Wednesday, May 05, 2004
PM in America, or, Why Does Paul Martin Go to Washington?
There are days when Ottawa’s relations with Washington make it necessary for some Canadian official to travel to the United States to remind anyone who’ll listen that our two countries indeed have special ties. At times, those bonds are very extraordinary, arguably disturbingly so.
In the early-mid 1980s Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made certain that dealings with our southern neighbours would be understood as cordial. He invited then President Ronald Reagan to the Canadian capital and left the world with an image of the two facing-off on stage, serenading one another with choruses of Irish Eyes Are Smiling. After years of tensions, some type of reconciliation was warranted. Back in 1971 President Richard Nixon made known his disdain for the Canadian government by calling Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau “a pompous egghead,” and while official relations throughout that decade might have been proper, they were rarely warm.
And with this we arrive at the mystery that is the recent DC visit by sitting Prime Minister Paul Martin. Shortly after ousting Chretien in December 2003, Martin made it know he would restore, revitalize, reinvigorate the relationship with our continental cousins. Why he needed to do this might have had something to do with the personal disdain that Bush and Chretien held for one another. While it was an open secret the two couldn’t stand to be in the same room together, the acrimony didn’t really make a public appearance until late 2002. It was at the NATO summit in Prague, held back then, that the PM’s top aide, Francoise Ducros, called Bush “a moron.” At first, Chretien did nothing, allowing the remark made on 20 November 2002 to slide. Evidently the thinking was that while the slur was mouthed to a member of the press, it was uttered off the record, in confidence. About a week later Ducros tendered a letter of resignation, admitting her position had grown “untenable.” Damage done. But didn’t Chretien fix everything by rising to the President’s defense, allowing Ducros to leave her post and by calling Bush “a friend” who was “not a moron at all”? (quotes here appear in reports by the BBC, 26 November 2002. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2516939.stm)
Martin arrived in the US capital for his first public event on 29 April 2004. In his Woodrow Wilson Center speech he said that his predecessor’s decision to stand away from the military conflict in Iraq was not only defensible, it was the “right” thing to do, “and Canadians supported it.” He went on, stressing Canada would be active around the world, assisting in rebuilding “failing and failed states,” emphasizing the crucial role Ottawa could play in supporting “democratic governance”. Nowhere were Canada’s talents in greater need than in Iraq itself (for the full text of the Prime Minister’s speech see http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=192). The next day, when Martin met Bush, the affair went off without any friction. Bush, a gracious host, thanked Martin for Canada’s military support in several geo-political hotspots, mentioning Haiti and Afghanistan. He went on, observing that Canada was an independent nation with particular and distinct foreign policy interests and objectives. Various issues, from mad cow and the cattle trade to softwood lumber tariffs, were discussed with both leaders sounding optimistic solutions could be reached, but with no firm deadlines fixed. Martin reciprocated with generous rhetoric of his own, reiterating that Canada would not leave Iraq unattended, promising about $300 million for civilian reconstruction and pledging to forgive some $750 million in Iraqi loans. He also insisted Canada was dedicated to beefing up North American security with some $690 million in funding.
Other topics, from environmental policies to missile defense were discussed, but nothing seemed to get resolved. Perhaps the intention of the face-to-face was never to actually smooth out any outstanding issues. The objective, from Martin’s perspective, may have been to pay a courtesy call, but surely one that would raise the PM’s standing both at home and abroad. Yet if that had been the intent, how is one to explain why the event provided Martin with little, if any, public relations windfall? Why is it that within days of Martin returning to Ottawa any memory of the meeting appears to have been wiped off the collective Canadian consciousness? If any image endures, it is likely to be that of a relaxed Martin telling reporters he had conversations about baseball with the President, and was surprised to learn US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice knew so much about football and hockey. If at the very least the trip was supposed to be a way of gaining a better understanding of Washington politics, how is one to account for at least several electronic media images of Martin looking so distracted? Why did Bush seem diverted?
In fairness, Martin had and has an election to worry about, and polling day may come as early as 28 June 2004. If he wins a majority government, it is likely to be by the slimmest of margins. In addition to his own re-election worries, Bush needed to concentrate on testimonies, inquiries, terrorism, and the growing crises in and stemming from Iraq. There are more than a few factors that might explain why the leaders merely appeared to be going through motions, pro forma, meeting because both had penciled the date in their day planners. Just how Canada-US relations were served by this tete-a-tete remains the wide-open question.
