-US RELATIONS: THE RISK OF COMPLACENCY, THE NEED FOR ENGAGEMENT

Derek H. Burney

The transfer of power from one prime minister to the next affords an overdue opportunity for Canada to re-engage its most important relationship — that with the — suggests Canada’s former ambassador to Washington. A lack of engagement with the US leads only to irrelevance in Washington, writes Derek Burney. Beyond managing the bilateral relationship, a key goal of Canadian foreign policy has always been to encourage the US to pursue multilateral objectives — at the UN, in NATO and elsewhere — that serve Canada’s purpose as well as their own. The number of issues that need to be constructively addressed range from missile defence and North American security to the environment and global warming, to say nothing of the world’s biggest trading partnership. “We ignore a systematic and broadly based network of engagement with the Americans at our peril,” he warns. Nothing, he adds, “could be more damaging” to Canada’s relations with the US “than the absence of engagement and the silence of irrelevance.”

L’arrivée au pouvoir d’un nouveau premier ministre offre au Canada l’occasion longtemps attendue de raffermir son engagement vis-à-vis de son principal allié, soutient Derek Burney, ancien ambassadeur du Canada à Washington. Tout manquement à cet engagement ne fait qu’éroder notre influence auprès des États- Unis. Au-delà de cette relation bilatérale, notre politique étrangère a toujours eu pour but d’inciter les Américains à poursuivre des objectifs multilatéraux — à l’ONU, au sein de l’OTAN ou ailleurs — qui servent nos intérêts autant que les leurs. Nombre de questions doivent aujourd’hui être réexaminées sous un angle constructif, de la sécurité à la défense antimissiles de l’Amérique du Nord en passant par l’environnement et le réchauffement planétaire, sans parler du tout premier partenariat commercial au monde. C’est à nos risques et périls que nous nous permettons d’ignorer une alliance de cette ampleur et de cette diversité, prévient l’auteur. Et rien ne nous serait plus dommageable qu’un désengagement qui amoindrirait encore notre influence.

hen I served as Canada’s ambassador to the The recent disagreement over Iraq, the hassles over mad United States, I learned very quickly that I had cow disease and wheat and the seemingly perpetual dispute W about 30 million advisors at my disposal on any over softwood lumber have stimulated a good deal of con- given day. Almost every Canadian has a view on how to cern in Canada about how effectively we are managing this manage our relations with the US. Some have very strong pervasive relationship. On top of all these, the major power views. Consensus is seldom apparent. blackout last August simply confirmed that a combination I tend to think that most Canadians want to have a of complacency and neglect by both countries can cause good relationship with the US, although the definition real damage to each. of “good” can be open to debate. Most recognize the Neglect of Canada is a chronic condition in America. importance of the US to Canada in virtually all fields of However, it is an attitude that does little damage to US inter- endeavour. Some resent it, even if they understand it. ests. And benign neglect of Canada by Washington is not nec- This can be tricky terrain for diplomats, trickier still for essarily all that bad for us. The hard reality — and often the our political leaders. most difficult reality for us to stomach — is that the reverse is

