Our neighbour, principal ally and predominant trade part- ner is at war against what it perceives as a direct threat to US secu- rity. Canada cannot be oblivious to this concern. We did not have to vol- unteer to fight in order to be support- ive. We already have more troops providing indirect support in the region than many in the coalition. With a little dexterity, some internal discipline and an expression of moral support for the stated ends of American policy ”” the establishment of a democratic, disarmed Iraq and a democratic, independent Palestine at peace with a secure Israel ”” we could have avoided both the indignity of ambassadorial chastisement (more worthy of a banana republic) and col- lateral damage to our national inter- est. Instead, we chose to oppose action by our closest friends and in a way that undermined their positions at a delicate time.

As the only hyper-power, the US is all-powerful. But it is also somewhat lonely, increasingly frustrated and very determined. Since September 11, 2001, it has seen itself very much at war against terrorists poised to strike again at random and tyrants who have weapons of mass destruction and are ready to use them. We may have doubts about the American approach on Iraq, but we should not doubt their resolve.

There is an aversion to war that is palpable in all countries. The prefer- ence for military action sanctioned by a ”œunited” United Nations is also obvi- ous. After all, pre-emptive military action is fraught with uncertainty and the battle itself may in fact be less dif- ficult than the consequences flowing from it for the region and the world.

The basic objective of Canadian foreign policy since the end of the Second World War has been to ”œplay our cards right” in and with Washington in order to exert a level of influence in global affairs out of proportion to our relative power. By earning and maintaining the trust and respect of the world’s greatest power, we have been able to assert and protect our own vital national interests in American domestic affairs, while enhancing our effec- tiveness in the resolution and advancement of multilateral matters.

Such hard-earned trust, once lost, is not easily regained. It will not be business as usual for Canada, both lit- erally and figuratively. We now find ourselves with diminished capacity to defend key national interests and to influence world events.

In my view, Canada’s relationship with the United States is too impor- tant for vacillation and too vital for detachment. I believe the true Canadian spirit was evident in the welcome and the hospitality extended on both coasts to Americans whose travel plans were diverted to Canada immediately after September 11. And from the hundred thousand who stood respectfully on the lawn of Parliament to mourn the victims of September 11.

This is a time when the Americans could benefit from advice and support from friends and neighbours they trust. We had that position of trust and influence in the past.

I would have preferred, frankly, to see Canada among the ”œcoalition of the willing,” standing with the US, the UK and Australia. I believe that would have been consistent with our tradi- tions, and our interests, including our interest in having the UN perform more than a declaratory role in responding to global crises. We quietly accept US security without being pre- pared to pay much of a price ourselves. If we genuinely expect to exercise any influence on the US at times like this, we need to be more concerned about what is right than what seems popular at the moment. We need either to support our convictions with tangible commitments or offer alternatives that are credible.

We tried valiantly to find a middle ground and the basis for consensus at the UN, but the gap proved unbridge- able. Having chosen to refrain from direct combat, we should now concen- trate on the best role Canada can play in obtaining some semblance of stabil- ity in the aftermath of war. I believe we also need to intensify efforts to thwart indiscriminate terrorist attacks against North America. We may not see our- selves as a target, but surely we have an obligation to help the neighbour we know is the target. In my opinion, it is not only the right thing for us to do, it is also the best way to preserve vital Canadian interests.

We have been least effective in foreign affairs when we have tried to separate ourselves from the challenge of this primordial relation- ship in the name of ”œsovereignty,” ”œcounterweights” or ”œsoft power,” dal- liances which have often proved as con- tent-free as the rhetoric supporting them. Distance, differentiation and detachment are never substitutes for engagement. They risk making Canada irrelevant. Leadership, commitment and perseverance have paid dividends for Canada and the United States in the past. That is what is most needed today.