A Canadian View: "Vive la Différence!" By David Halton

A Canadian View: "Vive la Différence!"

By David Halton

"Where is JFK or Ronald Reagan -- or even Bill Clinton -- when we need them?" That jocular comment by a Toronto assignment editor typifies a certain disinterest among Canadians in this year's presidential election campaign. Apart from a brief flurry of excitement over Sen. John McCain's former candidacy, desk editors north of the border have tended to steer their U.S. correspondents to other, non-election stories.

In some respects, their instincts may be sound. Neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush has impressed Canadians as particularly visionary or inspiring. Neither is regarded as posing any threat to a bilateral relationship that is now as harmonious and free of serious irritants as at any time in the history of the two countries. In short, many Canadians feel it simply doesn't matter a great deal which candidate wins.

But the fact that Campaign 2000 has stirred up less interest in Canada than previous U.S. elections does not mean that Canadians are completely neutral about the outcome. In a country where the political center of gravity is somewhat to the left of the U.S. mainstream, Canadians tend to be more sympathetic to Democratic candidates. (We could never quite fathom how the small-l "liberal" word could become a pejorative term in the American political lexicon!)

Republicans are generally seen as less in tune than Democrats with a Canadian political culture that defines itself by support for social programs and "progressive" values. A colleague memorably described Democrats as "less inclined to treat government like the enemy, execute people or insist on a prayer before the meal. In a word, they are more like us."

The Canadian foreign policy establishment takes a far more nuanced position and sees plusses and minuses in either a Gore or a Bush victory. On balance though, Ottawa tilts slightly in favor of the vice president if only because he is already well versed in U.S.-Canadian issues. The point was made by Raymond Chrétien, Canada's outgoing ambassador to the U.S., in a recent speech to senior Canadian civil servants. Walking to the edge of traditional diplomatic neutrality, Chrétien remarked that "We know Vice President Gore. He knows us. He's a friend of Canada."

While not suggesting that Governor Bush (who has never visited Canada) would be less friendly, Ambassador Chrétien noted that "when he thinks of borders, he thinks of Mexico, not of Canada. Obviously we have to work on him quite a lot." Chrétien's comments were a candid reflection of one of our constant concerns in Washington -- that issues relating to America's most important trading partner be given the priority they deserve.

The Liberal government in Ottawa may also have reason to feel more comfortable with U.S. global policy under a Gore administration. In some respects, the foreign policy agenda outlined by the vice president in Boston last spring echoes the "human security agenda" that Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy has been promoting so vigorously.

Both approaches stress multilateralism and and put less emphasis on the traditional nation-state concept. Canadian diplomats applauded Gore's promise of greater American reliance on "reinvigorated international and regional institutions." They cheered his pledge to give a new priority to global treaties on issues such as trans-border crime, disease, and global warming. As Canadian policy-makers see it, Gore would be more inclined than Bush to embrace the concept of "humanitarian intervention," and more sympathetic to U.N. peace-keeping efforts. Their hope is that he would also push to overcome Pentagon and congressional objections to the treaties banning landmines and establishing the International Criminal Court.

In contrast, there are fears in Ottawa that George Bush's foreign policy agenda would mesh less easily with Canadian priorities. While welcoming the governor's efforts to distance himself from isolationist tendencies in the Congress, Canadian U.S.-watchers are wary of his call for a "distinctly American internationalism." The phrase evokes old worries north of the border about the U.S. embracing "go-it-alone" policies -- worries that are reinforced by Bush's opposition to the Kyoto protocol on climate change and his willingness to scrap the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

A more pressing concern for the Canadian government is how the issue of national missile defense plays out in U.S. politics before and after the November election. At present, the administration's more limited program for the missile shield is seen as the lesser of two evils, compared to Bush's commitment to a more extensive and robust NMD, and his readiness to sacrifice the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But even in its more modest version, the NMD issue has kicked up a huge dilemma for Prime Minister Chrétien's government. Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy has publicly argued that unless Russia agrees to amend the ABM Treaty, deploying the missile shield would be a dangerous step towards a new global arms race. Others in the Chrétien cabinet, notably Defense Minister Art Eggleton, are more inclined to support the shield concept.