46 OPTIONS POLITIQUES DÉCEMBRE 2003 – JANVIER 2004 Derek H. Burney not the case. If we neglect the effort of Nothing, in my view, could be larly, but not exclusively, in Canada, engagement and avoid raising Canada’s more damaging to Canadian interests about potential sacrifices of sovereignty. profile and concerns forcefully and con- in the US than the absence of engage- We faced these sensitivities on the sistently with the US, we pay a dispro- ment and the silence of irrelevance. We FTA, less so on NAFTA. portionate price. That is one reason need access and leverage in order to The answers are straightforward. why there is no easy prescription for have influence in Washington and we There is definite merit in agreements managing this relationship. have to work at it consistently so that it which allow for greater certainty and Another factor is that the locus of can deliver dividends when needed. enable a free flow of goods, services and power in Washington can be elusive, depending on the Nothing could be more damaging to Canadian interests in issue. We may think that the the US than the absence of engagement and the silence of American president is all- powerful — and he certainly irrelevance. We need access and leverage in order to have has an awesome amount of influence in Washington and we have to work at it military power at his disposal consistently so that it can deliver dividends when needed. — but the unique system of checks and balances in the US helps By the way, I am not suggesting people across our common border. decentralize, if not blur, many vestiges that the problems today are solely Open and assured access to the US mar- of political power. And, what works to because of what Canada has done or ket is vital to Canadian competitiveness solve one problem will not work for not done. Nor, am I suggesting that we and to the increases in national income all. We have to build different coali- need to “go along” at all times in order we need in order to finance our stan- tions of support systematically, issue to “get along.” Those perceptions are dard of living and our quality of life. by issue. The White House may help as false as they are flimsy. Our rela- As the much smaller partner, but it cannot always get its way. tionship is too complex and too Canada obviously has a greater need A Canadian prime minister, on the sophisticated, frankly, to lend itself to for the clarity and certainty of rules of other hand, has political power, day in simple, cure-all solutions or “end of law rather than the rule of might or day out, even without much of the the world” paroxysms. the mighty. I see agreements which military variety. A prime minister can I believe, too, that our distinct sense help neutralize the distinct power make decisions and he can make a dif- of being Canadian can be defined by imbalance between us as assertions of ference on domestic or foreign policy more than a catalogue of how we differ sovereignty in the sense that they can if and when he chooses to exercise his from Americans or by rhetorical claims safeguard genuine Canadian interests. power. That is why the attitude and of “independence” in foreign policy. By Distance or complacency simply tone of prime ministerial pronounce- assigning a healthier priority to the rela- makes us more vulnerable and, I would ments do resonate in American power tionship, we would not be signalling an contend, less sovereign. It definitely circles. They know he has the power to endorsement or compliance with all does not help resolve disputes. lead and that his attitude “rules.” things American. Rather, we would be Do not accept the notion that we Managing this relationship can be establishing a basis from which we can are unable to negotiate even-handed frustrating and is always difficult. assert and defend Canadian interests agreements with the Americans. We Whether in the administration, the where they are paramount. may not play hardball, but we can play Congress or individual states, Americans I have no illusions about the hockey — Gordie Howe-style, elbows can be tough to deal with. They play degree of political will in Canada for up in the corners, when necessary. hardball. They have their own priorities, such an initiative. Nor do I sense any More to the point, as Mike Pearson their own concerns and very much their urgent desire in Washington to give wrote in his memoirs: own view of the world, especially these new priority to relations with Canada. The picture of weak and timid days. We may speak the same language Like it or not, however, the lead will Canadian negotiators being but they are number one in the world have to come from Canada. pushed around and browbeaten and they know it. We are not and we Canadian political leaders, for the by American representatives into know that, too. most part, can be reluctant to take on settlements that were “sell outs” But my basic point is that we major initiatives with the US primarily is a false and distorted one. It is ignore a systematic, coordinated and because there is more to lose than to gain often painted, however, by broadly based network of engage- in terms of domestic public approval. Canadians who think that a sure ment with the Americans at our I am also well aware that, when way to get applause and support peril. Injecting intemperate remarks anyone suggests any new way to har- at home is to exploit our anxi- from the sidelines only makes mat- ness our proximity to our mutual eties and exaggerate our suspi- ters worse. advantage, suspicions emerge, particu- cions over US power and policies.

POLICY OPTIONS 47 DECEMBER 2003 – JANUARY 2004 Derek H. Burney

Kate Grumbacher, Canadian Embassy A window on Washington: The United States Capitol viewed through the ambassador’s sixth floor dining room at the Canadian Embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue. Derek Burney, former ambassador to the US, suggests Canada faces a choice between engagement and irrelevance with the US; either on the Washington radar screen or off it.

George Schultz, a very successful help protect and advance Canadian monized, or at least common, proce- secretary of state under President interests where they count most. dures to handle immigration and Reagan, used to say that good man- First and foremost, assuming that refugee policies, balancing our individ- agement of the Canada-US relation- security remains Washington’s priority ual needs with our mutual desire for ship was like good gardening. It concern for some time to come — as I greater physical security. required regular weeding and consis- am certain it will — there is a chance There is no question but that tent attention or the crop would suf- that a fresh proposal from Canada indi- Canada should do more on defence in fer. And it needed more than one cating our readiness to participate order to participate more effectively in hand on the hoe. more tangibly in North American secu- preserving its own national security. There will never be a dispute-free rity and command structures might That is, after all, the ultimate assertion nirvana in this relationship. But, if we attract interest, if not attention, in of sovereignty. When combined with are prepared to shift from complacency Washington. This could involve new an enhanced intelligence effort, it to engagement, changing both the levels of cooperation and commitment would send a strong signal that tone and the priority of our relation- and new institutions, enabling stronger Canada recognizes the global terrorist ship, there is definitely scope for new defence, intelligence and police coop- threat as real and continuing. It is also avenues of cooperation that would eration. It might include, as well, har- a matter of morality and ethics. If we

