Seeing Canada take such an independent position on the U.S. attack on Iraq was one of those events that leaves you feeling giddy with pride — and a little nauseous with apprehension.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion tells us that for every action, there is a corresponding action equal in magnitude, opposite in direction and along the same line of motion.Newton’s First Law of Liberal Foreign Policy suggests that for every Liberal foreign policy that smacks of independence from our neighbours to the south, there’s a corresponding policy waiting in the wings that will make the White House beam with delight.
So while I was pleased with the federal government’s decision not to join the so-called “coalition of the willing” (why does every one of these alliances end up sounding like they were named after a defunct long-distance calling plan?), I was also eyeing Ottawa news channels nervously — and waiting for Newton to kick in.
It sounds like my wait may be over. The Liberal cabinet is apparently ready to stamp that all-important “Approved by Dr. Strangebeaver” endorsement on the U.S. missile defence program.
The plan would defend North America from ballistic missile attack by transferring countless billions of tax dollars into the bank accounts of leading U.S. defence contractors investing in a high-tech grid of state-of-the-art leading-edge, um, stuff, to shoot down missiles before they reached their targets.
(The great thing about state-of-the-art technology is that it always works. Take your computer, for example. It never gives you any trouble, does it?)
The last time missile defence was in play was during the Reagan administration. Canada declined participation then, but now Paul Martin is pushing hard to get a piece of the action — sorry, to have Canada play its traditional and valued role in continental defence.
The decision could come as early as next week… puzzling, given that Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham is in the middle of a full-blown public consultation on foreign policy. Defence Minister John McCallum says “the geopolitics have changed radically” and, besides, in Paul Martin’s words, what’s to be gained from staying away from the table?
Only what we gained by staying away from the table a few months ago, when the menu was a war in Iraq: an independent foreign policy that reflects a Canadian perspective on the world.
But that, it seems, would be too much to ask for. It seems the left shoe can’t hit the floor without the right one landing soon after.
