Post by ocelot on Jun 18, 2006 1:02:03 GMT -5
Canada-U.S. relations can improve after 2008 election: U.S. think-tank
HALIFAX (CP) - Canada can improve what some regard as a tattered military relationship with the U.S. - but not before the next presidential election, says a member of a Washington-based think-tank.
Christopher Sands told a security conference on Saturday that Canada has sent mixed signals to the U.S. on issues such as Iraq and missile defence. In both cases, Sands said Ottawa had considered joining U.S. efforts only to decide against doing so, which hurt relations.
"We do need to see tangible evidence that you are interested in being with us in . . . the post 9-11 alliance," said Sands, who heads the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Canada Project.
U.S. President George W. Bush is constitutionally barred from running in the 2008 election, so a new president will take power the following year.
Canada would have a clean slate under a new president, Sands said.
Canada's efforts in the war on terror, including its mission in Afghanistan and the recent arrest of 17 terror suspects in Toronto, have been overshadowed by a strained relationship between Ottawa and Washington, he said.
"I think that Canada needs to get credit for what it's done; it needs to get challenged maybe to do a bit more," he said. "At the same time, the United States, which has a legitimate security dilemma in the world today, needs sympathy from Canadians."
Canadian Rear Admiral Dan McNeil, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic, said the tensions described by Sands are political and do not involve the two countries' militaries.
"(The relationship) can be very confusing government-to-government, but in terms of the national security policy and military-to-military . . . it's very clear."
McNeil said Canada plays an important role in NATO and will continue to do so.
But he said it's impractical to plan for a change in government that won't happen for three years.
"It's not about doing what the United States wants us to do, it's about doing what Canada should be doing," he said.
Sands said the worst-case scenario would be for the United States to treat Canada as prosperous and committed on similar values, but with limited capabilities.
But there are bigger opportunities for both countries once a new American administration is established, he said.
"I would hope that you'd have a U.S. leadership that was sufficiently wise to understand the need to bring allies like Canada on board," said Sands. "Both for what they bring in terms of capability, but also in terms of wisdom and a diverse perspective, which we could really use at a time like this."
HALIFAX (CP) - Canada can improve what some regard as a tattered military relationship with the U.S. - but not before the next presidential election, says a member of a Washington-based think-tank.
Christopher Sands told a security conference on Saturday that Canada has sent mixed signals to the U.S. on issues such as Iraq and missile defence. In both cases, Sands said Ottawa had considered joining U.S. efforts only to decide against doing so, which hurt relations.
"We do need to see tangible evidence that you are interested in being with us in . . . the post 9-11 alliance," said Sands, who heads the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Canada Project.
U.S. President George W. Bush is constitutionally barred from running in the 2008 election, so a new president will take power the following year.
Canada would have a clean slate under a new president, Sands said.
Canada's efforts in the war on terror, including its mission in Afghanistan and the recent arrest of 17 terror suspects in Toronto, have been overshadowed by a strained relationship between Ottawa and Washington, he said.
"I think that Canada needs to get credit for what it's done; it needs to get challenged maybe to do a bit more," he said. "At the same time, the United States, which has a legitimate security dilemma in the world today, needs sympathy from Canadians."
Canadian Rear Admiral Dan McNeil, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic, said the tensions described by Sands are political and do not involve the two countries' militaries.
"(The relationship) can be very confusing government-to-government, but in terms of the national security policy and military-to-military . . . it's very clear."
McNeil said Canada plays an important role in NATO and will continue to do so.
But he said it's impractical to plan for a change in government that won't happen for three years.
"It's not about doing what the United States wants us to do, it's about doing what Canada should be doing," he said.
Sands said the worst-case scenario would be for the United States to treat Canada as prosperous and committed on similar values, but with limited capabilities.
But there are bigger opportunities for both countries once a new American administration is established, he said.
"I would hope that you'd have a U.S. leadership that was sufficiently wise to understand the need to bring allies like Canada on board," said Sands. "Both for what they bring in terms of capability, but also in terms of wisdom and a diverse perspective, which we could really use at a time like this."
