Sat Feb 26/05
Missile offence

"What is… needed," said today's Post editorial, "is a more principled approach to foreign policy — one that is less concerned with hectoring the United States and posturing as a multilateral champion, and focuses instead on fighting terror, confronting rogue states, stabilizing crisis zones and advancing democracy." Party on, says I. But this latest round of "woe be to Canada" punditry was brought on by the government's decision to opt out of missile defence, and I'm not sure that's entirely appropriate.

Don't get me wrong: Paul Martin's performance on this has been maddening. Basically he went from an unexplained pro- position to an unexplained anti- position, without even a half-hearted attempt to make the case for Canadians one way or the other. Just like with the war in Iraq, and just like with gay marriage, no one has any idea what underpins the government's position. Thus, the issue at hand fractures into amorphous sub-debates (Did Saddam buy uranium from Niger? Is marriage inherently procreative? Will missile defence lead to the weaponization of space?), none of which can be turned back towards the Prime Minister because he never even considered them. The Emperor isn't just naked — he dematerializes on command. On gay marriage, it gets no more complex than "it's a rights issue"; on Iraq, we had no position except (finally) "we're not going"; and, similarly, Martin's official position on missile defence declines to explain where or what from it originated.

Again, there's no excuse for the dithering and the back-and-forth. I find this finger-in-the-wind approach to politics sickening. But had Martin been decisive — had he not campaigned on signing on, for instance — I'm not sure it would have been incumbent upon him to provide a reason to opt out. The Post identifies our priorities as "fighting terror, confronting rogue states, stabilizing crisis zones and advancing democracy." Missile defence does not even propose to do any of those things. (This is why I find this an odd time for the "Does Canada stand for anything?" editorial.)

If George W Bush was proposing something that was obviously ridiculous — say, to encase the entire North American continent in some sort of impenetrable Lucite dome — I would expect us to opt out immediately. "I don't care if it's free or if they'll do it anyway," Paul Martin would say. "Bush has totally lost it." Missile defence isn't nearly as silly, of course, but it does seem to me to address a non-existent threat — one that should be way, way down our list of priorities. It's better to have defences against ICBM attacks than not to, it's true, but it's also "better" for a Torontonian to wear bear repellent and carry tornado insurance.

The need for missile defence is not self-evident. As such, I think it's far more incumbent on Bush to make the case than it is on Martin to make the case against. Even still, The National Post's stable of columnists was almost exclusively of the opinion that we should have signed on since it would have cost us nothing and curried favour with the Americans in a time when relations need smoothing. Adam Radwanski:

With our lack of a functional military making us bit players abroad, missile defence gave us an opportunity to improve our relationship and increase our influence with the most powerful nation in the world through symbolic support with little tangible commitment.

The February 25 editorial:

As we have argued many times in this space, co-operating with the Americans in this area would not only help protect this continent from rogue nations and terrorist groups, but also do much to engender a new spirit of co-operation with our closest friend and neighbour.

John Ivison:

Here was a chance to prove our good faith by signing up to a program that was not going to cost us anything. Nor were missile silos going to be sited in Canada. True, the system may not work and may yet prove too expensive for a country deeply in deficit. But that was scarcely our concern.

Is this is a "principled approach to foreign policy"? "Well, it's free, and they'll do it anyway, so what the hell… we're in"? Yikes.

There are two issues here: whether Paul Martin is doing a terrible job as Prime Minister, and whether we should sign on to missile defence. The case is rapidly closing on the first; and unfortunately, the second is not being widely addressed on truly "principled" grounds.