Diplomacy isn’t their strong point — Part IV

In the weeks leading up to the war, I mentioned several diplomatic debacles committed by the Bush administration, including failures with several key allies, such as Russia, Turkey, and Mexico, just to name a few. This week, we can add Canada to the list.

As has been mentioned by several excellent bloggers, including Dan Drezner and Josh Marshall, a stunning article in Toronto’s newspaper, the Globe and Mail, detailed the latest fiasco for an administration that seems to have genuinely given up when it comes to maintaining international alliances that took generations to build.

Earlier this week, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci told an audience of prominent Canadian leaders that “there is a lot of disappointment in Washington and a lot of people are upset” about our neighbor’s reluctance to join in the war in Iraq.

In a bizarre attempt to contrast our commitment to Canada with their commitment to us, Cellucci said, “There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family, and that is why so many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now.”

Cellucci also hinted that Bush may cancel a planned meeting with Prime Minister Chretien, scheduled for May in Ottawa. The summit, which as the newspaper noted may have “helped smooth the rough waters,” now may not happen. “We’ll have to see how things are going with the war,” Cellucci said.

The speech then went from bad to worse. Cellucci added there may be some “strains” in U.S.-Canada relations in the coming years over this. When asked what those strains might lead to as a practical matter, Cellucci cagily said, “You’ll have to wait and see,” and added that the U.S. believes “security will trump trade,” implying possible economic punishments.

This is breathtakingly stupid. Drezner, a prof at Univ. of Chicago, described this as “dumb-ass diplomacy,” and I can’t think of a more accurate description.

For me, the most irritating part was seeing Cellucci whine about how we’d help Canada if it were threatened. Yes, and if the U.S. were threatened, I’m sure Canada wouldn’t hesitate to come to our defense. However, Iraq hadn’t threatened the U.S. before we launched an invasion. Whether you agree with the war or not, it objectively remains unprovoked. In the aftermath of the terrorism of 9/11, when America was quite literally under attack, Canada’s government and people contributed greatly to helping the families of victims and our rebuilding efforts. But when Chretien’s government has the nerve to think that preemptive war in Iraq is unwise, it warrants an unprecedented scolding from the administration? And childishly hinting that Bush won’t meet with Chretien because he may still be pouting? This is ridiculous.

But even more troubling was Cellucci’s veiled threats, suggesting financial retribution against Canada for withholding support. “Security will trump trade”? What, are we going to cancel NAFTA over this? Canada is only the single largest, most reliable, importer of American goods on the planet. Does the Bush administration seriously want to make it harder for our best customer to buy our products out of some pathetic sense of spite?

Of course, if we target Canada for economic retribution because of their resistance to war, we’ll have to do the same thing to some of our other best customers who opposed our invasion: Mexico, China, Russia, Germany, and even France. Bush is already overseeing the largest trade deficit in history; maybe he’s prepared to make it worse.

The larger point, which Drezner explained so well, is that the administration is making its most serious diplomatic error by making war with Iraq a “make or break” question for our allies. The whole “you’re either with us or you’re against us” may be of limited utility against Al Queda terrorism, but it’s destined to fail when it comes to Hussein.

As Drezner said, “The best diplomacy the Bush administration could conduct for the current situation is to politely agree to disagree with our allies. Stress that on the big issues, we share a common social purpose with our allies, and that disputes like this will hopefully be few and far between. This is how countries stay allies even when they don’t always see eye to eye.”

Exactly right, yet this is the exact opposite of what Bush is doing with Canada and others.

Einstein was attributed to have said that the definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result. Every time the Bush administration uses these heavy-handed tactics, and embraces diplomacy through intimidation, it backfires and further strains relations with allies. And every time it fails, I think, “They won’t make that mistake again.” Yet, the Keystone Kops apparently don’t learn from their mistakes.