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com
¶ 12:59 AM
There are days when Ottawa’s relations with Washington make it necessary for some Canadian official to travel to the United States to remind anyone who’ll listen that our two countries indeed have special ties. At times, those bonds are very extraordinary, arguably disturbingly so.
In the early-mid 1980s Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made certain that dealings with our southern neighbours would be understood as cordial. He invited then President Ronald Reagan to the Canadian capital and left the world with an image of the two facing-off on stage, serenading one another with choruses of Irish Eyes Are Smiling. After years of tensions, some type of reconciliation was warranted. Back in 1971 President Richard Nixon made known his disdain for the Canadian government by calling Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau “a pompous egghead,” and while official relations throughout that decade might have been proper, they were rarely warm.
And with this we arrive at the mystery that is the recent DC visit by sitting Prime Minister Paul Martin. Shortly after ousting Chretien in December 2003, Martin made it know he would restore, revitalize, reinvigorate the relationship with our continental cousins. Why he needed to do this might have had something to do with the personal disdain that Bush and Chretien held for one another. While it was an open secret the two couldn’t stand to be in the same room together, the acrimony didn’t really make a public appearance until late 2002. It was at the NATO summit in Prague, held back then, that the PM’s top aide, Francoise Ducros, called Bush “a moron.” At first, Chretien did nothing, allowing the remark made on 20 November 2002 to slide. Evidently the thinking was that while the slur was mouthed to a member of the press, it was uttered off the record, in confidence. About a week later Ducros tendered a letter of resignation, admitting her position had grown “untenable.” Damage done. But didn’t Chretien fix everything by rising to the President’s defense, allowing Ducros to leave her post and by calling Bush “a friend” who was “not a moron at all”? (quotes here appear in reports by the BBC, 26 November 2002. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2516939.stm)
Martin arrived in the US capital for his first public event on 29 April 2004. In his Woodrow Wilson Center speech he said that his predecessor’s decision to stand away from the military conflict in Iraq was not only defensible, it was the “right” thing to do, “and Canadians supported it.” He went on, stressing Canada would be active around the world, assisting in rebuilding “failing and failed states,” emphasizing the crucial role Ottawa could play in supporting “democratic governance”. Nowhere were Canada’s talents in greater need than in Iraq itself (for the full text of the Prime Minister’s speech see http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=192). The next day, when Martin met Bush, the affair went off without any friction. Bush, a gracious host, thanked Martin for Canada’s military support in several geo-political hotspots, mentioning Haiti and Afghanistan. He went on, observing that Canada was an independent nation with particular and distinct foreign policy interests and objectives. Various issues, from mad cow and the cattle trade to softwood lumber tariffs, were discussed with both leaders sounding optimistic solutions could be reached, but with no firm deadlines fixed. Martin reciprocated with generous rhetoric of his own, reiterating that Canada would not leave Iraq unattended, promising about $300 million for civilian reconstruction and pledging to forgive some $750 million in Iraqi loans. He also insisted Canada was dedicated to beefing up North American security with some $690 million in funding.
Other topics, from environmental policies to missile defense were discussed, but nothing seemed to get resolved. Perhaps the intention of the face-to-face was never to actually smooth out any outstanding issues. The objective, from Martin’s perspective, may have been to pay a courtesy call, but surely one that would raise the PM’s standing both at home and abroad. Yet if that had been the intent, how is one to explain why the event provided Martin with little, if any, public relations windfall? Why is it that within days of Martin returning to Ottawa any memory of the meeting appears to have been wiped off the collective Canadian consciousness? If any image endures, it is likely to be that of a relaxed Martin telling reporters he had conversations about baseball with the President, and was surprised to learn US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice knew so much about football and hockey. If at the very least the trip was supposed to be a way of gaining a better understanding of Washington politics, how is one to account for at least several electronic media images of Martin looking so distracted? Why did Bush seem diverted?
In fairness, Martin had and has an election to worry about, and polling day may come as early as 28 June 2004. If he wins a majority government, it is likely to be by the slimmest of margins. In addition to his own re-election worries, Bush needed to concentrate on testimonies, inquiries, terrorism, and the growing crises in and stemming from Iraq. There are more than a few factors that might explain why the leaders merely appeared to be going through motions, pro forma, meeting because both had penciled the date in their day planners. Just how Canada-US relations were served by this tete-a-tete remains the wide-open question.
Stan Markotich
Submit comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com
¶ 12:59 AM
