Canadian election, American interference

Do U.S. officials have this overwhelming itch to interfere in issues that don't concern them? Like, for example, the Canadian election?

Yesterday, United States Ambassador David Wilkins made a statement that Canadian politicians on the campaign trail should not "bash Washington," or, in essence, use it as an issue to win the election. He feels that anti-American sentiments could undermine the relations between the two countries. No, Mr. Wilkins, I believe the President's stance on softwood lumber tariffs are responsible for that -- and Kyoto (although, to be fair, we do need to work on that; we're not any better on pollution right now).

Does this American presidency have such a thin skin that it cannot withstand comments from Canada? Honestly. While I'm not too keen on the U.S.-bashing at times (hey, I love New York and the blue states), the fact of the matter is that anti-Americanism is a large part of the identity of the country, beginning when the United States became independent.

Even the first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, came up with his (distinctly anti-American) National Policy in 1876 to protect local farmers, workers, and industries from American companies. Elections have always been won that way, and that threat of being swallowed up by the U.S. and its culture has always struck fear in the hearts of Canadians. And it works, because it's true: We don't want to be American.

But apart from that, the concern over the lumber tariffs, as Paul Martin refuted, existed even before this election was called -- and it is a genuine issue because the Canadian industry is suffering under it, and the President Bush has continuously chosen to ignore NAFTA rulings. So why is the ambassador's feathers ruffled over this now? It's bewildering.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, however, is "unrepentant" in his stance. During an appearance at a sawmill in British Columbia, Martin stated, "I am not going to be dictated to as to the subjects that I should raise... I will make sure that Canada speaks with an independent voice now, tomorrow and always, and you should demand nothing less from your prime minister."

Even Conservative Leader Stephen Harper called Wilkins's comments "inappropriate" and said that no foreign ambassador should be intervening in another country's election campaign.

This is the first time (and likely the last) I'll ever agree with Harper.

Canada is a sovereign and independent nation. While we may be close trading partners with the United States, we are by no means an extention of it. When there are matters and issues under our jurisdiction that require our attention and protection, we're going to tackle them, even if that means confronting our southern neighbours. We won't be dictated to.

The best thing for the U.S. government to do would be to distance itself from David Wilkins's statements and offer to resolve these problems in a fair and timely manner with whomever is elected. Though I seriously doubt that'll happen -- we're dealing with Dubya here. Enough said.

At the same time, the NDP and Conservatives, while disapproving of Wilkins's statements, are using this opportunity to jump on the Liberals, calling the anti-American rhetoric "posturing". But, as I've said, softwood lumber and climate change were considered major issues before the election was even called, and Martin was very visibly working on them.

It seems right now that the only person being forced to tone down his rhetoric is U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins. Oh, the irony.