The Obama administration's impact on Canada-United States bilateral relations

Canada-U.S. Relationship

Canada and the United States enjoy the world's longest unprotected border, the world's largest trading relationship and a long history of close and cordial relations. The two nations are presently working together on a number of key issues, including terrorism, trade and issues of border security. The tone of the relationship at any given time is typically set by the political ideologies of the respective nation's leaders. So while the Liberal Chretien government sparred with the Bush administration over a number of key issues, the Conservative Harper government brought the two nations closer together. The twin objectives of this paper are to examine some of the key issues that characterize the present political relationship between Canada and the United States and to analyze the impact that the Obama administration is expected to have in this relationship over the next few years. The political situation in Canada is less certain, with the Harper government narrowly holding onto its minority government.

Political uncertainty on the Canadian side of the border aside, I intend this paper to show that the relationship between Canada and the United States is not only strong, but it will grow stronger over the next few years. This will occur because the administrations of both nations, at least as far as is manifested by the minority Harper government, are close in their views on the most important issues in the bilateral agreement. This congruence will allow the two administrations to work together more closely than even Harper-Bush, and certainly more closely than Chretien-Bush.

Key Issues: Terrorism/Afghanistan

Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, a new relationship was forged between the United States and Canada with respect to terrorism. The notion that terrorist attacks could hit Toronto or Ottawa in the same way that they hit New York and Washington, DC was frightening for the Chretien administration. They quickly joined the Bush administration in the so-called "war on terror," and became part of the NATO coalition that eventually invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. Both Canada and the United States have remained in Afghanistan ever since.

In that time, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq distracted U.S. military forces, which has proved to be a bone of contention between the two nations. With limited U.S. presence in Afghanistan and the majority of NATO allies unwilling to put their troops into that nation's most troubled regions, the Canadian military has been burdened with a large share of the duty. The resulting casualties have made Afghanistan a major political issue for the Harper government, which has now set a timetable for withdrawal of Canadian combat forces in the region by 2011.

Complicating the issue is the fact that the security situation in Afghanistan has worsened since 2004. Both Canadians and members within the White House agree that the Afghan mission has gone astray, and is presently without a clear sense of direction. The Obama administration has ordered a strategic review of the issue to be completed by early April before action is taken. However, tentative plans call for an increase in U.S. troops to the country.

The issue is of significant political importance to the Obama administration. Obama raised the issue multiple times during his election campaign, pointing out that the war on terror has not been completed, and that the main battleground for the war on terror is Afghanistan, not Iraq. Thus, both nations are heavily involved in Afghanistan, both on the ground and politically at home. The two countries will therefore need to work together closely, along with other relevant nations, including Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Afghanistan is more a political hot button for Canadian politicians, the intensity of this issue in forging the next stage of the Canada-United States relationship will be dependent on whether or not Harper is forced into an election in the near future.

Key Issues: Border Security

Border security is a political hot button issue on both sides of the border, closely tied to both the issue of trade and the issue of terrorism. The United States has taken a wide variety of initiatives in recent years with respect to shoring up security on their borders. Some of these initiatives have threatened to sour the relationship between the U.S. And Canada. With respect to trade, Canada fears that tighter border restrictions will impede the flow of trade between the two countries. U.S. companies that do cross-border business feel the same way. However, in the U.S. trade is not the main concern with respect to border security.

The main concerns for the U.S. with respect to border security are terrorism and illegal immigration. The U.S. is driven by the belief that terrorist attacks can be prevented through stricter border security. Immigration is also a significant issue, especially along the southern border. Prior to September 11th, 2001, the two countries had a much stronger relationship on the issue of border security.

There are many reasons why this issue has seen such a strong divergence of opinion at the political level between Americans and Canadians. Many of the U.S. initiatives are viewed by Canada as placing undue restrictions on the flow of people and goods, with no discernable benefit. Canadians point out that the September 11th hijackers entered the United States legally on visas. At one point, there was a proposal to have Canadians fill out visa paperwork at the border in order to gain entry to the U.S., a move that would have increased border wait times exponentially. The move was viewed with revulsion by business leaders on both sides of the border, and was viewed in Canada as a sign of distrust on the part of the Americans.

In public, both Harper and Obama say the right things. They appear on the same page with respect to improving security while simultaneously keeping the borders open. These twin goals, which not mutually exclusive, are certainly not congruent. Thickening of the borders will inevitably restrict the flow of people and goods. Moreover, the core objectives of the two countries differ with respect to border security. Canada's views are pragmatic, concerned with the flow of goods and services. America's views - certainly those of the nation's hawks - are less rational, concerned with solving problems of their own invention.

Key Issues: Environmental Matters

While the economy, Afghanistan and border security have become the most significant issues in the Canada-U.S. relationship since the presidential election, environmental matters will not take a back seat for long. The environment is an issue of long-standing import between the two nations. There are many areas where the interests of Canada and the United States converge. Acid rain is a long-standing issue, where pollution in the U.S. industrial belt contributes to the destruction of Canadian forests. Alaskan overfishing of BC salmon is another issue of the past.

The main issue today, however, is that of climate change.

The Chretien administration and the Bush administration went their separate ways with respect to climate change, exemplified by Canada's signing of the Kyoto Accord. Through this era, Canada viewed itself as a nation that needed to take a leadership role on the issue of climate change whereas the United States proceeded as though science was irrelevant. The Harper administration brought Canadian environmental philosophy, at least at the highest political level, closer to that of the Bush administration. Indeed, even under Chretien, environmental policy consisted of far more talk than action.

