“When it comes to free trade, U.S. President George Bush is two-faced, unwilling to exert the type of focused consistent political leadership he has demonstrated in the war against terrorism… If a foreign nation pursued the Janus-faced trade policies coming out of his administration, George W. Bush would yell foul.”
- Avrum D. Lank, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Chapter One:
Trouble on the Trade Front
U.S. Superpower relations post September 11

          Sept. 11, 2001: Images forever burned into our collective consciousness: The sight of jets smashing into the World Trade Center in New York. The sight of these twin towers collapsing into piles of burning, twisted metal.
                Canada responded quickly, tightening our own security while rerouting aircraft in U.S. skies into our own airspace.
          This move was at considerable risk: At that time, it was not known if there were terrorists aboard other aircraft. Canada and Canadians put their own safety and security at risk by welcoming these remaining jets into our airspace and airports.
          We responded with heartfelt sympathy for the victims – mainly Americans with some Canadians and other nationals – with national memorials and ceremonies.
          Virtually all Canadians viewed the events of 9-11 with shock and revulsion. While  many of us disagree with much of U.S. foreign policies and U.S. dealings with other countries, as a nation we were revolted by the shockingly horrific 9-11 acts of terrorism.
          Whatever the U.S. may have done abroad in terms of insensitivity or bullying other nations, nothing justified this assault on a purely civilian target: twin commercial towers filled with working civilians and tourists (the attack on the Pentagon, while regrettable, was at least more justifiable from a military standpoint given that it is the nerve centre for the American military).
          That said, it is astonishing that the U.S. would continue its isolating, and isolationist, unilateral approach with its allies in the free world.
          If  9-11 taught the Americans nothing else, it ought to have conveyed the message that the U.S. is not invincible. It is not invulnerable. It needs the support of other countries. It cannot go it alone and always expect absolute success.
          Right up until 9-11, George W. Bush, the American president who came in second – but still got to move into the White House, had been desperately trying to shore up domestic support. This was difficult to do with the majority of Americans preferring his opponent Al Gore (the Democrat obtained around half a million more votes. But Bush won in a contest fraught with voting irregularities).
          Shoring up domestic support was also difficult to do with the U.S. economy faltering.
          Bush also found himself without the votes necessary to ram through his hastily concocted policies and ill-conceived tax cuts in the midst of rising unemployment and a health care crisis (and when one Republican senator left the party, Bush would increasingly find himself without sufficient support to carry out his agenda) .
          But the American political system does allow its presidents considerable room to manoeuvre when it comes to international politics – even when it comes to declaring war.
          For the most part a novice at world politics, Bush still wasted no time in shedding the domestic strait jacket to take advantage of the opportunity to throw his weight around abroad.
          Within days of taking office, Bush flexed America’s military muscle and forcibly enforced the no-fly zone in Iraq
          Then he started throwing his weight around elsewhere internationally. Several important treaties were either cancelled, ignored or disregarded as flawed by the U.S. as it sought to prove that it was so powerful it could says and do anything without repercussions. The message – in large type – was that the U.S. would represent U.S. interests to exclusion of everything else, so shut-up and listen.
          It’s difficult to say what kind of mileage Republican spin doctors were able to extract from the president’s adventures abroad, but it would appear that international politics presented the one forum where Bush could appear simultaneously effective and in charge.
           Indeed, Bush strode the world stage like a bull in a china shop, knocking over delicate agreements, years in the making, while he barrelled straight ahead, purely representing U.S. interests. Full speed ahead. Diplomacy be damned.
          Canada found itself slapped with trade penalties over the softwood lumber sales made to American customers. We were placed at risk of getting penalized for our steel trade. We hadn’t done anything wrong – but we were bushwhacked nonetheless.
          Then 9-11 happened. A shaken America was forced to re-examine its self-appointed role as the world’s New Rome. Its new enemy was potentially anywhere – and everywhere.
          Americans initially looked to their president for an effective response, and in fairness, Bush admirably rose to the challenge.
           But over time, his inexperience and lack of statesmanship have again become an issue.
          Bush has stubbornly insisted that highly complex matters involving cultural/religious differences and perceived potential threats from abroad are simply – simplistically – black or white.
