David Warren: Something Rotting (Specifically, Canada, "at the back of our freezer")

The political genius of Jean Chrétien was for bluster. By refusing to acknowledge the law of contradiction in his public statements, the retiring prime minister was often able to straddle incompatible positions. A prime example was Iraq, where, over two years, he succeeded in preventing any lucid human being from discovering whether Canada supported the U.S.-led removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. To the last, his gift for muddling and confusing the most straightforward issues was on display.

When President Bush phoned to say his fare-thee-well, the issue naturally arose. According to the White House, Mr. Bush acknowledged that the exclusion of Canada from a list of 63 allies who could bid for U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction projects in Iraq was open to general discussion. It is extremely unlikely that, in the circumstances, Mr. Bush said anything else — for he has repeated the same message to the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and others who did not make the list.

Everything is political, even politics, and our new prime minister would be wise to read not only the messages from the Bush administration, but the tenor of U.S. public opinion. The amount of unhappy attention Canada has received on, for instance, Internet weblogs across the States, is an indication of the scale of our problem. We have joined France in the dungeon of U.S. public opinion (though in a slightly warmer cell). France itself is passing through a phase of soul-searching, as a glance at the Paris nonfiction bestseller lists will show. It should disturb us that nothing of that nature is happening up here. The idea that we might be unreliable allies, who have funked on our responsibilities towards the whole West, is not something that has yet occurred to us.

In Washington, my impression is that the senior statesmen in the administration and Congress can go weeks without thinking about Canada at all — which has been just as well, since 9/11/01. For when they do think of us, they do not have pleasant thoughts. Remarks such as those of Françoise Ducros, the prime ministerial aide who called the U.S. president a "moron" and was not immediately fired, have indeed penetrated. Canada's non-appearance in Iraq, beside our old allies Britain and Australia, was fully taken in. Our vain moral posturing on things like the Kyoto treaty and Guantanamo inmates has helped to rub the salt deeper.

There remains a certain reserve of seemingly inextinguishable goodwill, but it is based on events receding into the past, when Canada was a much different country. For the present and foreseeable future, the "special relationship" is gone, and Canada is looked upon across a considerable breadth of the U.S. political spectrum as an unreliable and irritatingly mouthy neighbour. Or, in the entirely off-the-record words of one of my Republican correspondents, "Something rotting at the back of our freezer."

Something rotting in the fact the bloody day late and a quid-short-nunc cannot -- now that his wickedstep-girlymandad won't let him plaster his room with poop any more -- get attention any other way than by obsessively-unecessarily excerpting newspaper pieces.

The political genius of Jean Chrietien was for bluster. By refusing to acknowledge the law of contradiction in his public statements, the retiring prime minister was often able to straddle incompatible positions. A prime example was Iraq, where, over two years, he succeeded in preventing any lucid human being from discovering whether Canada supported the U.S.-led removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. To the last, his gift for muddling and confusing the most straightforward issues was on display.

When President Bush phoned to say his fare-thee-well, the issue naturally arose. According to the White House, Mr. Bush acknowledged that the exclusion of Canada from a list of 63 allies who could bid for U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction projects in Iraq was open to general discussion. It is extremely unlikely that, in the circumstances, Mr. Bush said anything else -- for he has repeated the same message to the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and others who did not make the list.

But Mr. Chrétien then told the media about another conversation entirely. In his first version, Mr. Bush told him "not to worry", Canada wouldn't be blacklisted. Various among his aides struggled to explain this in various ways. Enterprising reporters ran these back to the White House press office, which did not budge from its own account of the conversation.

Later on Thursday, emerging from his final cabinet meeting, Mr. Chrétien's recollection of the chat had "evolved". He now said Mr. Bush had said that Mr. Bush "wasn't happy" Canada wasn't on the list; adding this characteristic gibberish: "He was to do what is needed to change it. What is the words? You know, 'I can fight with 20 guys in between.' It's what he said."

Paul Martin might wish to speak like that, but doesn't know how. Our new prime minister inherits a huge foreign policy problem: the Chrétienization of our relations with the hyperpower that occupies 100 per cent of our land frontiers, and upon whose goodwill our peace, freedom, and prosperity entirely depend. Mr. Martin has himself placed the improvement of this relationship among the several dozen "priorities" of his new government.

He is in a fix. His predecessor played to the anti-American gallery in his own Liberal Party and on the Canadian left, whenever he felt it was safe to do so. And Mr. Martin cannot now safely cease to play this game, without putting the support of that constituency at risk. Yet it is hardly in the Canadian national interest for him to do, in the present atmosphere, anything other than shamelessly appease the American giant.

Everything is political, even politics, and our new prime minister would be wise to read not only the messages from the Bush administration, but the tenor of U.S. public opinion. The amount of unhappy attention Canada has received on, for instance, Internet weblogs across the States, is an indication of the scale of our problem. We have joined France in the dungeon of U.S. public opinion (though in a slightly warmer cell). France itself is passing through a phase of soul-searching, as a glance at the Paris nonfiction bestseller lists will show. It should disturb us that nothing of that nature is happening up here. The idea that we might be unreliable allies, who have funked on our responsibilities towards the whole West, is not something that has yet occurred to us.

In Washington, my impression is that the senior statesmen in the administration and Congress can go weeks without thinking about Canada at all -- which has been just as well, since 9/11/01. For when they do think of us, they do not have pleasant thoughts. Remarks such as those of Françoise Ducros, the prime ministerial aide who called the U.S. president a "moron" and was not immediately fired, have indeed penetrated. Canada's non-appearance in Iraq, beside our old allies Britain and Australia, was fully taken in. Our vain moral posturing on things like the Kyoto treaty and Guantanamo inmates has helped to rub the salt deeper.

There remains a certain reserve of seemingly inextinguishable goodwill, but it is based on events receding into the past, when Canada was a much different country. For the present and foreseeable future, the "special relationship" is gone, and Canada is looked upon across a considerable breadth of the U.S. political spectrum as an unreliable and irritatingly mouthy neighbour. Or, in the entirely off-the-record words of one of my Republican correspondents, "Something rotting at the back of our freezer."

We make a great mistake on the other side if we assume the U.S. will retaliate against this. The U.S. pursues its national interest, as we pursue ours, and the Americans cannot benefit from making the relationship any more sour. But we are no longer trusted, and Mr. Martin is unlikely to find the political room -- given the leanings of the Canadian media and his own political constituency -- to restore that trust.

He can improve the relationship in minor ways, however, simply by resisting his predecessor's tendency to make incoherent rhetorical gestures. His formula should be: "If you can't say anything nice, shut up."

David Warren

Qebecois hate France as much as they hate England

Well. You're almost right. I guess one could say it's the thought that counts. At least you didn't turn around and try and beat the hell out of the Canadian Education System .

Wolfe defeated Montcalm in 1759 and the English garrisoned Quebec City . A French -Canadien army of about 4000 marched on Quebec City in the spring of 1760 and trounced the English garrison , who had marched out to meet the them , again , on the Plains of Abraham. They retreated back into Quebec City . Then both sides sat looking at each other and only when a warship arrived on the river was it settled. The ship was English . Had it been French the English would have surrendered .

The Treaty of Paris gave to England , Canada and everything east of the Mississippi and England promised to allow the Canadien their language and their religion. They swore allegiance to England and have done so ever since.

btw , They speak Quebecois and Joual , not French . And after almost 250 years they're as far removed from France as Americans are from England.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.