The quandary for Canada is the ramifications of missile defense for the North American Air Defense Command, the continental air defense agreement that is one of the crown jewels of the bilateral relationship. Under current Pentagon plans, NMD would be operated by the joint U.S.-Canadian command at NORAD headquarters in Colorado. If Canada decides for any reason not to sign on to NMD, experts on both sides of the border feel that the credibility of our participation in NORAD would be undermined. And, as Gordon Giffin, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has pointed out, "If that defense relationship erodes in a meaningful way, it could affect the fabric of the whole relationship." So sensitive is the issue, in fact, that both countries recently signed a renewal of the NORAD treaty a year ahead of schedule. Perhaps disingenuously, their hope was to avoid the treaty and NMD becoming the focus of debate in either the U.S. election or a Canadian one expected within a year. Biggest Trade Partner

If, on defense and foreign policy issues, Canadians would generally be more comfortable with a Gore victory, the same is not true with respect to the bilateral trade relationship. While the two major presidential candidates both define themselves as free traders, Bush is seen as less prone to protectionist pressures than a rival who is heavily dependent on the union vote. For a country that sells about 85 percent of its exports to the U.S., that is a crucial consideration. And even on the multilateral trade front, Ottawa sees plusses in a Bush presidency. It was disappointed by what it felt was the administration's lack of strong leadership at the WTO meeting in Seattle last year, and concerned that Gore would be less forceful than Bush in securing fast-track authority for hemispheric free trade -- a high priority for Canada.

Canadian policy-makers will also be keeping a close eye on this year's congressional elections. From the Helms-Burton law to border legislation, Capitol Hill initiatives have been a far greater source of friction between the U.S. and Canada than any initiative from the administration. The embassy here is less concerned with party affiliation than the fact that so many of the GOP power-brokers in Congress are Southerners with relatively little knowledge of the complex U.S.-Canada relationship.

Mention Lamar Smith's name to Canadian diplomats in Washington and their eyes tend to roll. Not because the Texas congressman isn't a thoroughly decent fellow, but because, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, he spearheaded legislation that would make all foreigners crossing the U.S.-Canada border subject to an entry-exit control system. Smith was apparently ignorant of the fact that 200 million people cross that border every year, and that his measure would cause mile-long traffic jams with a disastrous impact on trade and tourism between the two countries. It took several years of intense lobbying by Canada and its border-state allies to get Canadians exempted from the legislation.

The border battle was an almost classic example of the sometimes unintended consequences of congressional legislation passed with little regard for Canadian realities. It also underlined Canada's growing vulnerability to U.S. actions as its own economy becomes increasingly integrated with the American market. Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's oft-cited quip about the bilateral relationship has never seemed more apt : "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." Ottawa doesn't really expect the twitches and grunts to ease off whichever party controls the new Congress. It does hope the elephant won't roll over.

As for the general public in Canada, its interest in Campaign 2000 will probably only perk up sometime after the last innings of the World Series. Apart from the inevitable focus on Hillary Clinton's Senate bid, Canadian media coverage of the campaign has been sparse. One of the few exceptions is the considerable media attention devoted to the U.S electoral process, widely seen as deeply flawed. It is a topic that elicits a certain self-congratulatory smugness among Canadians. We find it hard to understand why American campaigns have to be so numbingly long when our parliamentary campaigns last less than six weeks. But the real source of bafflement (and some disgust) north of the 49th Parallel is the election spending spree in the U.S. Canadian news reports have contrasted the estimated $3 billion that will be spent on the presidential and congressional races with the total of $50 million spent in Canada during the 1997 election campaign. Under our strictly regulated campaign financing laws, a candidate's expenses are limited to an average of $40,000. Add up what all our candidates spend together, and it is less than what a Jon Corzine or Hillary Clinton has already spent to win just one Senate seat!

Oh, we may look enviously at your lower taxes, but we still say "Vive la différence!" David Halton is the senior Washington correspondent for Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Television News.