The passage of time it is said heals wounds, dulling emotions and past bitterness. This is not always the case as the passage of time can cause perceptions and opinions if left unchallenged to cement themselves into hardened clichés and accepted truths. This is certainly the case of former prime ministers Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien; one elected twice and in 1984 with the biggest majority in Canadian federal electoral history, the other winning three straight majorities. Both impressive accomplishments in their own rights, however history and public perception have treated the two men very differently. While Chretien with his ‘Little Guy from Shawinigan’ persona (he’s actually six feet tall), had the benefit of governing in a time of economic growth (with much of the credit going to Finance Minister Paul Martin) is largely looked back on favourably by a majority of English Canadians, the same cannot be said of Brian Mulroney. Who in spite of bringing in initiatives such as the unpopular yet highly successful Goods and Services Tax and the Free Trade Agreement both of which were either carried on or expanded under the Chretien government is still looked upon with disfavour if not outright revulsion by many Canadians.
As noted earlier the passage of time can dull memories or set perceptions in stone, it should also provide some clarity on the records and methods of governing of the two men. If differences in policy were not enough it is more the public perceptions of the two men that give the greatest hint as to why they are held in such different levels of regard by the Canadian public. Largely this comes down to perceptions on personal style and the fact that while Mulroney was seen as slick, smooth and by many as far too close to the United States for Canadian sensibilities, Chretien was perceived by Canadians as a ‘street fighter’ who stood up to the Americans, most importantly keeping Canada out of the Iraq War – more on that later.
The gravest, most important decision any government can make is the decision to engage in hostilities, to send its armed forces into battle, something that occurred under the watch of both Prime Ministers, twice under Chretien. The different ways each government handled these crises is illustrative of whom, despite public perception was actually more in tune with the values most Canadians profess to hold.
August 2nd 1990 Iraq under now deposed dictator Saddam Hussein invaded the tiny neighbouring state of Kuwait, annexing it and declaring it ‘Province Nineteen’. The invasion was widely condemned and with the ending of the Cold War, Security Council Resolutions were brought forward condemning the invasion and later authorizing the use of force by the international community to remove Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait.
Canada’s response under the Mulroney government was to dispatch three warships, a reinforced squadron of CF 18 fighter – bombers based in Qatar and later an army field hospital and infantry company based in Saudi Arabia. Although most Canadians expressed pride in their forces there was a perception aided in no large part by the opposition in parliament that Canadians were just following the US lead, abandoning Canada’s ‘traditional role’ as peacekeeper and being asked to potentially kill or be killed for ‘Texaco’.
In a debate before the outbreak of hostilities the Liberal Official Opposition opposed Canada’s participation in any resulting war and Chretien called for Canadian Forces to be withdrawn from the region in the event of conflict – an action that if taken would have outraged many allies both within NATO and friendly countries in the Middle East. However Canada’s participation in the conflict although relatively small (Canada was the fourth largest contributor of forces amongst Western nations after the US, Britain and France) was perfectly aligned with its participation in past conflicts, such as World War Two and Korea where as a nation Canada responded to aggression; certainly a much longer tradition than that of peacekeeper, which only came about in a significant way after the Korean War.
Canada’s participation in the Gulf War was marked (by today’s standard) by a degree of openness unheard of; with reporters stationed at the Canadian airbase in Qatar giving regular reports and openly able to interview pilots (albeit under military restriction). Even more remarkable was that in a rare bipartisan move Brian Mulroney swore then New Democratic Party Leader Audrey McLaughlin into the Privy Council so the Opposition Parties would have access to classified briefings. A move not repeated in the three subsequent conflicts Canada would participate in.
Within just over a year of Canada’s participation in the Gulf War, far from having its reputation as a ‘peacekeeper’ ruined; the demands that Canada participate in UN missions mushroomed. With new missions in Croatia, Bosnia, Cambodia, and Namibia as well as ongoing missions in Cyprus and the Golan Heights to mention a few. Most notably the high profile assignment of a Canadian battalion led by the famed Van Doo’s to secure the Sarajevo Airport and be the muscle in a fledgling UN force there commanded by Canadian Maj Gen Lewis Mackenzie. By the beginning of 1993 fully ten percent of the worlds peacekeeping forces were Canadian, not bad for a country that a scant year earlier had seemingly ‘ruined’ it’s reputation as a ‘peacekeeper’.
In 1993 Brian Mulroney was but a memory and Jean Chretien now Prime Minister, and after campaigning vigorously against both the GST and free trade (remember his “I will axe the tax”) while in opposition. Once in government he could not say ‘no’ to the revenue generated by the hated GST, and ended up keeping it. He later in due course expanded free trade by negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico.