Today, the immediacy of the economic crisis has somewhat superceded climate change. As with border security, the two leaders say the right things with respect to climate change. While it may be too early to evaluate the Obama administration's stand on environmental issues and global warming, Harper has never been especially clear in his articulation of Canada's strategy or objectives with respect to climate change. The nation is a net exporter of fossil fuels, to the extent that the Canadian dollar is now considered by most economists to be a petrocurrency. This reality threatens to color Canada's views on climate change. The United States, as a major user of fossil fuels, has greater incentive to develop an economy for a post-fossil fuel future. In any case, there appears to be little traction for major initiatives with respect to this issue for either country in the near future, despite the fact that the issue is likely to guide the course of the 21st century.

Outlook: The Next Few Years

As with any relationship, that between Canada and the United States will be driven by a handful of key issues. Within the context of these issues, it is reasonable to expect that that nature of the relationship will depend on the degree of congruence between the objectives of the two nations. The more the two nations agree on the desired state to be achieved by a given strategy or tactic, the more the two nations will agree on what that strategy or tactic should be.

Canada and the United States have long had a close, cordial relationship. As a result, this relationship has remained almost exclusively positive. The unique nature of this relationship is such that the only real threat to the positive nature of the relationship is damaging unilateral action. We saw this during the Chretien-Bush years, where political leadership traded barbs and generally disagreed on a wide range of issues of mutual interest. The relationship began to strengthen when the Harper government came to power, in part due to certain congruencies in outlook between the nations' respective administrations.

It is generally considered that the Harper government had more in common with the Bush administration than it does with the Obama administration. This view, however, can be tempered by a solid analysis of the reality. The first important point is that the Harper government is a minority government. They require support from one of the other major parties in order to pass bills, and therefore they are unable to take a stance that is too far to the right. Canadians are generally centrist to center-left in their political orientation. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to speculate on the future of the Harper government, or on the potential impact of a potential Ignatieff administration on Canada-U.S. relations. But it has been demonstrated in the past few years that the more hawkish tendencies of the Conservative party have been muted as a result of their minority status, bringing the Canadian government's views on many key issues closer to those of the center-left Obama administration.

We can see this high level of congruence with regards to the Afghanistan mission. Both Harper and Obama agree that improving conditions in Afghanistan is a priority and a key component of the war on terrorism. This marks a significant improvement in Canada-U.S. relations relative to the Bush administration, which all but ignored Afghanistan in their zeal to invade and occupy Iraq. While the Harper government has set a firm timetable for exiting Afghanistan, this may be subject to change if the political winds change. The current strategy review will go a long way to determining the relationship that Canada and the U.S. will have on the Afghanistan mission. But the two countries are thus far in agreement about the problem and the solutions.

With respect to trade, there are some differences between the two countries. Despite his possible protectionist leanings, Obama offers improvement over the previous regime. The Bush administration did not support free and fair trade to the extent that they would have liked people to think they did. This was a cause for significant consternation among Canadians, who typically enjoy better trade relations with the U.S. under Democrat leadership. Obama's protectionist leanings should be taken with a grain of salt. The two economies are intertwined in a complex manner. Pulling them apart is therefore detrimental to U.S. economic objectives. Both nations have benefited significantly from free trade.

In terms of improving relations, Obama's outcomes with respect to trade between the two nations may not be any better for relations, but his attitude will.

Border security, however, threatens to damage Canada-U.S. relations. For Canadians, the matter is one of trust. For Americans, it is one of fear. Canada deals with the issue on pragmatic terms; the U.S. has an incoherent strategy based on vague objectives of solving ill-defined problems for which there is no empirical support. This represents a major philosophical disconnect. Stephen Harper understands that border security is an issue affecting both countries equally. Despite Obama's best words on the matter, U.S. policy does not support Harper's view. The two countries have very different strategies based on very different objectives. At this point, there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration will be able to improve relations with Canada on this issue. Given that the issue will become a major political issue in Canada as border restrictions increase, the issue of border security threatens to undermine any improvements in Canada-U.S. relations made in other areas.

Lastly, the environment is an area where the two nations have differing interests. In the long-run, both nations have an equal interest in climate change, but the political agendas for the next few years promise to be different. Canada, less damaged by recession, can be expected to bring the issue to the fore in the near future while the U.S., mired in what looks to be a long-term recession, is not likely to do the same. As long as the issue remains minor, it will not sour relations, but if the issue becomes major (i.e. The economic impacts of climate change hit sooner rather than later) it will.

Conclusion

Relations between Canada and the United States became strained during the early part of the 00s as a result of serious, fundamental differences between the Chretien administration and the Bush administration. In recent years, the relationship between the two nations has improved. With the Obama administration, the Canada-U.S. relationship will continue to improve. On terrorism in general and Afghanistan in particular, the Obama de-emphasis on Iraq improves relations dramatically. Mutual trade interest will force the Obama administration away from the more detrimental policies that may otherwise have been undertaken. As a result, the relationship promises to grow stronger, because of high congruence of mutual interest. It is only the issue of border security that can threaten Canada-U.S. relations, as the two nations have divergent interests, viewpoints and strategies. U.S. policies in this area have the potential to be highly detrimental to the Canadian economy and become a political flashpoint. However, as long as the Obama administration does not adopt border policies that bring about this scenario, Canada-U.S. relations can be expected to improve over the next few years.