It's Canadian airspace, but our lives

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Living next to the world's only superpower must be frustrating for the folks north of the border who don't share our views, values and fears.

Yet the idea that Canada could demand America consult with its leaders before we shoot down a missile aimed at the United States that is over Canadian soil is the most ridiculous notion I have heard in some time.

That, however, is Canada's position entering Tuesday's meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the U.S. proposed anti-ballistic-missile system. "This is our airspace; we're a sovereign nation, and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission," Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said.

His stance evidences a childlike quality that assumes Ottawa has the ability to mandate something that it can't possibly enforce — requiring launch approval for the United States to defend itself. It showcases surprising naiveté about the logistics involved — most importantly the lack of time — that would make giving the Canadians such power a practical impossibility.

Therefore, it makes it difficult to take the Canadians, who are America's biggest trading partner and historic ally, seriously on the many other matters on which we disagree.

If Martin is serious, he ought to have a long talk with himself about the world in which he lives. Even if it evokes the image of the Ugly American popular with U.S. critics, this is one of those times when the United States must heed its national interest. If the Canadians don't like it, too bad. In that real world, there is nothing they can do about it.

President Bush has decided to go ahead with the missile-defense system. If the Democrats can't stop him from doing so, only a foreign leader with a highly inflated sense of his own influence would delude himself into thinking he can.

Bush asked the Canadians to participate in the project, given our geographic proximity. Under that scenario, Canadians would be in the control center of such a system.

But Martin, apparently playing to his anti-American domestic political audience, declined the invitation, which is certainly his prerogative.

The Canadians — and it's not just their leaders — are still angry at the Bush administration over Iraq. Public opinion polls show that almost half the Canadian people view the United States unfavorably. In fact, Rice has postponed plans to visit Canada, but Canadian officials asked for a neutral-site meeting with her to smooth things over.

It's not just over Iraq that we disagree. There are a host of issues — fundamental issues such as the proper level of taxation and size of government programs and lifestyle matters such as gay marriage, legalized drug use and the role of religion in society. But those are matters on which we can happily disagree. After all, each of us can live as we choose on our own sides of the border.

However, it is on external matters, such as how much to depend on international organizations like the United Nations to solve world problems, that the differences can get testy.

Canada and America have had a relationship similar to an old-style Catholic marriage — the partners may fight but they understand that they are destined to be joined together forever, for better or for worse.

So the Bush administration is going forward with its plans to begin construction of the anti-ballistic-missile shield despite mixed results in testing parts of the system. And the Canadians, who have historically lived under the U.S. defense umbrella, seem to feel they are under no real threat of attack.

The U.S. desire for a shield originated during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was the perceived threat. But, in today's terrorism-anxious world, those who suggest that an anti-missile shield might be superfluous, even if it is workable, ignore the new reality. The spread of nukes to rogue states such as North Korea and, perhaps Iran, argues for creating such a shield.

Meanwhile, the prudent Canadian might wonder about the reliability of, say, and North Korean technology. Would you bet your country on the possibility that the crazy folks in Pyongyang might not hit Toronto when they aimed for Chicago?

Hey, if Canadians want to take their chances, who are we to say otherwise?

On the other hand, it's laughable that an American commander might have to check with Ottawa for permission to fire when he's alerted to an incoming attack from a missile streaking across Canadian soil.

Hopefully the Canadians are just venting. They have their reasons, after all: the bleakness of the continuing cold this time of year, or their unhappiness over the cancellation of the National Hockey League season.

If they are serious, though, that is no laughing matter. It would be a shame for that Catholic couple to divorce. But there are some things in a marriage — even one of convenience — that are sacred. Being able to defend yourself is one of them.

Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here.

03/02/05: Cut to heart of transplant shortage
02/23/05: Europe is more a competitor than ally
02/16/05: Don't count race, gender for benefits
02/14/05: Do you trust adults or children?
02/08/05: Chairman's race can't turn party around
01/20/04: The law has caught up with public opinion on gay-rights matters
01/04/05: To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of charity
12/21/04: Fierceness of Supreme battle is logical result of continuing pattern of those who lose at the ballot box looking to the courts to reverse the will of the people
12/14/04: Minority party still ducks basic problem
12/07/04: U.S., Canada: Joined at hip if not heart
11/24/04: Why does U.N. get free ride in scandal?
11/15/04: Gonzales lives America's promise
11/09/04: A Bipartisanship does not mean 50-50
10/26/04: Al-Qaeda adopts Viet Cong's Tet strategy: Don't' fall for it
10/19/04: Even in '91, Saddam cowed Kerry
10/13/04: Patriot Act, preemptive force here to stay
09/15/04: Kerry bets on Iraq change over consistency
09/07/04: Miller's treatment shows media bias
08/31/04: Europeans discovering value of work
08/17/04: A home where wolves don't roam?
08/10/04: Public interest vs. minority rights
08/10/04: Kerry deserves an A in history, and in his willingness to mimic the mantra of those he has spent an entire political career vilifying
08/03/04: Kerry's challenge: Closing the deal
07/29/04: Note to Prez: Customer's always right
07/20/04: If Kerry doesn't tell, voters should ask
07/14/04: PSST, pass it on, Kerry & Crew no longer think Iraq war was a mistake. Really!
06/29/04: Hostile media, prickly president — a troubling mix
06/22/04: With Kerry's choices, you'd want McCain, too
06/04/04: A debt unpaid to D-Day warriors
05/25/04: America has a bad attitude!
05/20/04: Surprise! A thank you to Bill Clinton
05/06/04: Corrupt U.N.? Shine a light
04/28/04: Kerry not weak on defense — just wrong
04/22/04: No attacks in U.S. since 9-11: Why?
04/16/04: Schools should focus on boys — now
03/16/04: Scalia recusing could give Kerry a bruising
03/04/04: Abortion, gay marriage show hypocrisy
03/01/04: Politicians can't repeal economic laws
02/19/04: The question prez, Kerry won't debate
01/21/04: Dems trying oh so hard to keep tired issue alive
01/21/04: Can whiners ever see positive side?
12/23/04: UN proves yet again it's dangerously misguided
11/18/03: U.N. oversight of Internet: Dumb idea
11/11/03: Absent change, GOP trend continues
10/28/03: Soft-on-defense stereotype — no wonder
10/22/03: Bet on Bush and the economy
09/23/03: France's time to decide: Friend or foe
09/16/03: Alabama no fluke in rejecting tax hike
09/03/03: Why Bush, Dean will win big in California recall
08/12/03: Hypocrisy from anti-death-penalty crowd
08/05/03: The rule of law or the Golden Rule?
07/22/03: A cautionary tale for those who naively believe that political posturing can override the laws of economics
06/24/03: Let seniors make their own choices
06/03/03: Bush bucks NRA to woo soccer moms
05/28/03: Bail out states? It's not D.C.'s job
05/20/03: Lawyers' party hits a new low
05/13/03: Bush mimics Nixon, Reagan by going against the political grain