48 OPTIONS POLITIQUES DÉCEMBRE 2003 – JANVIER 2004 Canada-US relations: the risk of complacency — the need for engagement are unwilling to provide our soldiers ible, especially when our opinion dif- critical that we play them with more with proper equipment, we should not fers, we need to have established a finesse in future. place them in harm’s way. Instead, we track record of performance and an Closer cooperation on physical should increase defence spending in atmosphere of mutual trust and confi- security should be matched by an equally ambitious agenda We tend to take the US security blanket so much for granted on the economic front, that we neglect commitments to our own defence capability beginning with an urgent, and sidestep hard choices on continental security. If we high-level focus on improv- ing and safeguarding our choose to leave our security to the Americans, remember not shared electricity transmis- to complain if they choose to plan and act in a manner that sion facilities. serves their interests exclusively. I wonder how many Canadians, or Americans the next budget and, just as impor- dence. To be taken seriously when we for that matter, knew before mid- tantly, spend those increased resources counsel patience (or inaction), we August just how mutually dependent in a way that enables our armed forces need a capacity to act. Otherwise, our we are on the transmission of electric- to be a more effective instrument of motives could be dismissed as merely ity. In a sense, this blackout was sym- Canadian security and Canadian for- avoiding the cost and controversy of bolic of the extent to which we both eign policy. involvement. We also need to convey take matters for granted, at least until our differences in a manner that there is a breakdown. Then the finger rocrastination on issues like missile respects honest differences. We can pointing begins. P defence does not help. It is always disagree, as the saying goes, without As the Wall Street Journal observed easier to abstain or postpone on tough being disagreeable. at the time “markets are a great way to issues than to take a stand, even more We tried to find some middle organize economic activity but they expedient politically in the short term. ground at the UN on Iraq before the need adult supervision.” But does avoidance strengthen our sov- war. That did not work. We should be The saddest fact of all is that, more ereignty? We faced that kind of choice trying now to contribute constructive- months after the event, there was still on the issue of cruise missile tests years ly to the aftermath of war, avoiding no clear consensus on why or what ago. If missiles are some day targeted at the moralizing tone which once happened. North America, should we not seek to prompted Dean Acheson to describe I suggest that we take this episode participate constructively in measures Canada as “the stern voice of the as a wake-up call for “adult supervi- intended to divert them from Canadian daughter of God.” Above all, we sion,” one that underscores the need as well as American cities? should resist the easy tendency of let- to clarify not just what went wrong Significantly, Japan, despite con- ting the US stew alone now as the situ- and why, but what is required to stitutional constraints on its military ation worsens in Iraq. ensure that our transmission grid is capability, is planning to launch a bil- bolstered and monitored to meet the lion dollar missile defence system of its nfortunately, our significant role challenges of our new century. It was own. Perhaps, if was our U in Afghanistan — along with that an accident, we think, but just imagine neighbour, we too might be so of our navy in the Persian Gulf — if it had been planned. inclined. We tend to take the US Unfortunately, our significant role in Afghanistan — along security blanket so much with that of our navy in the Persian Gulf — seems to have for granted that we neglect been lost in the shuffle. We receive little credit in Washington commitments to our own defence capability and side- for what we are doing, but criticism or “disappointment” for step hard choices on conti- what we did not do. Given that we have very few military nental security. If we cards to play, I suggest that it is critical that we play them choose to leave our security with more finesse in future. to the Americans, remem- ber not to complain if they choose to seems to have been lost in the shuffle. The jungle of jurisdictional over- plan and act in a manner that serves We receive little credit in Washington lap — private versus public — state their interests exclusively. for what we are doing, but criticism or versus state, province versus province I am not suggesting that we move “disappointment” for what we did not and country versus country — is in lock step with the US on security or do. Given that we have very few mili- daunting and can easily thwart the other issues of the day. But, to be cred- tary cards to play, I suggest that it is best of intentions. Everyone wants a