          However, thinking people everywhere have had difficulty buying into his assertions that he should be given a blank cheque to do whatever he feels like, to attack any country he deems a threat, to artlessly divide the world into good guys and bad guys (with some of the ‘good guys’ being brutal dictatorships that happen to support the U.S. – at the moment).
          The New Rome is playing its fiddle loudly. But fewer people are listening. They’re trying to tune out the racket and think for themselves, develop their own foreign policies, policies that take much more into account than purely U.S. interests.
           Life wasn’t always this complicated.
          As Toronto Star political columnist Richard Gwyn notes, during the Cold War, most of the world was polarized, with a good many nations ‘belonging’ to the U.S. or the Soviet Union. In short, they were allied with “one of two heavily armed camps that were separated from each other by fear, suspicion and hatred.”          1.   
          Gwyn goes on to observe that less than 15 years after the end of the Cold War, the world is again polarized, and this time the division is between “those countries that the U.S. says are harbouring or supporting terrorists and those countries that the U.S. says are fighting terrorism.”          2.  
          In other words, whether or not a nation is actually harbouring terrorists or is instead fighting terrorists is less important than whether the U.S., which now sets all the rules in the New World Order, recognizes and accepts their particular role.
          Gwyn asserts that this judge and jury role assumed by the U.S. was apparent in the State of the Union address U.S. President George W. Bush delivered in late January 2002. As Gwyn observes:
“In his first TV address after Sept. 11, Bush laid down the rule that “those who are not with us are with the terrorists.” This time (the State of the Union address), he took his own rule and applied it wherever and to whomever he chose.”          3.

           
          But in this same speech, Bush stated Iraq, Iran and North Korea constitute an “axis of evil,” an interesting assertion since Iraq and Iran are historically enemies and there is little evidence of either nation communicating with Korea (in this regard, we Canadians are not blameless as the ‘axis of evil’ remark was actually concocted by Bush’s Canadian speech writer David Frum, a journalist and son of the late great CBC broadcaster Barbara Frum).
          Worse, the assertion comes after a moderate and increasingly democratic Iran provided the U.S. with intelligence and moral support in the War on Terrorism.
          North Korea has been preoccupied with peaceful overtures from South Korea and the conflict in that part of the world shows signs of being resolved peacefully.
           Although Iraq still hates the States, it is weakened from sanctions and poses little threat to the U.S.  Gwyn, however, suspects that the list is somewhat political in nature, with non-Muslim North Korea included so nobody can accuse the U.S. of waging a ‘crusade’ against Muslim countries and with Iran included to express U.S. disapproval of an Iranian arms shipment to the Palestinians.           4.
          As terrible as Sept. 11 was, it appears to have given the U.S. the justification needed to continue as a military superpower.
          Gwyn observes:
“In one way of another, the U.S. has been on a war footing for more than a half-century now, from the immediate post-World War II period and the start of the Cold War, with only a brief semi-retirement after the Cold War ended. Through terrorism, Bush has found a way to perpetuate America’s militarization. This one is going to go on and on for decades, perhaps for another half-century.”          5.
          Not that I fault the prolonged U.S.-led fight against terrorism – far from it. Although U.S. policy in the Middle East may be criticized by some as insensitive and deemed unfair in some Muslim quarters, nothing the U.S. has ever done could possible justify the cowardly Sept. 11 attacks. It is also truly despicable that innocent civilians were deliberately targeted by fanatical organizations that lacked the basic guts to take responsibility for their acts. It was only months later that a videotaped bragging session showed Osama bin Laden indicating he knew of the attacks and indeed orchestrated them.
          Perhaps more disturbing than bin Laden’s musings are the findings of a Gallop Poll – released in March 2002 – of countries throughout the Islamic world.  The poll revealed massive hatred of the United States among many Muslims.
          More than half of the nearly 10,000 Muslims surveyed detested George W. Bush and found the U.S. to be arrogant and ruthless.
