As an American who has lived in Canada for the past 20 years, I cannot help but notice a transformation in Canadian-U.S. relations.
This does not mean just the two governments, but the manner in which Canadians view their neighbors to the south. Probably every Canadian has relatives or friends in the United States.
There is no denying that the perception of the relationship was altered with the election of George Bush in 2000.
Canadians are less inclined to believe the information that comes from the Washington Beltway and the American media, less inclined to insist that their government join America in every military adventure.
Canadians opened their homes to every passenger who was stranded in Canada due to the events of Sept. 11. Yes, the government provided some assistance, but for the most part, it was average Canadians in their large or small communities who opened their doors and assisted.
Then we continued to hear U.S. officials and the media hammering away that Canada was the weak link of North American security, and that the hijackers had entered the United States through Canada, even after the evidence indicated that to be untrue.
In fact, the hijackers were living in the United States and several had been known to the FBI prior to the events of Sept. 11.
Rightly or not, Canadians want their intervention in a military conflict to be sanctioned through the United Nations. Since the election of George Bush, there has been a unilateral approach to military actions.
In the case of Iraq, there is the perception that the war was predetermined on or about Sept. 11, and that the State of the Union address listing Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "axis of evil" was laying the groundwork for military action.
The final piece of the project was the 2003 State of the Union address focusing on Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, a clever, cynical manipulation of the events of Sept. 11 to push Americans in a certain direction. Like the policeman who picks a suspect and then fits the evidence to that suspect, items that prove the suspect innocent are discarded.
It is known that, on Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discussed that the time might be right to attack Iraq.
A major claim in the State of the Union address was the attempt by Iraq to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger. It was one of the main selling points in the run-up to the war. Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom followed in line, and even today still insists the information was correct.
Of course, it was always known to be false.
A former U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wilson, was sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate, and sent a report to Cheney's office months before the address.
Today, even the president admits it never happened, but no one in the administration can remember how or, more importantly, who placed it in the address.
The new claim is that it was really not that important, for there were other reasons to go to war. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer claims that, after the address, the Niger issue was never put forward by the administration again. This is untrue. Dick Cheney hit the talk show circuit and Congress to discuss the nuclear weapons program of Iraq.
The question that Canadians are asking is: If the United States and Great Britain could not give Hans Blix and the UN inspection team more time, why are Bush and Blair stating that it may take a year to find the material? What happened to the 30,000 warheads, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 tons of botulism material, 1.4 tons of VX nerve agent, the 12-20 Scuds that were poised to be fired?
In congressional testimony, Rumsfeld now claims weapons of mass destruction were not the reason for the war. The events of Sept. 11 were the major factor.
The U.S. and U.K. administrations are spinning and "revising history." Bush and Blair claim that those against the war and some media -- notably the BBC -- are "revising history." But in reality, they are attempting to be the "revisers" for their own political survival.
President Bush, on May 1, strutted onto the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, announcing that the war was over. His famous "bring 'em on" statement has meant the death and wounding of many more in Iraq. He now admits there is a "security problem" in Iraq.
The search has begun to find other nations to replace American and British troops. Even Honduras and Nicaragua have been approached. There are not many nations in the "coalition of the willing."
Poland is one. In December, the Polish Air Force was awarded a large fleet of F-16 aircraft, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
In recent polls, Canadians in majority numbers now feel that the government was correct in not becoming involved in Iraq.
Canada is sending 1,800 troops back to Afghanistan, but the public perceives this as a legal operation under the UN. However, the Canadian majority and the government do not want to become involved in Iraq.
It is perceived that, now that the financial and human cost is climbing, the United States and Great Britain are only interested in backing out of a war that had no justification in the first place.
Probably the event that was the watershed for U.S.-Canadian relations was the "Friendly Fire" deaths of four Canadians in Afghanistan in 2002.
The Canadian public hoped that the two U.S. pilots would be convicted of a serious offense.
With the charges being reduced and a realization that justice was not done, many in Canada do not trust the U.S. military to do the right thing. The issue of pilots flying with large amounts of "speed" in their systems is something the military does not want discussed in the open forum of a trial.
Canadians are reserved, but ask any about becoming involved in American operations, and the answer will be no.
The United States is perceived as a nation with a shoot-first mentality and an administration that cares only about its own political fortunes. An administration that has no exit strategy for Afghanistan or Iraq, and that plays the Sept. 11 card of fear and paranoia whenever probing, embarrassing questions are asked. But one can only cry wolf a limited number of times, before it becomes suspect. That point may have been reached.
Canadians find more and more of their news on the BBC or the European news services, and what they see is a world totally different from the one portrayed south of the border.
Nightly, they see British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who went along for the ride and will probably be pushed out in the coming months. Even the members of his own Labor Party are digging, and they're finding that he was not honest in getting the British public to go to war. Over his head hangs the legal document that was signed to wage war on Iraq. One of the main points was the Iraq-Niger nuclear material transaction.
This week, his friend George Bush admitted it was false, and the blame is landing on Tony Blair. The time appears to have arrived when someone will have to be made the scapegoat and thrown overboard. The loyal Tony Blair may be the first to go.
Many more will follow.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | July 15 2003 |