In a few short weeks, statues have fallen, armies have melted away, and a tyrant has been overthrown in Baghdad. Canada's objections, and the objections of the UN Security Council, were swept aside, and Ottawa is now scrambling to assuage Washington's irritation. For Canada today the question becomes, not "how can we have a voice in the world," but "can we be heard at all in the face of America's mighty shout?" To answer that question we must learn how to speak with both confidence and tact.

Allan Gotlieb refers to "our privileged relationship with the United States," and "an enduring friendship." As war loomed in Iraq some Canadians argued that this friendship (Canada "likened to a family member") demanded that Canada join the war automatically and without consideration. This is a view that must be rejected: to cite Lord Palmerston, "nations do not have friends, they have interests." The United States has never supported Canada, militarily or economically, except where such action would be beneficial to itself. Canadian soldiers fought and died in both world wars for years before the United States became involved (after attacks on its shipping and Pearl Harbour.) Before we consider America our all-powerful protector, we should remember the bravery and strength of Canadian soldiers at Vimy Ridge, overcoming the Nazis, or struggling in Korea: Canadians are capable of acts of heroism every bit the equal of American ones. With a clear eye to history, we ought no more to reflexively follow the United States than it would do the same for us.

Yet, if it is imprudent to consider America as family, it is positively foolish to think of America as an enemy. While Janice Stein's concerns about Hollywood's cultural dominion are understandable in a country that has defined itself in contrast to the U.S. since the Loyalists, they remain unfounded. I agree with Gotlieb that American culture is here because Canadians want it, but would add that this openness is perfectly in keeping with Canadian ideals. Multiculturalism means that Canada is a place where every citizen can take on the practices that they choose, limited only by a commitment to the freedom and community that establish this opportunity. These values are largely shared with the United States, and certainly not undermined by The Simpsons or Chicago (which was filmed in Toronto!) We ought to be as accepting of American culture as we are of French, Chinese, British, or Native experiences.

Canada should avoid both of these extremes and pursue a policy of rational relationship management. We must identify what we seek from America, what we are willing to offer to achieve it, and then negotiate with a cool head to achieve the best results.

Janice Stein draws attention to the several multilateral agreements that Canada and Canadian NGO's have helped shape on the international stage in recent years. The ban on land mines, the International Criminal Court, and Kyoto all represent a new trend in the world, she argues. Of course, another common thread is the refusal of the United States to participate in them. Some would say that this renders the treaties irrelevant, but I believe that they lay the groundwork for the future. As the institutional structures backing, e.g. the ICC, develop, a gradual pressure can be exerted on the U.S. Emphasising the convenience of involvement and the potential for improved co-operation on security issues, America may be gradually drawn into these arrangements as political winds shift in the Capitol and White House. But these treaties are not the most pressing component of our North American relationship.

As both commentators agree, secure access to the U.S. market must be at the forefront of our efforts, with a third of our economy depending on such trade. Steel or softwood tariffs can strike severe blows against the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians, while punishing U.S. consumers. Gotlieb is correct to note that most such actions are launched in Congress on behalf of special interests, for the American national interest is best served by free trade. Our efforts must therefore be particularly focused on the presidency, the only nationally elected office in the U.S.

In maintaining that relationship, it is particularly important that we ensure the federal government does not tacitly endorse anti-Americanism. Remarks such as the infamous 'moron' comment impose a political cost and sour the attitudes of American leaders without any benefit in return. While citizens and MP's have the right to speak their minds, the Prime Minister and Cabinet must publicly condemn such behaviour and make clear that it is not the position of government. The stereotypes of Americans as 'cowboys' and less 'cultured' stem from an unbecoming insecurity, as we attempt to build an identity for ourselves out of negatives, and are in any case false. The Dominion Institute's own research indicates that Americans know their history better than we know our own. In our dealings with American officialdom (and in the Canadian media, which, as we have seen, are easily followed by Washington) we should be cordial and polite, recognising the self-destructiveness of any other position.

However, while we should avoid pointless irritations of the U.S. I must dissent from Gotlieb's emphasis on Canada's "particularly vulnerable position." It is true that the balance of power favours America, but Canada must not succumb to the belief that it is a powerless supplicant. We are the leading oil supplier for the U.S., surpassing even Saudi Arabia, which has wrested enormous concessions through its energy industry. We form the leading export market for 35 of the 50 states.1 Many prominent American companies operate here. America needs Canada, just as we need the U.S., and we should go forward with confidence, aware of both strengths and weaknesses.

One area on which Canada must be unyielding is the guarantee of rights and freedoms domestically. For instance, the decriminalization of marijuana possession, with the support of the Canadian majority, protects a vast swathe of citizens from undue persecution. When America demands that this protection be sacrificed at the altar of 'Drug War,' we must refuse. Such decisions can be coupled with efforts to prevent spillover to America, as with the current government's wise decision to crack down on Canadian producer/exporters.

On the other hand, the area with the greatest room for give-and-take, as well as the primary concern of the American government, is security. Determined assistance in counter-terrorism efforts, and particularly the control of known terrorist groups in Canada is absolutely essential. The extended delay in identifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation was a great disappointment, using a rationale that would allow Al-Qaeda to achieve tax-exempt status if it donated some blankets to the families of suicide bombers.

Abroad, we should not wield the justification presented for non-involvement with Iraq: that no Security Council resolution authorised an attack. Our intervention in Kosovo was equally unauthorised, but was heartily embraced by the federal government. The approval of the winning powers of WWII cannot determine the case for a particular foreign policy: outcome must take priority over process. In future Canada must offer an honest account of its reasons for becoming involved or not in any possible joint ventures. In so doing we should weigh the degree of influence such alliances can convey, e.g. President Bush's enormous efforts to satisfy the requests of Britain, and to use a more comparable example, Australia's sudden prominence in Washington as a result of supporting America. Canada is much more likely to be listened to as an ally within the inner circle than as an outsider. Involvement with projects that will proceed regardless of our presence, such as NMD today or NORAD in the past, gives us a chance for input that would otherwise be wholly absent. In each case we must weigh the commitment from the perspective of Canadian interests, but a substantial overseas commitment in at least some U.S. interventions offers one of the best ways to improve our bargaining position.

However, to gain substantial benefits from such dealings we will need to follow Mr. Gotlieb's advice with respect to 'hard power.' Canada's credibility as a middle power in the Pearsonian period was in large part built by its commitment of Canadian blood and arms. This demonstrated that 1) Canada had the courage of its convictions and 2) that Canada was worth conversing with for the help it could provide. The brilliant diplomats Gotlieb describes towards the end of his article would be ultimately insignificant coming from a powerless country.

If we are willing to cool the passions that run riot in our relationship with our giant neighbour, against whom we define and measure ourselves, we can reap the benefits of a firmer relationship with America. We should be confident in the value we can offer, but also willing to compromise and prioritise our concerns. Rapprochement and a more closely connected North America are within our grasp, if only we extend a hand. Not as antagonist or family, but in partnership.