          More than three-quarters deem the Allies’ attacks on Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be unjustified. The underlying message seems to be: Just leave the terrorists alone – and get out of the Middle East while you’re at it. Most incredibly, nearly two-thirds said they don’t believe Arab terrorist groups were behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
          Noting most of those who did not believe Arab terrorists were at fault also tended to blame the Israeli Mossad secret service, Richard Gwyn concludes: “This is denial of reality (as well as a self-absolution of the consequences of condoning, or at the very least of accepting, religious fanaticism), on a massive, and a psychologically unbalanced scale.”          6.
          Gwyn also notes that the Muslim world can be described as a failed continent, which has fallen behind the rest of the world, a continent in which the resident intellectuals must go elsewhere to allow their “intellects to soar.”          7.
          Indeed, the Muslim world, in general, is an entity where corrupt, incompetent, ruthless and oppressive, self-serving, undemocratic regimes reign supreme over illiterate, ignorant populations awash in grinding poverty.
          And it’s these same illiterate, redneck populations that are prone to rise up as massive mobs to blame their failings on the West and vent their venom on non-believers (of their brand of religion). Since much of this seems to be driven by an irrational hatred of the successful West, it appears unlikely any trustworthy, negotiated resolutions are possible with such regimes and populations. The U.S.-led allies would therefore appear to have little choice but to attempt to eradicate terrorism wherever they find it.
          In this fight, Canada was the first nation to offer the U.S. tangible help on Sept. 11, 2001. Our nation opened our airspace and airports to diverted U.S. flights – taking on the enormous risk that we could be bringing terrorist-controlled aircraft into our own country. We were also among the first to fully support the War on Terrorism. We also tightened up our borders and Canadian soldiers were soon fighting shoulder-to-shoulder alongside Americans.
          Given all of this, you might think a grateful U.S. would be looking at tangible ways of thanking Canada for our immediate, unconditional support.
          In fact, the evidence is entirely to the contrary. The U.S. shows an increased penchant for ignoring free trade agreements and slapping trade penalties on any trade where Canadians appear to have the upper hand – steel and softwood lumber in particular – despite any evidence that we’re somehow trading unfairly.
          A Toronto Star editorial neatly captured the very essence of U.S. isolationism and unilateralism on the trade front when it noted that despite the existence of two free trade agreements, Canada has been forced again and again to take the Americans before the World Trade Organization to protest sky-high tariffs on Canadian exports of softwood lumber.
          As The Star observes: “Washington is now following its attack on our softwood with threats to our wheat farmers and steelmakers… Canada could also get hit by the scattergun Washington is waving at foreign steel producers everywhere, who it blames for a glut of steel over-hanging its market… This is not free trade. What we have is as much trade as the U.S. is prepared to allow.”          8.
          A slapping of tariffs on Canada’s beleaguered; fair-trading steel industry would have devastating impact on the nation’s steel capital of Hamilton.
          Such duties would make the Canadian-made steel more expensive than steel produced in the U.S. costing Hamilton’s steelmakers  customers and sales in the process.
          Fortunately, Canada dodged that bullet when the Ontario and federal governments joined the news media in complaining about America’s tendency to ignore the free trade agreements it freely negotiated with our nation.
          The pressure appears to have paid off: Citing the free trade agreements, the U.S., in March 2002, slapped duties as high as 30 per cent on an array of steel-producing countries – but spared Canada.          9.
          However some of the countries hit by duties charge the move is nothing more than a protectionist U.S. effort to prop up its own failing steel industries by claiming any steel sold more cheaply to the U.S. must be dumped (sold below the production cost of the steel in the originating country).
          In some cases – Russia, China, South Korea – the steel likely is being dumped. But other countries are clearly concerned over what they deem a unilateral, anti-trade move. As Hamilton Spectator business writer Steve Arnold notes:
          “World reaction to the American decision was highly critical, with Britain and the European Union warning of retaliation for an action which raises the issue of import diversion, threatening jobs across Europe. A European challenge of the action before the World Trade Organization is one potential response.”          10.
          Indeed, many nations in the world – Canada is often among them – are worried by an American tendency to protect its own interests regardless of the fact that innocent nations may be hurt in the process. In trade disputes, it seems, the other guy is too often to be deemed guilty by the U.S. unless he can prove himself innocent.
