues that they believe to be crucial. A third
reality is that compliance with their demands will undermine our own
values and belief systems. This would inevitably have the effect of
making us more like them, and therefore ultimately unable and unwilling
to resist.
Some Canadian business interests believe that compliance is necessary
in defence of their U.S. markets. This is understandable. But for
the majority of Canadians, it is an inverted logic. It is the logic
of integration, the logic of total intellectual and ideological assimilation,
the inevitability of cessation of Canadian values. Without independent
thought and action, what would then be the point — indeed the
chances — of preserving such a country?
If we are to maintain integrity and a degree of independence, we must
motivate ourselves in every way to expand our horizons beyond North
America. Let us steel ourselves to resist intimidation and find innovative
means to promote our interests in trade and business.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cappon is an educator and physician, and a member of Physicians
for Global Survival.
|