The decade saw a needed attack on Canada’s deficit and resulted in cutbacks in among other things, Canada’s foreign aid and diplomatic corps. Where under Brian Mulroney Canada had been at the forefront amongst western democracies in opposing apartheid in South Africa, lending non lethal military aid to ‘frontline’ Border States in the region and using it’s much maligned clout with US President Ronald Regan to get the Americans to act on reducing carbon emissions, the leading cause of acid rain that was poisoning Canadian lakes. A decade later under Finance Minister Paul Martin’s budget cutting Canada’s presence in the world was scaled back, it’s forces exhausted from budget cuts and constant overseas tours, the Canadian presence in the two Balkan missions was scaled back and the number of Canadian diplomatic missions, particularly in Africa was sharply reduced.
The end of Canada’s participation in the UN mission in Croatia and the replacing of the United Nations force in Bosnia with a larger more robust NATO one continued Canada’s presence in the Balkans under Prime Minister Chretien. However Canada’s refusal to take part in the NATO airstrikes that contributed to bringing the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table as well as its non-participation in the UN Forces’ newly formed Rapid Reaction Force that operated under the UN but with NATO like rules of engagement meant that our role was a marginal one at first, later expanding a year after the initial deployment of a thousand troops.
Perhaps because of this perception of Canada not pulling it’s weight combined with a more activist Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy who was a driving force behind the new doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, Canada joined the UN mandated no fly zone over Bosnia, and once again trouble began to brew in the Balkans.
If anyone cared to remember back to his opposition to Canada’s participation in the 1991 Gulf War, the Chretien government’s actions in 1999 were either a tacit acknowledgement that Liberal views had changed upon returning to government (much like the position on the GST) or a stunning case of hypocrisy: A growing insurgency by ethnic Albanians was taking place in the Serbian province of Kosovo, the response by the Milosevic government was typically brutal, however unlike the case of the first Gulf War, it was essentially an internal matter for Yugoslavia. Still NATO and the west fueled by media reports of atrocities expressed growing concern and eventually outrage on the situation.
With Serbia’s traditionally ally Russia as well as China unwilling to support a UN Security Council resolution on intervention, NATO countries did not bother to seek a UN mandate for action and in March 1999 NATO forces began what was to be a seventy eight day air campaign against Yugoslav forces and infrastructure.
Based on Chretien’s opposition position on Canada’s participation in a UN approved conflict with broad international support to turn back a clear case of international aggression one would expect the Canadian government would immediately withdraw its six CF 18’s based in Aviano Italy.
No, something must have happened on the Liberal/Chretien road to Damascus; as it had once opposed the use of force even under a UN mandate in response to international aggression. On the first night of conflict in Yugoslavia four CF 18 fighters took off from Aviano Italy, three of which engaged a Yugoslav ground target with laser guided bombs. Canada was, under the dovish Chretien engaging in the bombing of a sovereign European country. A country that had not invaded its neighbors and we were doing so without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Additionally, access by the media was sharply reduced. No combat footage from Canadian jets was released until after the conflict and access to the pilots was limited, although there were daily briefings from National Defense Headquarters in Ottawa.
The decision by the Chretien government to participate in the bombing of Yugoslavia without even attempting to seek UN approval led to the longest continuous protests in Canadian history with daily protests by Serbian Canadians and others outside the US Consulate on University Avenue in Toronto for the duration of the conflict.
Canada played a major role in the war, although contributing only 3% of the NATO aircraft involved it conducted 10% of the strikes, increasing its commitment from six to twelve, then eventually eighteen aircraft. Later after the signing of a peace deal, Canada took a lead role in the eventual occupation of Kosovo province under the (belatedly) UN Mandated Kosovo Protection Force (KFOR); its role to oversee the removal of Yugoslav Federal Forces and effectively partitioning the province from Serbia/Yugoslavia. When viewed in the prism of 1991 it was a stunning reversal in the Liberal Party position of Canada’s roll in the world.
Perhaps the position of Mr. Chretien depended more on who was in power south of the border than on an actual abiding principle of adherence to United Nations resolutions. After the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Canada contributed forces in support of the US led and UN approved Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. It was the first of four phases of Canadian involvement in that country under three different prime ministers. The move was largely supported by a Canadian public that though not exactly enamored of then US president George W. Bush was still shaken by the events south of the border.
