Skip to main content

How Obama won Canada

Barack Obama is ultra popular in Canada, easily one of the most popular presidents in history. A recent Angus Reid poll found that 65 per cent of Canadian voters would vote for him, only 9 per cent for Republican Mitt Romney. Sixty per cent of Canadians think the Obama administration has been good for this country, only 13 per cent bad.

These are staggering numbers. By contrast, Obama predecessor president George W. Bush was reviled north of the border. In opinion surveys, he consistently ranked as low as a sea urchin.
So when an analysis gets published by two Canadian heavyweights titled How Obama Lost Canada, people can be forgiven for thinking how the nameplates got mixed up. The analysis, injecting a sour bilateral note at the time of the countries’ birthday celebrations, was written by Derek Burney, a former ambassador to the United States, and Carleton University academic Fen Hampson in the American periodical Foreign Affairs.
It has been roundly criticized by bilateral specialists on both sides of the border for lacking fairness and perspective and for being just plain obtuse.
What the record shows is that given America’s dire conditions of the past few years and given the political divides between the Ottawa and Washington governments, the relationship has been managed for the most part in a pragmatic, respectful and constructive fashion.
Following the ugliness of the Bush years, things could have gone off the rails. Mr. Burney and Mr. Hampson seem to have forgotten those years. Losing Canada? Do they recall how W. peevishly cancelled an Ottawa summit because Canada did not join his bogusly motivated invasion of Iraq? Do they recall his trying to bully Ottawa into joining his ballistic missile defence program? Do they remember the introduction of passports at the Canada-U.S. border or the Bush administration’s blatant abrogation of free-trade rules in the softwood lumber dispute? How about the economic havoc Mr. Bush’s policies abetted, his leaving even a one-word mention of Canada out of his landmark 9/11 address, his unilateralism in spurning a host of multilateral agreements that Canada was party to?
In succeeding him, Mr. Obama immediately struck a chord. Canadians liked his moderate values and fair-mindedness. They sensed that his heart and mind were in the right place and, despite many disappointments from him, they still do. He hasn’t been pushy or overbearing in his relations with Canada as have several presidents.
His popularity here has been such that it would have been foolish for Stephen Harper to clash with him. Mr. Harper has been shrewd enough to realize this and deserves credit for establishing, despite philosophical differences, a strong, working relationship. As well, ambassadors David Jacobson and Gary Doer have been adept at keeping temperatures from rising.
Mr. Burney, who is a board member of TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., and Mr. Hampson are particularly bitter over the Obama administration’s delay in a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. It was brought on, they grouse, by election-year political considerations. As if, historically, domestic political considerations have not been at the heart of countless bilateral decisions Ottawa has taken.
The authors complain that the Obama administration didn’t push for getting Canada a seat on the United Nations Security Council; this, without noting our Conservatives’ dismissive attitude toward the UN or how their right-wing unilateralism alienated so many of its members.
The authors even complain, without reference to Canada’s reputation as an international laughingstock on environmental policy, of Washington’s lack of co-operation on climate change. They exaggerate, forgetting other precedents, difficulties on bilateral trade with this administration and offer a decades-old Canadian lament about the President not doing enough to counter Buy American legislation.
They neglect to balance the ledger by citing the many occasions our Conservatives have acted against Mr. Obama’s interests, beginning with the infamous NAFTAgate leak that hurt his image during election primaries.
To be sure, there have been disappointments here under Mr. Obama, as there have been under virtually every president. But to suggest that he somehow lost Canada is to get history upside down. This President didn’t lose Canada. After Mr. Bush, he won it back.

Read the full story here. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Siege - A Poem By Ahmad Faraz Against The Dictatorship Of Zia Ul Haq

Related Posts: 1.  Did Muhammad Ali Jinnah Want Pakistan To Be A Theocracy Or A Secular State? 2. The Relationship Between Khadim & Makhdoom In Pakistan 3. Battle for God; Battleground Pakistan - a time has finally come to call a spade a spade 4. Pakistan - Facing Contradictory Strategic Choices In An Uncertain Region 5. Pakistan, Islamic Terror & General Zia-Ul-Haq 6. Why Pakistan Army Must Allow The Democracy To Flourish In Pakistan & Why Pakistanis Must Give Democracy A Chance? 7. A new social contract in Pakistan between the Pakistani Federation and its components 8. Birth of Bangladesh / Secession of East Pakistan & The Sins of Our Fathers 9. Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ? 10. Balochistan - Troubles Of A Demographic Nature

India: The Terrorists Within

A day after major Indian cities were placed on high alert following blasts in the IT city of Bangalore, as many as 17 blasts ripped through Ahmedabad, capital of the affluent western Indian state of Gujarat . Some 30 people were killed, some at hospitals where bombs were timed to go off when the injured from other blasts were being brought in. (Later, in Surat, a center for the world's diamond industry, a bomb was defused near a hospital and two cars packed with explosives were found in in the city's outskirts.) Investigators pointed fingers at the usual Islamist suspects: Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Bangladesh- based Harkat-ul Jihadi Islami (HUJI) and the indigenous Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But even as the police searched for clues, the Ahmedabad attacks were owned up by a group calling itself the " Indian Mujahideen. " Several TV news stations received an email five minutes before the first blasts in Ahmedabad. The message repo...

Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ?

By Sikander Hayat Another day of agony and despair as Pakistanis live through a period of uncertainty but still I believe that army must not intervene in this crisis. These are the kind of circumstances when army need to show their resolve of not meddling in the political sphere of the country. No doubt that there will be people in the corridors of power and beyond who will be urging the army to step in and ‘save’ the country but let me tell you that country will only be saved if army stays away and let the politicians decide the future of the country, even if it means that there will be clashes on the streets of Islamabad. With free media in place, people are watching with open eyes the parts being played by each and every individual in this current saga. They know who is right and who is wrong and they will eventually decide who stays in power when the next general election comes. Who said that democracy was and orderly and pretty business ; it is anything but. Democracy ...