POLICY OPTIONS 49 DECEMBER 2003 – JANUARY 2004 Derek H. Burney

say; no one wants to pay. Why not North American economies. Does any- attitudes among officials on both sides start with a joint commitment from one seriously believe we can, or of the border. the highest levels of both governments should, move on this issue responsibly The precipitous drop in US manu- to ensure that the North American grid without US involvement? Or for that facturing jobs will probably only make is upgraded in a concerted fashion with appropriate I wonder how many Canadians, or Americans for that matter, reliability standards and knew before mid-August just how mutually dependent we are much more effective sur- on the transmission of electricity. In a sense, this blackout was veillance in future. It would have as much resonance for symbolic of the extent to which we both take matters for our common security con- granted, at least until there is a breakdown. Then the finger cerns as for our economic pointing begins. needs. Indeed, if we have learned anything over the past few matter, that the world can make real matters worse on “trade remedy.” As years, surely it is that emergency pre- progress in the absence of American, elections loom, protectionism will paredness and response is something Russian and Chinese participation? have more and more appeal. I take lit- both countries need to address urg- Years ago, there were major differ- tle comfort from the fact that not one ently and more forcefully. ences and a lot of finger pointing in of the nine Democratic candidates for Over and above current concerns both countries over acid rain. And yet, president openly favours trade liberal- about electricity, energy itself is an eco- we managed to overcome those obsta- ization. All support “fair trade” which nomic area ripe for more bilateralism — cles through perseverance, strong polit- means each really prefers protection- and possibly trilateralism — particular- ical direction and mutual commitment. ism, albeit in varying degrees. Not a ly as the volatile situation in the Middle Why not strive for a North American healthy mood. East heightens concerns in North accord on greenhouse gas emissions America about “dependence on foreign using the Acid Rain Accord as a model? ome see the solution on trade rem- oil.” It is also a sector in which Canada A new approach on trade remedy or S edy coming from common defini- plays from a position of real strength. a more efficient means to resolve trade tions of countervail and anti-dumping We should look together at more effi- disputes also merits urgent attention. but, because Canada is much more cient exploitation of reserves in North I know, all too well, that the US dependent on trade than the US, the America and make a mutual commit- will guard jealously the unilateral internal adjustment cost of any har- ment to develop additional sources of advantage of its existing trade remedy monized regime would be dispropor- energy, preferably without mandated regime. What we used to call its tionately heavier on us than on them. routes, subsidies, tax credits or floor “weapons of mass disruption.” I know, (US exports to Canada represent only 3 prices for extraction or transmission. If too, that the US perceives no real need percent of their economy while the US proceeds unilaterally on this for relief from Canadian trade remedy Canadian exports to the US are 33 per- front — as at least one version of rules but, to be frank, any attempt to cent of our GDP.) It may be that a sec- We need, too, to tackle ways to facilitate joint customs toral approach, with indus- inspection and reduce redundant paperwork while expediting tries working together, e.g. fast-track entry procedures. We should not let legitimate on steel, to develop com- mon or better understand- concerns about security become an umbrella for procedures ings of permissible subsides, that retard the movement of people, goods and services would lead to a more gener- across our border. al framework. After all, our North American steel mar- Congress’ energy bill implies — we may broaden what we now have on trade ket is highly integrated and is threat- miss the opportunity to use our specific without reducing the scope for pro- ened not by actions within North leverage to our advantage. tracted disputes should have little America, but by dumped steel coming appeal to Canada. in from outside our continent. In more n the same context, we should also I have to believe that the failure to and more products, Canadian and I try to develop tangible and credible resolve or contain current trade dis- American firms are competing as one bilateral commitments to reduce putes reflects, in part at least, the lack industry in a single, integrated market. greenhouse gas emissions, using mar- of engagement and constructive chem- Trade remedy laws should accommo- ket-based mechanisms to blend the istry at the top level of our respective date that reality, especially during the spirit of Kyoto with the reality of our governments. That tone does permeate injury determination process.

