How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?

[BluffTHIS!]

From this link (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-13T212902Z_01_YUE369406_RTRUKOC_0_US-POLITICS-USA.xml&rpc=22) here is an excerpt:

The United States made an unprecedented foray into Canada's election campaign on Tuesday, warning politicians not to bash Washington in their bid to win the January 23 election.

But an unapologetic Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin responded immediately by saying "c'est la vie" -- that's life -- if the United States did not like his remarks, and he would not accept anyone telling him he cannot defend his country.

In a hard-hitting speech in Ottawa, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins lamented what he called relentless and incessant criticism of his country, which he speculated might begin to sow doubt about the strength of the binational relationship.

"Canada never has to tear the United States down to build itself up," Wilkins said.

"It may be smart election politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it's a slippery slope and all of us should hope it doesn't have a long-term impact on our relationship."

Wilkins did not name the prime minister directly, but he specifically targeted a comment made last week at the Montreal climate change conference in which Martin called on the United States to heed a "global conscience" and join efforts to combat global warming.

That remark -- on top of criticism of U.S. policy on lumber, guns, passports and Iraq -- appeared to have riled the White House the most, particularly since Canada has a proportionally worse record than the United States on reining in greenhouse gas emissions.


This kind of thing just reinforces my view that although Canada is certainly a friend and ally, they really aren't nearly as good a friend as the UK. A good friend doesn't just support you when you are 100% right, is willing to watch your back in a fight, and also does not run you down to others, but rather reserving most criticism for private. Even though Canada is more liberal that the US, so is the UK. But regardless of which parties are in power in the US or UK at any time, they always view their friendship with each other as transcending such things.

On the scale of international friends, and not counting Israel, S. Korea and Taiwan who are defense dependents, I would rate the best friends of the US as follows, and a lot of this rating is derived from cooperation/participation in the war on terror and in NATO operations in the Balkans, (although that alone doesn't make a good friend and Canada has given some help in Afghanistan):

UK
Australia
Denmark
Italy
Poland
Philippines
Turkey


But hey, I guess you can say Canada is a better friend of the US than France. But then so is Uzbekistan. And New Zealand used to be on that list, but no longer.

To be fair though, I would imagine that if Canada were to split and not just Quebec left but also some of the eastern provinces, then the remainder consisting of the prarie and western provinces would probably be a good bud of the US and make it on my short list. But unfortunately it seems the francophile bias that drives so much of Canadian politics is the wedge.

So if those countries on that short list come to the US and ask for some help, then I want us to say what do you need and how much and how fast. But when Canada comes calling, I want us to say we'll have to think about it and compare it to our own selfish interests and viewpoints first, and after we have vented our opinion on it to the world. Same as Canada does.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
A good friend doesn't just support you when you are 100% right, is willing to watch your back in a fight, and also does not run you down to others, but rather reserving most criticism for private.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a friend, that's a puppy.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not a friend, that's a puppy.

[/ QUOTE ]

My description describes my close friends. And your comment is indicative of why Sweden doesn't have such friends, although you do like to hobnob with the French and make snide comments about the rest of the world together. Your two countries deserve each other.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Isn't it good that your allies point out that your current way of conducting foreign policy is unsustainable? It is not like i.e. we euros want to invade or bomb your country or something, we are just vocally pointing out that you are making big mistakes that if not corrected will hurt you the most.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

My description describes my close friends. And your comment is indicative of why Sweden doesn't have such friends

[/ QUOTE ]
No it isn't, it's indicative that you and I value very different things in a friendship

[BCPVP]

You seem to have become awfully belligerent recently...

Yeah, no [censored], put down the propaganda and read the long article on US/Canada relations in the Economist from two weeks ago. Then form an opinion after educating yourself a little bit.

If a friend treated me the way the US treats Canada with respect to trade agreements, I would find some new friends. Plus Hush Bimbo and Sean Vainity rip the [censored] out of Canada all the time.

Ann Coulter: "Canada is lucky we let them exist"

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4MN...anada&hl=en (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4MNHba3Oyb8J:mediamatters.org/items/200412010011+coulter+canada&hl=en)

The nerve of those nasty Canadians. Having their own opinions. First the Expos, now this.

What's next? They invent their own kind of bacon?

To me, the positions this administration takes towards our (soon to be former) friends around the world are an embarrassment.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Nations have no friends. They have interests." -- Bismarck.

"Britain has no permament friends nor permanent enemies. She has only permanent interests and we are serving Her Majesty by making sure those interests are properly served." -- Lord Palmerston.

...These words were spoken quite a lot of time ago. You seem to be stuck at an even earlier time. Better try 'n catch up.

[zipo]

>>Isn't it good that your allies point out that your current way of conducting foreign policy is unsustainable? <<

Wow. Our "foreign policy" is unsustainable? I can understand how there might be some disagreement about elements of US foreign policy, but this kind of blanket statement seems absurd.

Friends don't let friends kill innocent people.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If a friend treated me the way the US treats Canada with respect to trade agreements, I would find some new friends.

[/ QUOTE ]HAHAHA, yeah right. You serious???

[theweatherman]

The US and Canada have always had spats throughout history. Border disputes, and Indian issues have long been an issue between the US and our neighbor to the north.

