Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

An Iraqi man inspects what local residents claim to be an unexploded U.S. bomb from the 2003 Iraq War in a desert south of Samawa, 270 km south of Baghdad on March 15, 2013. (MOHAMMED AMEEN/REUTERS)
An Iraqi man inspects what local residents claim to be an unexploded U.S. bomb from the 2003 Iraq War in a desert south of Samawa, 270 km south of Baghdad on March 15, 2013. (MOHAMMED AMEEN/REUTERS)

Roland Paris

Staying out of Iraq was said to hurt Canada’s standing. It didn’t Add to ...

In the weeks leading up to the disastrous invasion of Iraq a decade ago, a number of prominent Canadian commentators and political figures warned of dire consequences to Canada-U.S. relations if this country failed to join the American-led coalition. As it turned out, however, the U.S. administration quickly got over Jean Chrétien’s decision to keep Canada out of the war and the American public, for its part, barely seemed to notice Canada’s stance.

More Related to this Story

In recent days, we have been reminded of the letter that Stephen Harper, then the leader of the opposition, sent to The Wall Street Journal criticizing Mr. Chrétien’s decision and declaring that it was “manifestly in the national interest of Canada” to participate in the invasion. Yet Mr. Harper was far from alone – many others at the time also insisted that the decision would inflict profound and lasting harm to Canada-U.S. relations.

National Post columnist Andrew Coyne, for example, was one of these commentators. In late January, 2003, when Britain was already siding with the U.S., and France and Germany were refusing to be bullied into supporting an ever-more-likely invasion, he wrote that “it is unconscionable enough that Canada cannot, at this point, be counted among the allies. We have already paid a price in diplomatic terms, being regarded now as marginal nuisances, where once we were trusted confidants. But if, in the crunch, we elect to side with France and Germany ­– and, by extension, Iraq – against the United States, on a matter the Americans regard as vital to their security interests, we will be counting the costs for generations. We will be viewed in Washington, not just as irrelevant, but as hostile.”

He concluded: “The political consequences at home, once it is realized what the Chrétienites have wrought, will be dire.”

We now know that Mr. Coyne’s fears for the future of Canada-U.S. relations were largely unfounded. Although Mr. Chrétien’s decision (and the less-than-diplomatic manner in which he announced it) led to a cooling in the relationship, the duration and effects of this chill were limited. President George W. Bush cancelled an official trip to Ottawa, and there may have been some reduction in U.S. intelligence-sharing with Canada, but co-operation in most areas of the relationship continued largely as usual. As early as 2004, moreover, the two countries were devising a deeper agenda of security and economic co-operation, which they pursued in the ensuing years.

Nor did U.S. public opinion turn against Canada. According to Gallup surveys conducted throughout this period, Americans maintained an overwhelmingly favourable view of both Canada and Britain throughout the war, despite the fact that the British joined the coalition and Canada did not. Indeed, a decade after the invasion, Canada was viewed in a more positive light than even Britain.

By contrast, the reputations of Germany and France, both of which sat out the war, suffered significant blows in 2003-2004. Why Canada did not experience a similarly sharp decline in U.S. favourability during this period remains a puzzle. One possible explanation is that positive attitudes towards Canada are so deeply rooted in the U.S. that they remain relatively stable even during periods of disagreement between Washington and Ottawa. A more likely explanation, however, is that most Americans were simply not aware that Canada had adopted an anti-war stance, whereas the positions of France and Germany were widely reported in the U.S. media. If this explanation is correct, it should give pause to Canadians who participate in our national pastime of lamenting Americans’ inadequate knowledge of Canada. If roughly 90 per cent of Americans have persistently positive views of their northern neighbour, as these polls suggest, then what is there to fix? American ignorance may be the key to Canadian bliss.

More to the point, Canada did the right thing by staying out of the Iraq war, and it suffered little diplomatic damage for taking this stand. While there is little solace to be found from the war’s devastation ten years on – by one estimate, the conflict has resulted in a heart-breaking 190,000 deaths and cost $2.2-trillion – for Canadians, the sombreness of this anniversary should be tempered by relief.

Roland Paris is University Research Chair in International Security and Governance at the University of Ottawa, founding Director of the Centre for International Policy Studies. This article is published in partnership with the Canadian International Council and its international-affairs hub OpenCanada.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

 

In the know

Most popular videos »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most popular