May 26, 2003
The cover story in Canada’s May 26 edition of TIME magazine is entitled: "Where has Canada gone?" The sub headline tells it all: "The world’s second largest country is being swallowed up by its own irrelevance. TIME investigates Canada’s disappearance."
The article begins by describing the HMCS Iroquois setting off for the Persian Gulf, only to turn back when an aging Sea King helicopter crashed on its deck. The cover story then goes on to describe Canada’s decline by discussing the reduction in military spending, foreign policy, and diplomacy. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is mildly criticized for being "loathe to lead," and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper is quoted as saying that "This government has a fundamental problem of not articulating its national interests, so that others can predict Canada’s behaviour."
TIME’’s article, unlike the Sea King helicopter mentioned in the article’s lead, misses the boat. Although the piece does at one point acknowledge that much of the reason for Canada’s decline in the world "is the result of conscious policy decisions made in Ottawa", the article seems to be suggesting that we are where we are because we are adrift; led by a Prime Minister who is unable, or unwilling, to lead.
Not once in the cover story article did TIME ever mention the United Nations. How an article can be written about Canada’s place in the world without mentioning the U.N. is truly staggering. The governing Liberals were not adrift when the subject of war with Iraq was first raised. To wails of "sovereignty, sovereignty," the government made a conscious decision to surrender decision making to the world body. That’s the reason for Chrétien’s flip flop on the issue of whether or not Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force or a further resolution was needed. The fact was that although the Prime Minister was somewhat vague in enunciating his policies about Iraq, it was always clear that Canada would join the fight if sanctioned by the United Nations. What TIME seems to see as bad decisions, or bumbling and stumbling, was merely a conscious decision to follow the United Nations.
Many Canadians derided U.S. President George W. Bush for his simplistic "us against them" view of the world. Simplistic or not, it became a reality, and Canada chose the United Nations over the United States, Britain, and Australia, our traditional allies. That conscious decision has led to Canada’s diminished role in the world.
Having made the decision to reject Canada’s traditional allies, Chrétien allowed the anti-Americanism of his caucus, always simmering near the surface, to come out. Chrétien was silent when his former communications director referred to President Bush as " a moron." He was silent when Minister Herb Dhaliwal referred to Bush as a failed statesman. The Prime Minister’s silence was deafening when MP Carolyn Parrish referred to all Americans as "bastards," and then appeared on Open Mike with Mike Bullard to laugh about it, and garnered applause for her anti-Americanism as she smirked and said that she can’t say that she wouldn’t do it again. TIME doesn’t mention any of this childish behaviour, nor does it mention the Prime Minister’s deafening silence in response as having anything to do with the Canada’s place in the world.
Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is quoted by TIME as saying that one of Canada’s basic goals is "trying to create a sense of social justice in the world community that involves a pluralistic system where all races and nationalities can come together." Graham goes on to say that Canada has not declined, but that other countries have gone up.
What Graham is saying, when his leftist gobbledegook is deciphered, is that all cultures (i.e. countries) are equal. Canada has no culture--our culture is everyone else’s culture. When Stephen Harper talks about Canada’s national interests, it’s not that Chrétien doesn’t clearly set out what they are--it’s that we don’t have any. Our interests are the world’s interests.
So, as TIME asks--where has Canada gone? Canada’s gone exactly where the Chrétien Liberals wanted to take it.