50 OPTIONS POLITIQUES DÉCEMBRE 2003 – JANVIER 2004 Canada-US relations: the risk of complacency — the need for engagement

Others suggest a parallel approach implementation and to maintain politi- The only limits to our global influ- to resource management, implying cal oversight. Regular meetings between ence should be the scope of our cre- that we may have a softwood lumber the president and the prime minister ative thinking and the degree to which problem more than a trade remedy would be a good start. A permanent we are prepared to support our convic- problem. Regardless of how we reach joint council on homeland security and tions with consistent effort and tangi- the objective, it is essential, in my a new, high level, North American com- ble resources — putting our money view, that we find a better way to mission on economic security would where our mouth is. resolve trade disputes and remove the stimulate enhanced cooperation, help One longstanding objective of uncertainty, as well as the threats resolve or contain disputes and would Canadian foreign policy has been to inherent in the current system. A clear facilitate a more efficient response to keep the US engaged constructively in and unequivocal commitment from emergencies. It is important to involve the multilateral system. At a time the most senior levels of both govern- both politicians and officials in these when world trade negotiations are at ments would help change mindsets in enterprises. Regular reviews at the polit- an impasse, when the the bureaucracies and stimulate efforts ical level would act as a catalyst for struggles for legitimacy and NATO to resolve, rather than initiate, prob- results and action at the official level — searches for new relevance, this objec- lems between us. the antidote to complacency. They tive, I suggest, is more acute than ever. What the mad cow episode high- would also help temper some inevitable What we need most, of course, is lights is the need for a more concerted concerns about “sovereignty.” leadership, a clear sense of direction effort on mutual acceptance of inspec- and sustained commitment from the tion and certification procedures. learly, this would be an ambitious top political level — a fresh attitude and Isolated cases should not be allowed to C agenda, one fraught with pitfalls, a genuine priority. This may well be the destroy an entire industry. This effort sensitivities and obstacles. But, if we are most difficult ingredient to muster but should not be limited to beef or it is what ultimately made the agriculture. There is scope for The only limits to our global FTA and NAFTA happen. And more “good gardening” gener- influence should be the scope of our there were days, believe me, ally on standards and regula- creative thinking and the degree to when neither seemed possible. tions — for greater transparency, which we are prepared to support In fact, the remarkable predictability and efficiency. thing about the FTA and NAFTA We need, too, to tackle ways our convictions with consistent effort is that success was achieved to facilitate joint customs inspec- and tangible resources — putting despite heavy obstacles and a tion and reduce redundant paper our money where our mouth is. lot of extreme emotion. work while expediting fast-track But a change of leader- entry procedures. We should not let legit- serious about turning our geography to ship is about to occur in Canada and imate concerns about security become an our advantage and improving our most that provides the opportunity. Paul umbrella for procedures that retard the vital relationship, these are the kinds of Martin’s performance as our minister movement of people, goods and services issues that, I believe, should be addressed of finance demonstrated that he across our border. Anyone involved with by our leaders in the years ahead. appreciates the need for, and the exports also knows that our border infra- There is a broader purpose as well, benefit from, a clear sense of direc- structure needs new investment and a namely Canada’s role in the world. tion and a sustained commitment. I higher priority. Some believe we can do more in world am confident that he also under- Moves toward a common external affairs by distancing ourselves from the stands the risk of continuing com- tariff would also be beneficial. For one US and US positions. I do not. Distance placency and the compelling need thing, they would reduce some of the and differentiation is definitely one for engagement with the United complexity and needless hassle around approach, but it is not an end in itself. States. Let’s hope this challenge “country of origin” determinations. It is also somewhat illusory in terms of becomes an early and high priority Taken together, these are mutually results. I believe that we can actually as he assumes the responsibility and reinforcing objectives — increased achieve more by taking advantage of burden of leadership. physical security underpins our eco- our unique proximity to the US, gener- nomic well being just as economic ating influence and clout much greater Derek Burney, President and CEO of CAE growth is vital to stronger security than our individual capacity would Limited, was Canada’s ambassador to arrangements. otherwise provide. We can walk and the United States from 1989 to 1993. He If we are able to forge new agree- chew gum on the world stage at the was previously a senior government offi- ments on security and on our economic same time, provided we have a confi- cial closely involved with the bilateral relationship, I believe we would also dent view of what interests and values negotiations resulting in the Canada-US need new institutions to ensure their we wish to advance. Free Trade Agreement.

POLICY OPTIONS 51 DECEMBER 2003 – JANUARY 2004