Canada, U.S. must watch each others’ backs.
Why now?
As a strategist, I have been reflecting on why, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit in Chile last month, only a few days after being re-elected, U.S. President George W. Bush reversed his position on Canada’s beef export industry.
It is important for business managers to constantly scan their ecosystems, watching for shifts and understanding the threats that must be mitigated or the exploitable opportunities these changes present. This event was a significant shift and must be analyzed by Canadian business owners within the beef industry as well as those involved in the Canadian military-industrial complex.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the brain-wasting illness commonly known as mad-cow disease, has only been identified twice in Canada. The first was in 1987 and was carried by a cow imported from Britain. The cow was destroyed along with the herd. The second discovery in Alberta on May 20, 2003, resulted in border closures to Canada’s beef and cattle exports by many countries.
A third BSE case detected in Washington state in late 2003 was also later traced back to an Alberta farm.
In 2002, Canada was the third-largest exporter of beef in the world, exporting cattle, bull semen and embryos totalling $4.1 billion. The industry represents 0.4 percent of Canada’s GDP.
Alberta produced 516,000 of the 1.7 million cattle exported by Canada in 2002.
Collectively British Columbia and Alberta provided 40 percent of Canada’s beef exports. The primary importer of Canadian beef was the United States, which accounted for 90 percent of Canada’s beef exports. The U.S. import ban has cost the beef industry an estimated $11 million per day plus a further $7 million in depressed prices. This trade barrier has been in place for 18 months.
The Canadian beef industry involves more than just farmers in Alberta and B.C. Statistics show that the industry, directly and indirectly, contributes $15 billion to the Canadian economy and 400,000 jobs.
It is clear that the crisis in the beef industry is significant, and many Canadian business owners are feeling the results. But what bargaining chip can Prime Minister Paul Martin offer in return for the removal of this draconian administrative trade barrier?
The answer, I believe, is that Martin has agreed to support the U.S. Ballistic Missile Shield initiative, which ultimately could detect and destroy hostile missiles entering North American airspace.
According to recent surveys, the majority of the Canadian public is opposed to our participation in such a venture. This is a problem. Martin can’t deal with the issues in an open and transparent venue as leader of a minority government where two of the opposition parties have threatened to call for a confidence vote if the matter is brought before the House of Commons.
So I believe that the federal government will quietly, and incrementally, lend its name and resources in support of this initiative.
I cannot believe that Bush wishes Canada to make a financial contribution to missile defence, nor will he make significant demands other than a few Canadian military officers to continue to operate computers at the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD).
But I do believe we will be asked to provide two things.
First, we will agree to allow Americans to have access and control over Canadian territory, upon which NORAD can establish the infrastructure for the so-called Star Wars venture. This will amount to Canada’s financial contribution, in lieu of real cash.
Second, it will buy Canada’s international voice. I believe this will be implemented at two possible levels of commitment. At the first level, Canada would be expected to agree not to adopt an international role or join coalitions speaking against missile defence. At the second level – and I suspect the preferred option from the Bush administration’s perspective – Canada would actually become an advocate. This would assist Bush in dealing with the many detractors within the United States.
To me, the issue may well be academic.
As Canadians, we have acquiesced to the Monroe Doctrine, which provides for the defence of Canada by the United States from outside threats. John Monroe brought this doctrine to Congress in 1823, building on remarks by George Washington in 1796 that held the Western Hemisphere would be the responsibility of the U.S.
During the War of 1812 and in the decades following, it became clear that this doctrine was and continues to be a cardinal feature of America’s foreign policy to ensure U.S. security.
I expect we will hear more about this doctrine as the competition for access to, and control of, global commodities such as North American oil, electricity and water become national security issues.
If we have offered up a small piece of our sovereignty to inject life back into our beef industry, I support the measure. The geopolitical nature of the U.S. and Canada’s relationship is such that we must watch each other’s backs.
Note: This article was originally published in 2005.
