Divergent Paths

[c9]

From Boers to ballistic missiles (Toronto Star)

Are Canada and the United States on "divergent paths," as the New York Times headlined its story this week on reaction to Ottawa's decision not to participate in the U.S. missile defence program?

Has there been a "fundamental shift" in relations, as the experts quoted by the Times argued?

Short answer: no. People have incredibly short memories, that's all. A quick jaunt through Canadian history:

In 1897, Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier found himself being pressured by British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain to contribute to imperial defence. Laurier, who like Martin had other priorities, politely declined, but in 1899 he found himself under even more pressure, this time to send troops to South Africa, where the war against the Boers was going badly.

Laurier, partly to appease English Canada, conceded, only to see Henri Bourassa, his leading Quebec minister, quit the government. And when the war finally was won, there was rioting in Montreal between the pro-war English and anti-war French. Laurier learned that foreign adventures could have serious domestic repercussions.

This caused him to dither over assisting Britain in the face of the massive naval buildup then being undertaken by Germany, and the issue played a role in his defeat in the 1911 election.

Then came World War I, when Canada learned the frightening cost of getting involved in great power conflicts. Even English Canada drew back, and embraced what had been Laurier's position: If there was domestic consensus, or if the crisis was so serious that Canada felt it had to play a role, then it would participate. But if the issue was unrelated to Canada's national interests or if there was no domestic consensus, Canada would stay out.

Some of the more prominent examples: Robert Borden and Mackenzie King's opposition to the collective security provisions of the original League of Nations covenant; King's rejection of Britain's appeal for Canadian troops during the Chanak crisis with Turkey in 1922; King's successful effort at the Imperial Conference in London in 1923 to block Lord Curzon's attempts to organize collective defence co-operation; Lester Pearson's criticism of the Vietnam war; Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney's rejection of participation in Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" anti-missile program; Jean Chrétien's decision not join George W. Bush's "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.

Comments

[c9.livejournal.com]

The need for conscription is separate from the need to enter or not enter WWI. But I do recall from history that the conscription issue was a huge one, and I claim no expertise. :)