Within a year of western intervention in Afghanistan, the Taliban government was toppled and US attention began to shift to Iraq. Yet with the exception of Britain, Australia, and a few other countries much of the world including Canada was highly skeptical of the motivations and necessity of an invasion of Iraq, especially when there still appeared to be work to be done in the Afghan theatre.
In the House of Commons and amongst Canadians in general there was much discussion about whether Canada should contribute forces to a US led invasion of Iraq. The Official Opposition under Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper was pushing for Canada’s support and participation in any US action. However Chretien, ever the wily fox understood this had no appeal to the majority of Canadians, particularly doing so in support of a domestically unpopular US Republican president.
It turns out later as revealed in Janice Stein’s and Eugene Lang’s book ‘The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar’ (published 2007 by Viking Canada) that Canada was never asked to contribute forces to Iraq; as the hawks in the Pentagon thought additional allied forces would slow down the US advance and not be needed anyway. What US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did suggest was that Canada could contribute forces to and lead the UN Mandated International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul Afghanistan, as Canada had by now pulled out its forces from that country.
These high level discussions – although reported – remained unknown to most Canadians until the government announced in a one, two punch that would effectively negate any Canadian participation in an invasion of Iraq. February of 2003 a month before the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, Canada announced its participation in ISAF billing it – misleadingly - as a peacekeeping mission and effectively tying up the bulk of Canada’s available land combat forces (the mission in Bosnia was still ongoing although Canada had withdrawn from KFOR).
A month later the prime minister announced that Canada would not participate in an invasion of Iraq without UN approval, since this was highly unlikely so would be a Canadian role in any invasion.
So you can hold the two records on war, peace and politics up to the harsh light of historical realities and how to the two men measure up on the matters of war, peace and politics?
Looking back on this period, most Canadians still give former Prime Minister Chretien credit, stating; “well at least he kept us out of Iraq”. Yet in fact he knew all along we were never asked to go to Iraq. Still to keep good favour with Canada’s American allies he agreed to the very thing the American’s asked; but in a move of political brilliance the decision appeared both to the opposition and Canadian public to fly in the face of US policy, although the governments reputation did suffer south of the border by not at least giving a public fig leaf of approval to American intentions in Iraq.
While under the leadership of Brian Mulroney, Canada expanded its diplomatic role worldwide. He used his good relations with an unpopular (in Canada) American President to gain influence on matters important to Canada. Though he did commit Canada to a war in the Persian Gulf, he did so in response to aggression against a weaker neighboring country and with a clear mandate from the United Nations; and did so in spite of a significant degree of domestic opposition. At the same time committing Canada to expanding its role as a contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions around the globe again despite opposition predictions to the contrary.
In contrast as Prime Minister, Chretien’s willingness to commit the Canadian Forces to combat seemed to rest less on actual principle; as based on him doing in 1999 exactly what he opposed in 1991 and 2003, but rather seemed based on what was domestically and politically palatable. Most particularly, committing forces if a US president was popular (as Clinton was in 1999) with Canadians or not, if unpopular as George W. Bush was in 2003.
Without a doubt Chretien comes out on top as perhaps the master Canadian political craftsman of the past half century. His understanding of what Canadians wanted in a leader charismatically (or lack thereof), and as to what they would deem as an acceptably ‘Canadian’ role in the world has yet to be matched. It will likely be decades before another prime minister repeats his three straight majorities.
Brian Mulroney, he paid the price for governing by his principles regardless of their popularity with Canadians. He was willing to brave the short term outrage of some segments of the Canadian populace if he believed; as in the case of Free Trade, and the GST that it would be for the betterment of the country as a whole. He made the fatal mistake of appearing too close to an American President that was largely unpopular in Canada. His opponent’s forever using footage of him crooning; ‘When Irish Eyes are Smiling’ hand in hand with Ronald Regan at the ‘Shamrock Summit’ in Quebec as evidence, not of a need to repair damaged relations with our biggest ally and trading partner, but of suspect Canadian loyalties and a secret agenda.
Maybe though in fact his real flaw was that he was just too smooth for our liking, too polished, too precise; and Chretien’s practiced though rough around the edges approach had more appeal to the average English Canadian.
Not to say that Jean Chretien was a man without principle; he is a passionate and patriotic Canadian, there can be no doubt of that. However perhaps better than any other leader of his time, he was able to navigate the turbulent Canadian political waters of his day and understand better than most of his peers what Canadians wanted and would accept from their government of the day.
Perhaps it was that willingness to bend to the combination of political practicality and expedience that was in the end the undoing of Brian Mulroney.
No comments:
Post a Comment