"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
Dickens' famous opening line from A Tale of Two Cities has special meaning today in the tale of two North American nations. The remarkable efficiency and finality of Canada's recent election compared to the fumbling, divisive uncertainty of the U.S. presidential election certainly reflects the best and worst.
The contrast is also significant because it suggests that there is an opportunity for positive Canadian leadership in 2001. Although the U.S. and Canada share a longstanding military partnership, it is far from equal. The U.S. military budget of $310-billion (U.S.) dwarfs Canada's approximately $8-billion (U.S.) expenditure. The United States dominates the security relationship in both NORAD and NATO. It is difficult to recall any issue on which Canadian counsel recently carried significant weight in shaping U.S. security policies and programs.
Now, however, there has never been a better time for a clear and reasoned Canadian voice to be heard and heeded in Washington.
President-elect George W. Bush is a man with absolutely no experience in international security affairs. In one of the very few comments he offered on military matters during the election campaign he took contradictory positions favoring "a robust National Missile Defense system" while advocating deep reductions in strategic nuclear weapons. The first action would require abrogation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an action which Russia and China have both warned would stimulate an increase in strategic weapons, not a reduction.
Canada has already demonstrated that it is capable of positive leadership on security issues by bringing about the valuable Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Land Mines in December, 1997. Already ratified by more than 100 nations, the Convention came into force only 16 months after signature, a truly remarkable achievement in the field of arms control.
This week in Ottawa, Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chrétien joined with Russian President Vladimir Putin in reaffirming support for the 1972 ABM treaty and expressing fears about the destabilizing potential of the U.S. missile defence plans.
Good. As an indispensable NORAD partner, Canada should oppose this unwise threat to global nuclear stability. The U.S. needs Canada's support to pursue its program. This gives Canada the leverage to have its views carefully considered.
Canada's voice will also reinforce criticism leveled by many of our NATO allies. It is easy for the U.S. to dismiss complaints from Russia and China about missile defence but much more difficult to ignore the concerns of its closest neighbour and other allies.
There is another issue about which Canada should voice its concern: Washington's insistence that it maintain dominance over European security affairs through NATO. The intemperate manifesto recently issued to the European Union by U.S. Secretary of Defense, Mr. William Cohen, was nothing less than a threat to withdraw U.S. support if the EU pursued plans to create an independent European security force.
Canada, as the other North American NATO member, should be pleased that the EU is actually showing a willingness to assume more responsibility for security in Europe and to do more of the "burden sharing" which the U.S. has always demanded. Firm Canadian advice to Mr. Bush would serve to warn him that U.S. insistence on dictating European security arrangements is wearing thin and will ultimately result in less North American influence in Europe, not more.
Down here in the southern 48 we have a saying that friends don't let friends drive drunk. Now is the time for our friends in Canada to tell a new president that the U.S. appears intoxicated with its role as the world's only superpower and it is time for a sober reassessment of critical policies that directly affect the security and well-being of Canadians.
Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll (ret) is director of the Center for Defence Information in Washington, D.C.
Copyright © 2000 Globe Interactive
###