          However, criticism of self-serving, one-sided American trade policies is also being increasingly voiced in the U.S. itself.
          For example, in May of 2002, the U.S. reversed itself from a 1996 law that was intended to reduce farmer’s dependence on federal aid and decided to spend $190 billion US on farm subsidies, primarily to large farms that don’t need such support.
          The outrageous move quickly prompted widespread objections without and within the U.S., including this missive from Forth Worth Star-Telegram columnist Bob Ray Sanders:
“You can call it aid or subsidy or price guarantees. But let’s call the new farm bill exactly what it is. Welfare. Big-time welfare. Mostly for those who need it the least. The United States is good about giving assistance to large corporations while cutting benefits to individuals who are really in need.”          11.
          Sanders is also alarmed that the U.S. is antagonizing its trading partners:
          “European trading partners, already upset with the United States for newly imposed tariffs on steel, are very troubled over this latest move to prop up American Farmers and ranchers. Canadian Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief has also been critical of the American subsidies. There’s talk in capitals around the world of launching a formal World Trade Organization complaint against the United States over the subsidy package. At the rate the U.S. is going, it might be inciting new trade wars and that is definitely something it does not need.”          12.
          Toronto Star economics columnist David Crane is also concerned of a potential trade war. He notes: “U.S. measures – on softwood lumber, steel and huge new subsidies for American farmers – also threaten the pace of global economic recovery because other countries are tempted to retaliate, triggering a global trade war that would slow economic growth and trigger higher unemployment.”          13.
          As Crane also observes:
          “Canadians have felt the costly impact of U.S. protectionism through the penalties applied against softwood lumber producers, throwing thousands of Canadians out of work. But Canadian anger, though strong, seems mild compared to European reaction to the trade penalties its steel producers now face – penalties averaging 30 per cent. What is especially galling is that the Bush administration is taking a variety of destructive protectionist measures to win votes in states where political competition is tight, and it really doesn’t care who the rest of the world reacts… But with the United States acting in such a protectionist way, it is hard to see how it can speak with credibility about the benefits of trade or globalization. Its actions don’t match its words.”          14.
          This America-first attitude, to the extent it exists on the trade front, is even more disconcerting in the military context.
          Alarmed over U.S. isolationism and unilateralism, American historian Jeremy Brecher has gone so far as to plead with the rest of the world to rein the U.S. in.
          Brecher notes the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty now threatens to ignite a new arms race, with China increasing its nuclear arsenal in response to a perceived threat from the U.S., a move which could in turn prompt India to build up its nuclear defences, which could in turn prompt the same move from Pakistan and so on and so on.          15.
          Nor is it safe to assume the U.S.  is even effectively running the show. As Brecher notes:
          “It is an illusion to believe the U.S. is in any way in control of events. Consider the Mideast peace process. Just as Bush and (U.S. Secretary of State Colin) Powell were rolling out a major peace initiative, the war parties in Israel and Palestine sabotaged it completely. The U.S. then tilted wildly toward the very forces in Israel that had sabotaged the U.S. initiative.”          16.
          Brecher warns: “The issue is now an emerging world crisis provoked by a superpower that is acting without rational consideration of the effects of its actions. The number of additional civil and international wars it may stir up is simply incalculable – and certainly is not being rationally calculated by the Bush administration. This represents a new stage in what it means to be the world’s only superpower.”          17.
          Brecher says the U.S. is drunk with power and out of control, doing whatever it wants regardless of what other nations say:
          “Internal constraints? There is something that peoples and governments around the world need to understand: There are currently no effective internal constraints on what the existing Bush administration can or will do. Because of popular response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration feels – correctly, at least for a time – that it can do anything without having to fear dissent or opposition. It withdrew from the ABM treaty with barely a ripple of public questioning. Its endorsement of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s attacks on the Palestinian Authority wins over-whelming Congressional support. Open advocacy of a military attack and occupation of Iraq causes no stir.”          18.
          Although the U.S. expects its allies to walk in lockstep, Brecher says these same allies have much to lose: “The U.S. in the Cold War era at least purported to be protecting its allies. But today, as the U.S. projects its power unilaterally, its friends and allies are the ones most likely to feel the blowback from destabilization in the form of terrorism, refugees, recession and war.”          19.