Like it or not the US/Canadian border is the largest land border in hte world. This pretty much makes us partners for the long haul. Relations may chill or thaw but we will never be enemies with Canada. Whats the point?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
>>Isn't it good that your allies point out that your current way of conducting foreign policy is unsustainable? <<

Wow. Our "foreign policy" is unsustainable? I can understand how there might be some disagreement about elements of US foreign policy, but this kind of blanket statement seems absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda, and thus conducting it in a way tht creates anti-US sentiment makes it doomed to fail.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
>>Isn't it good that your allies point out that your current way of conducting foreign policy is unsustainable? <<

Wow. Our "foreign policy" is unsustainable? I can understand how there might be some disagreement about elements of US foreign policy, but this kind of blanket statement seems absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda, and thus conducting it in a way tht creates anti-US sentiment makes it doomed to fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll show you whose powerful enough to do stuff! The US agenda will never "fail" it will simply be modified to a sucessful version. This is obviously failure to most, but politically speaking its not.

And your right, the US hegemony will not last long if we insist on pissing away resources in long winded wars of imperialism.

[Peter666]

I don't like nationalism. Philosophical positions such as leftwing versus right wing transcend national boundaries. Although it is fun to make fun of each other as cultures, when we are talking about serious political topics, nationalism just leads to things like WWI. Prime Minister Martin does not speak for every Canadian just like President Bush does not speak for every American.

I still say we get rid of borders and create countries based on philosphical positions rather than territorial boundaries.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
The US agenda will never "fail" it will simply be modified to a sucessful version.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a history of managing that, so I don't doubt it will happen again. This whole debacle is probably the natural beginning of that process, it most certainly needs new politicians though to remove the pride factor.

[zipo]

>>It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda<<

Specifically, what "agenda" are you referring to? Your previous comment addressed the totality of US foreign policy.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
>>It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda<<

Specifically, what "agenda" are you referring to? Your previous comment addressed the totality of US foreign policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am not backpedalling /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I meant what I wrote then. The cumulative level of ambition is higher than resources available (creating stability in the Middle East, financing global antiterror operations, balancing China in Asia etc.).

[zipo]

Well, my point is that US foreign policy is complex and multidimensional, consisting of many 'agendas' - and in fact there are tensions between constituencies/agencies within American institutions that govern foreign policy (e.g. the Pentagon, the White House, the State department, the FTC, the Fed, etc.)

And there is hardly a monolithic "agenda" or central issue that overrides or dominates all elements of the vast enterprise that constitues the totality of "US foreign policy" which you condemned as "unsustainable".

Now if you want to take issue with specific aspects of US foreign policy (e.g. democratizing the middle east)that's one thing. But blanket condemnation is simply unreasonable.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
But blanket condemnation is simply unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not condemning everything, just some major parts but they are major enough to condemn the totality.

[zipo]

>>but they are major enough to condemn the totality.<<

Well, at least you clarified your position unambiguously.

Black and white thinking, though. Which is funny, because that's one of the prime accusations leveled at the Bush administration by its critics.

Mirror images.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif


/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
It is not black and white-thinking. Foreign policy is all about totality and if I don't like the totality I say so. That doesn't mean I don't think it is good that the US tries to capture Balkan war criminals etc..

[zipo]

>>Foreign policy is all about totality<<f

Again, proving my point.

[CORed]

The U.S. has no friends. thank you George W. Bush.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. has no friends. thank you George W. Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]thank you, but is has already been established that no country has friends.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. has no friends. thank you George W. Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]thank you, but is has already been established that no country has friends except for luxemburg, you're so cute .

[/ QUOTE ]

And your comment is indicative of why Sweden doesn't have such friends

Explain.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And your comment is indicative of why Sweden doesn't have such friends

Explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he doesn't realize what true friendship on the international scale means. Sweden throughout the cold war refused to join NATO, although it was always "assumed" that in the event of war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact that they would come in under NATO. Thus they sought the protection of NATO in the actual event of a war that might threaten them, but refused to shoulder the financial and strategic responsibilities of membership until then. Only now in order to benefit from full membership in the EU has Sweden anlong with Finland, agreed to join in the EU miltary plan to deploy a number of battle groups by 2007.

Plus if you look to history, Sweden as well as Finalnd was a soft ally of Nazi Germany in WWII like Spain was. So how good of a neighbor were they to their fellow Scandinavian countries who bore the harsh brunt of Nazi occupation?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The US and Canada have always had spats throughout history. Border disputes, and Indian issues have long been an issue between the US and our neighbor to the north.

Like it or not the US/Canadian border is the largest land border in hte world. This pretty much makes us partners for the long haul. Relations may chill or thaw but we will never be enemies with Canada. Whats the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that Canada cannot be counted on in the international arena, not to be an uncritical sycophantic ally of the US, but to be an ally willing to stand up to terrorism and rogue nations before those threats become even larger. And although true that we will always have various disagreements, they don't need to be fodder for each other's election campaigns to provide cute soundbites.

A lot of the anti-US Canadian attitudes seem to originate in Quebec, which is kowtowed to by the other eastern provinces too much, even in the opinion of at least one Canadian poster here in a recent thread. The real comeuppance will be one day if the rest of Canada has the balls to stop appeasing Quebec and just tells them to go their merry way if they want to and try to make it on their own. And that Quebec will be no real friend of the US and could expect no favored treatment on any issues.

[tolbiny]

"I still say we get rid of borders and create countries based on philosphical positions rather than territorial boundaries."

Yeah, that would work much, much better.

Sarcasm off.