Recent
commentary from Fox News on the G.W. Bush visit to Canada appears to have been written with the sole goal of being divisive and infuriating to Canadians, further separating us from our brothers and sisters to the south.
Interspersed liberally throughout the article are comments that seem to have been written solely to get a rise out of Canadians. These include:
"Here is a country which depends on America for 85% of its products for $1 billion a day in cross border trade..."
One of the most basic principles of economics is that free trade benefits both nations. However, the implication is made that by trading with us, Americans are doing us some kind of favor when, in reality, that favor goes both ways. Perhaps the underlying argument is that, if it weren't for the U.S., Canada would be an economic backwater. I'll resist the temptation to point out that, if Canada didn't export certain products, Americans may have trouble paying for
prescription drugs, turning on their
lights and perhaps one day, running
a bath.
Economic backwater, indeed.
"[A country that] depends on America to provide an audience for all those Canadian entertainers who would starve to death if they had to depend on a Canadian audience for their paychecks."
If we make the assumption that Canadians and Americans spend roughly the same amount on entertainment, and produce the same number of talented people per capita, then the exchange is roughly equal. So Canada produces fewer entertainers that each receive a larger proportion of revenue from the U.S., while the U.S. produces more entertainers, that each receive a smaller proportion of revenue from Canada. Summing up each nation's proportions and viewing it as per capita sponsorship, the two should be roughly equal.
So while the U.S. is responsible for getting Avril Lavigne out of Napanee, we helped J. Lo buy her new Porche.
I don't think either nation has the moral high ground on this issue.
"This is the country whose politicians called President Bush a moron, and referred to Americans as bastards, and refused to help in a war the U.S. wanted to fight — in fact, refuses to believe that the 9/11 attacks on America were unprovoked. The U.S. had it coming, they say."
That's definitely too broad of a stroke. We restricted our assistance to
Afghanistan and naval missions in the
Persian Gulf. However, we still have taken
casualties and made
sacrifices to help safeguard the security of our allies and ourselves. Canadian soldiers participated in the
invasion of Iraq, believe it or not.
"OK, OK... it's a minority which says all those things, but the minority is the elected politicians and the snooty condescending media."
After acknowledging that it is a minority of Canadians who are responsible for flip remarks and broad stroke complaints against the U.S., the article goes on to ask the final, all-encompassing question:
"Frankly, Canada, it's all a bit tiresome to us. Would you like us to just ignore you?"
In a way, I'm glad that this "article" was written. Despite being a gut reaction lacking hard evidence and reasonable conclusions, it helps highlight a key problem in the relations between the U.S. and Canada: the 'U.S. and Them' phenomenon. Perhaps remembered most vividly through the
comment: "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," the 'U.S. and Them' argument essentially states that if someone does not agree with our way of thinking, they're our enemy, and there can be no compromise.
An article like this will have one impact: to widen the gulf between Canadians and Americans. When did this gulf become unbridgeable? When did our respective countries start thinking, "That's it, there's no hope, they're just crazy" of one another? When did we lose the common ground that we shared, the same common ground that we used to help build the world's largest undefended border?
This article calls into question my own statements and mistakes. The times that I've used the blanket statement 'Americans' when I should've said 'current American foreign policy.' These aren't faceless 'others.' These are our friends. In the international equivalent of a neighborly argument over the placement of a lawn gnome, we've let this quibble get out of control.
Now, there's an icy silence across the fence, and no one wants to be the first person to say they're sorry. We need to close that gulf. We need to let our neighbours know that, just because we don't agree with certain aspects of what's going on, it doesn't mean that we're no longer friends and allies. We need to find common ground, and go from there.
Let's debate the policies, not the people. There's no denying that Bush makes a pretty tempting target. But if Americans had made fun of Chretien for his facial ticks and speech impediment, you'd better believe we'd have gotten our backs up pretty quick, whether or not we voted for him.
Let's acknowledge the fact that the policies aren't necessarily evil, but that they don't mesh with our values. Let's offer constructive criticism. Suggesting that we internationalize Iraq and build a viable, non-puppet democracy is bound to go over a lot better than suggesting we indict their President for war crimes.
There have been good things about this presidency. An interventionist foreign policy isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that it has broad support and a worthy mission. Could you imagine what
$148 billion could have done in
Haiti,
Sudan, and
Rwanda? We criticize the current President, but many of the current problems started on Clinton's watch. To criticize constructively, you first need to find something positive to build on. There's no denying this is going to be an uphill battle.
One look at the article, and you'll know that the author is clearly passionate about the subject. You can tell that his pride was stung. "We used to be buddies," the article seems to say, "Now you're saying I'm a dick. Well, I think you're the dick. Dick."
Someone needs to extend an olive branch, and find a place of mutual compromise.
It's possible that your goodwill may be met by a tirade against "
Soviet Canuckistan." But more likely, once the emotion is taken out of the debate, perhaps we'll have the chance to learn a bit more about what drives our Southernly friends. And perhaps they'll learn a little bit more about us and our wacky, non-preemptive ways in process.
Until then, I'm going to re-read the article, and dream of the day that Congress imposes sanctions on Avril Lavigne.