          Brecher is calling on America’s friends and allies to stand up the Bush juggernaut, question its actions and contain its rash actions before the world is plunged into global war. He argues that the U.S. is less likely to lunge recklessly into attacking other countries if it believes there is insufficient international support for such actions.          20.
          As Brecher concludes:
          "It is up to governments and civil society outside the U.S. to put constraints on what it does – both for their own sake and for America’s… Restraining the Bush administration is anything by anti-American. It is the best thing America’s friends can do for us right now… Please: America’s friends need to take the car keys away until this power-drunk superpower sobers up.”          21.
          Political commentator and Toronto Star columnist, the late great Dalton Camp is one Canadian who fully recognized that healthy criticism of our powerful neighbour in no way amounts to disloyalty to an ally.
          Camp noted most so-called Anti-American Canadians are actually fond of most Americans – but detest the self-righteous U.S. politicians who advocate heavy-handedly bombing Panama City and killing many civilians to get at a drug lord; or maintaining sanctions against the even less threatening Cuba, while embracing Vietnam.
          Nor was Camp willing to accept that Sept. 11 has made the past irrelevant and that all Canadians should now embrace all things American. As he notes:
          “The past, however, has been a learning experience in our Canadian struggle to build our own society, one that reflects our values, as we create the imperatives and priorities in our ongoing development of a distinctive Canadian democracy.”          22.
          In my view, Camp recognized the fundamental strength of Canada and correlating weakness of the United States: Canada takes pains to understand the other country’s position and achieve lasting agreements that are mutually satisfactory ‘win-win’ arrangements. In contrast, the U.S. tends to myopically look after its own interests only and doesn’t rule out using its awesome military power to force a ‘win-lose’ arrangement that fosters resentment, even hatred toward the U.S. 
          Camp was also wary of the accelerated trend toward U.S. isolationism:
          “It was only last May (2001) when the United Nations voted the United States out of a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Swept by anger and seized by paranoia, the American government and media were quick to condemn the institution, which the politicians held in contempt and whose dues had long been allowed to remain in default. Soon after, the American leadership rejected the Kyoto Protocol on the environment, as it had refused to join in the protocol – signed even by Afghanistan – calling for an embargo on the spread of anti-personnel mines. As of Sept. 10, the Bush administration had pretty well withdrawn from world affairs, isolating itself by deliberate choice from any thought or concern for the global terrorism that was then believed to be someone else’s worry.”          23.
          Bush clearly needs to wake up and realize his one-sided approach to world politics simply doesn’t work.
          But all signs suggest things are going to get worse before they get better: Bush seems very determined to attack Iraq, even though there is no evidence linking Iraq to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America.
          Perhaps more disturbing still, Bush has strengthened his blind, one-sided support for Israel to the extent that he now refuses to deal with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, wants the removal of this democratically elected leader, and is openly urging the Palestinians to vote in new leadership that is not tainted by support for terrorism.
           Although there is some evidence that Arafat has given financial support to suicide bombers, he is still the Palestinian leader and his people have also suffered in this two-sided conflict.
          Although not without sympathy for American frustration, the rest of the world has recognized Bush’s move for what it is: Gross interference with the democratic process and a complete disregard for Palestine’s right to sovereignty.
          The United Nations, along with Canada, Great Britain, France and other nations were quick to condemn the move, noting Palestinians should be free to elect a leader without undue interference from the United States or anyone else: The U.S should not dictate the election.
          Incredibly, at the G-8 Summit of world leaders at Kananaskis in June 2002, Bush went a step further and reportedly stated that even if Arafat should win the elections (he did), he would still single-mindedly refuse to negotiate with Arafat.          24.
          Several analysts have gone so far as to deem Bush’s stance as a gift to Osama bin Laden as this position would seem to support bin Laden’s assertion that the U.S. and Israel are walking in lockstep with one another. The stance appeared unlikely to achieve anything more than enrage the democratic world and further fuel Islamic militancy.          25.
