| Advertisement |
|
Local Guides
|
|
|
NEW CANADIAN–AMERICAN RELATIONS
|
by
Sarah Veale
January 15 - 21, 2009 |
|
After Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the
United States, one of the first foreign meetings he’ll take will be
with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
No doubt he and the PM will have much to discuss. Both
countries share similar problems: Fallout from a global economic
meltdown, a mutual interest in cross–border trade, and the war in
Afghanistan are just a few of the issues the two leaders will have
to hash out in order to ensure their partnership takes on a
congenial tone.
That Obama is making Canada a priority shows he’s open to
a stronger bi–lateral relationship than has been enjoyed in recent
memory. While Harper and Obama share some common ground,
they also have significant differences. Can they overcome them? It
depends. But for Canada’s sake, it’s crucial they do.
Canada and the U.S. do $1.7 billion worth of trade each day.
Tougher security measures at the border, however, have meant a
slow down in the flow of goods and services. (Carleton University
professor Fen Hampson estimates the ‘thicker border’ has upped
costs on goods and services crossing the border by two to three
per cent.)
It’s a wrinkle the government hopes will be ironed out by a
new administration. “That’s an area where we haven’t been able
to achieve what we had hoped, which has grave implications for
us because so much of the Canadian economy depends on
prompt access across the border,” says Robert Bothwell, a
Canada–U.S. relations expert at the University of Toronto. “From
what I can gather, the attitude of officials in Ottawa is hopeful
that [Homeland Security Secretary] Chertoff will be gone, and his
successor can’t be any worse than he is.”
Obama has nominated former Arizona Governor Janet
Napolitano to head up the department when leadership changes
hands on the 20th.
One area Harper and Obama may agree upon is the need to
resuscitate the floundering auto sector. Last year, Canada saw
13,000 auto sector employees lose their jobs, and the industry is
projected to hemorrhage another 15,000 in 2009, according to a
ScotiaBank analysis.
Both countries have put significant sums of money on the
table to bail out the industry, and Obama and Harper will likely
agree on strategy here, though observers say Obama is unlikely to
pursue a much different tack than the Bush administration did.
The auto sector is just one facet of the crumbling U.S.
economy, and it’s expected the Obama administration will cause
America to become more insular as it focuses on boosting
domestic employment numbers (and domestic dollars) through
infrastructure projects and “green collar” environmental jobs.
Any turning inward by the Americans is cause for concern, as
the U.S. is Canada’s largest foreign investor. “It will [effect the
Canadian economy]. There’s no doubt,” Bothwell says. However,
he points out that these things require planning, and writing a
blank cheque for a batch of new jobs isn’t as easy as it sounds;
the transition time alone could be enough to buffer any fallout.
“It’s not as if we or the Americans have a list of off–the–shelf
projects that we can just take down and they’ll be ready to go in,
let’s say, three, four, five months. That’s just not very likely.”
To combat Stateside navel gazing, Canada will try to
capitalize on its role as an energy superpower. As America’s
largest supplier of crude oil and natural gas, the Harper
government is likely to continue its pitch that Canada is a stable
energy vendor at a time when the U.S. is looking to wean itself off
Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil.
But it might not be so easy. The tar sands, which comprise
95 per cent of Canada’s oil resources, are frowned upon in
Washington: America has a ban on using fuels which produce
abnormally high amounts of greenhouse gasses for government
projects, such as the military or postal service.
“Canada remains for the U.S. the most important and most
secure source of energy,” Harper told a news conference shortly
after the U.S. election. He downplayed any threat to the tar sands,
which can require up to five times the amount of greenhouse
gasses to produce over regular oil.
Whether or not Obama will take a hard stance on the
environment — like Harper, he supports an emission reduction
plan independent of the Kyoto Accord — remains to be seen. The
tar sands are a political land mine both here, where it has a
mixed public response, and in the U.S.
“If Harper goes one way he runs the risk of offending some
large group of Canadians as well as being in a potentially difficult
position in the States,” Bothwell says. “He’s going to have to step
carefully.”
Another political landmine? Afghanistan. Those opposed to
the war will be watching the Obama administration closely.
Canada plans to pull its 2,500 troops out of the region in 2011,
while Obama plans to increase America’s military presence there.
A renewed approach to the war on terror could mean an extended
mission for Canada.
Obama could sway nay–sayers by reconfiguring Canada’s
participation to its more traditional peacekeeping or humanitarian
role. “Canadians’ attitudes towards the war are, to some extent,
conditioned by the fact that Canadians have absolutely no
confidence in the Bush administration,” Bothwell observes. Under
a softened Obama plan, he says, “Canadian attitudes on the war
may change.”
Outside of the issues, there is much speculation as to how
chummy Harper and Obama could get. Some see them as polar
opposites – Harper’s a hard–right conservative ideologue, while
Obama carries a messianic torch for the left. Realistically, the
characterizations are overblown: Obama tends to be a middle–of–
the–road progressive; Harper’s a big C conservative who governs
from the centre – or just to the right of it, anyways. So does this
mean Harper and Obama will be buddies? Confidantes?
Not very likely.
“Obama is obviously somebody who has disciplined his
emotions and his tongue and who does not speak in a way that
seems out of line or is, in fact, damaging or demeaning or lowers
the tone of public debate,” Bothwell says. In contrast, he takes the
Prime Minister to task for some of his unsavoury election
accusations and points the finger at the PM for the NAFTA leak
that meddled with last spring’s Democratic primaries. “I think it’s
quite possible for them to have a meeting of the minds on one
detail after another detail after another detail,” Bothwell says. “But
it’s highly improbable that Obama would ever phone up Harper
and ask for his impartial or enlightened advice; he’d probably
think that was the same as phoning Karl Rove.”
For Harper and Obama to have any sort of relationship, many
(including those close to Harper) observe it would be best for the
leaders to gel on a professional, not personal, level. Taking
Canada–U.S. relations one step at a time is probably Canada’s
best bet for achieving its agenda.
“The fact is, we’re below the radar,” Bothwell says. Despite
the high–profile visit, Canada remains, well, Canada. “We are
quiet and dozy and we have trees and bears. What was the big
headline in the New York Times this week about Canada? What
was the issue? It was Banff and how to ski in Banff.”
“It’s not necessarily a bad thing.” V
[SARAH VEALE]
|
Share on
 |
No comments yet... be the first! |
|
