The Indulgent, Wealthy Uncle

You know the one, the guy with the personal fortune whom his large extended family defers to in hope that Uncle will notice them in their need and lend a helping hand; a few dollars strewn here and there among the hapless family members would make him no poorer, nor reduce his ability to further invest and reap heaping sums of ready cash for further investments. He may even, from time to time, take notice of that messy brood of cousins, siblings and their offspring.

For the most part they're a distraction he'd rather not succumb to, unless they become an embarrassment to him, or some kind of hindrance to his own personal plans. Until they finally get the message and understand that until and unless they can offer some kind of advantage to him, he's simply not interested. So they pick up their disappointment and go elsewhere, exercising their options to make do for themselves.

It's not quite like that, but there are some similarities. Most countries, like most people, don't like to be distracted by annoyances on their borders. And if they do happen in some way to become interdependent, then it often falls to the wealthy contingent to fork out, enabling the less well-endowed to kind of coast along, taking full advantage. It's human nature, right?

So, Canadians can understand it when Americans become fed up with their neighbours' taking advantage of their wealth and status. We do very helpful cross-border trade, though; Canadians need Americans to buy their resources and mercantile products. Yes, there's a trade imbalance, but that's the way things go, and in any event, we're done no favours in the trade exchange, since Congress pulls the free trade strings and the trade partners have no choice but to accept those realities.

Of course, there are other means of exchange, a kind of barter system not much discussed, but anticipated by the United States; that in exchange for access to its great big market, Canadian administrations will hitch on to all the international initiatives the United States embarks upon. When those initiatives take the uncomfortable guise of launching a war, or designing and deploying space weapons, we're not so amenable.

Risking the very real ire of our friendly neighbours. They're big and brash, tending not to take too much notice of insignificant others. We're more meek, kind of sanguine about things, not given to drawing much attention to ourselves; no match. Now here's Canada, startling itself to the point of upsetting its citizens by a newly-hatched scheme among its parliamentary opposition to unseat a duly elected government; resembling a - all right - banana republic.

Earning the scorn of onlookers from America, some of whom have wasted no time unleashing their scathing contempt for the incivility of parliamentary shenanigans threatening to upset order and good governance, as though tainting America by grudging association. Who is this Christopher Sands who writes so bitingly and insensitively about the temporary dis-ease in Canada?

Oh, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. I see. He contrasts the orderly and respectful transition between the president-elect, Barak Obama and outgoing President George W. Bush, to the nonsense transpiring between Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the giddily rebellious opposition parties. Fair enough, but it has not always been thus. We've seen American public opinion outraged and polarized, on the brink of upheaval in the famous Florida electoral hanging chads.

We've witnessed the Republic stridently at odds over the invasion of a far-off eastern country that has mired the United States in a costly and body-bagging war, one whose prosecution has been marred by gross mismanagement padding the bank accounts of those in high public executive offices, along with an industry they're still allied with. We've watched, gape-mouthed at the deterioration of the U.S. economy.

Canada's little problems, by comparison, don't impact disastrously on the business of the international community. But the $14-trillion U.S. economy's financial collapse has brought the economies of the rest of the world to their knees. Shouldn't such an influential nation with such a huge international responsibility with its leading role in global financial transactions be a trifle more diligent in keeping its financial house in order?

And here's Canada being derided for permitting peace, order and good government a temporary pass while Parliament and the country's electorate parlay time-out into a return from the delirium of temporary insanity, impacting on none but ourselves, a problem on the cusp of being resolved, thank you very much. The redoubtable Mr. Sands enquires "What does this mean for U.S.-Canada relations?"

Why, Mr. Sands, not very much. It's business as usual between our two countries. The United States points the way, and Canada either elects to proceed, or to hang back. And therein lies his particular umbrage. That Canada - a free and sovereign nation, not an appendage of the U.S. despite our contiguous borders leading to a geography surfeit in fossil fuels and other resources so dear to the U.S. - will always exercise free will, to do that which she considers moral and to the advantage of her people.

It is our prerogative to hold ourselves apart on certain key issues so irritating to our U.S. partners, like embarking on an ill-conceived foreign invasion on questionable grounds, and signing on to an enterprise like missile defence. These issues are a reflection of American imperatives and values, not Canadian ones. Mr. Sands sneers that Canadian governments "petition for favours and concessions in Washington".

He does not approve of our parliamentary representational system as compared to the Republican system, for minority governments, he claims, having to tread lightly less they offend the electorate, use their status as an "excuse" to avoid concessions to America that go against the Canadian grain. Not so, Mr. Sands.

He's stepping into dangerous territory disdaining the legitimacy of a nation expressing its free will to dissent at another's descent into behaviours disagreeable to our values. Mr. Sands' arrogant presumption that America leads and Canada must needs follow is simplistically errant.

But he's right in one statement he's made, that Washington sees no option but to select unilateralism or benign neglect when it's disappointed by Canada's rejection of its overtures. In fact, the U.S. practises these options irrespective of Canada's choosing to join or not to join, America's ventures; even when we're partners we still suffer from benign neglect, and the U.S. Congress unilaterally makes decisions favourable to the United States.

He objects to the frustratingly time-consuming - and, as he says, ultimately futile - courting of the Canadian government on issues we're not prepared to match U.S. enthusiasms with. Live with it. Canada needs no lessons from its good neighbours on how to go about gaining influence in international affairs; we just go to it in a different way, one that serves our national temperament well, and brings satisfaction to the country as a whole.

So go ahead, place Canada in the ranks of other U.S. friends like Netherlands and Denmark; "small, with capacity to make limited but often helpful contributions on the margins of the world's crises", but guess what? We succeed in doing what we do best modestly, in keeping with our capabilities and size. We don't aspire to being a world power, nor a world-class bully on the international stage; it's a poor fit on our national character.

And guess what? Stuff your condolences on our perceived incapacities. We don't fear being "maltreated, punished or maliciously ignored by Washington". And as far as "U.S. policy-makers will pity Ottawa, indulge it when possible and ignore it only when necessary" is concerned, take your patronizing attitude and place it elsewhere...use your imagination, please do.

Good thing we don't believe that these views are illustrative of the mind-set of most intelligent Americans. Eh?