          All of this has led Toronto Star foreign affairs columnist Gordon Barthos to wonder if Bush has ever taken a good look at Arafat’s rivals, including Abdel Sattar Qassem, a political scientist who “does not recognize the State of Israel, admires terror bombers and supports the return of millions of refugees to Israel proper.”          26.
          Barthos notes other candidates are either in jail or are “tainted by the very violence and corruption that Bush denounced when he demanded Arafat’s head.”          27.
          As Barthos dryly asserts: “Given Arafat’s main competition, some may even want to cheer him to the finish line.”          28.
          Part of the problem seems to be that Bush may understand domestic American politics but he appears to have little real comprehension of world politics and seems to assume that whatever he says, goes, no matter how many times he’s proven wrong.
          On this front, Bush could stand to take a lesson from Canada, which encountered and dealt with its own terrorists when Quebec separatist FLQ forces blew up mail boxes and kidnapped and killed a British diplomat.
          While still going after the terrorists, the Canadian government also tackled the root causes of the unhappiness that had led to the terrorism: Efforts were made to ensure a fairer role for French Canadians in the Canadian economy.
          As Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert says of the Canadian experience:
           “On a small scale, it goes some way to show that when it comes to rooting out terrorism, investing in social justice and allowing local democracy to take its course will achieve longer-lasting results than state repression and pre-imposed election outcomes.”          29.
          But then, that’s really how Canada functions. Our national character is that of a fair-minded nation that seeks to peacefully resolve conflicts through negotiation and appeasement.
          This approach is borne partly of necessity. Without massive military power at our disposal, we are denied the easy option of throwing our weight around to extract short-term gains.
          Instead, we strive to truly understand our opponent’s position and work with them to strike a deal both sides can live with.
          The Canadian Way respects other cultures and countries and seeks to the full extent possible to accommodate them. 
          This is how we turn foreigners into friends. This is how we create trade “partners” in the truest sense of the word.
          Getting the better of a deal at the other party’s expense may provide short-term gains but it’s bound to come back and haunt you when the other party eventually figures out a way to get back at you to exact some form of revenge for a deal or slight you may have long forgotten. The United States has indulged in ‘win-lose deal-making for far too long.
          Canada’s approach can transform potential enemies into allies who appreciate our nation’s unwillingness to unduly exploit the weaknesses of others, or to use our clout to impoverish others while enriching ourselves.
          We don’t feel we’ve won a good deal until the other party feels they’ve also won.
          This approach creates long-term agreements with sustainable benefits. And it’s an approach the United States would be well advised to take.
End Notes:
1.          Richard Gwyn, ‘U.S. military, George Bush and the new world order’, The Toronto Star, pg. A13, February 3, 2002.
2.          IBID.
3.          IBID.
4.          IBID.
5.          IBID.
6.          IBID
7.          Richard Gwyn, ‘Moderate Muslims on the offensive’, The Toronto Star, March 3, 2002, pg. A13.
8.          The Toronto Star, Pg. A16, January 28, 2002.
9.          Steve Arnold, The Hamilton Spectator, March 6, 2002, pg. C6.
10.          IBID.
11.          Bob Ray Sanders, ‘Welfare for big American farmers’, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 7, 2002. Pg. A16.
12.          IBID.
13.          David Crane, ‘U.S. fast losing credibility as free trader’, The Toronto Star, May 16, 2002. Pg. C2.
14.          IBID.
15.          Jeremy Brecher, ‘To U.S. friends: Stop us please. Take keys away from this drunk superpower soon’, The Hamilton Spectator, January 25, 2002.
16.          IBID.
17.          IBID.
18.          IBID.
19.          IBID.
20.          IBID.
21.          IBID.
22.          Dalton Camp, ‘We like Americans but not their politics’, The Toronto Star, Oct. 3, 2001, pg. A21.
23.          IBID.
24.          The Toronto Star, ‘Bush: “I meant what I said’, June 27, 2002. p. A1 and A10.
25.          Reuters News Agency, ‘Bush speech ‘God’s gift to bin Laden’, The Toronto Star, June 28, 2002. p. A10.
26.          Gordon Barthos, ‘Loathe Arafat? Try Qassem’, The Toronto Star, June 27, 2002, p. A28.