"The U.N. Will Recover"

www.businessweek.com MARCH 19, 2003 NEWSMAKER Q&A

Dissension over Iraq has dealt "a nasty blow" to the world body, says Canada's U.S. ambassador, but "it's just too important not to survive" Despite his 36 years in public service, Michael Kergin, Canada's ambassador to the U.S. since October, 2000, could never have anticipated the challenges he would face during his time in Washington post-September 11. But he has about as well-rounded a background as any diplomat could have: He was ambassador to Cuba from 1986 to 1989 and has served as Assistant Secretary for Foreign & Defence Policy in Ottawa.
In recent years, Canada and the U.S. have had growing differences on trade issues, and Canada came under criticism after September 11 for being "a weak link" because of what some in the U.S. viewed as a too-porous border. Plus, Canada, like many of America's traditional allies, has not supported President George Bush's willingness to enter Iraq for military action without a second U.N. resolution. Kergin recently dropped in at BusinessWeek's Washington bureau to chat with trade and homeland-security correspondent Paul Magnusson and other journalists. He spoke at length about the situation in Iraq and his country's position. Edited excerpts of the conversation follow: Q: What's Canada's stance on Iraq? A: We've been very supportive of U.S. efforts to get a [U.N.] Security Council resolution [backing military action]. And we've supplied naval vessels to Operation Enduring Freedom in the Gulf. We've placed troops in Afghanistan and lost four of our military there. The second element is homeland security and how Canada fits into the defense of North America. After September 11, we suddenly had real issues at the border. [Anyone] at the border was suddenly guilty until proven innocent, and we had backups of 20 to 30 miles of trucks and rail traffic coming across the border. This is particularly important for both countries because we have about $1.3 billion worth of goods a day coming across that border, 80% of which goes by land transportation systems. You back that up, and it's catastrophic for the Canadian economy, and it's very damaging to the American economy. Q: Should the U.S. act unilaterally in Iraq? A: Canada believes in our U.N., right or wrong. Canadians believe very much that the U.N. is part of our multilateral system. We have 33 million people who think this is very much the way to go. We recognize that Saddam has to disarm, [but] he has to be given time to do that. And we have something now that we hate to see -- a split between North America and Europe. In many ways we're part of both. If we don't get a consensus and there's war, it ensures this will damage the U.N. for a time. But you could reinvent it. It's a nasty blow, but over time the U.N. will recover. It's just too important not to survive. Q: How does this affect NATO? A: NATO is a little different. If a member of NATO requests under Article Four [which says "the Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the Parties is threatened"], we have no option. Also NATO is more and more transforming itself into a political organization. In the short term, there's lots of bad feeling, no question about it. Q: The U.S. vs. France dispute. Is the U.S. acting like another Roman empire? A: The major difference is the Romans occupied enormous amounts of territory while some say the U.S. occupies areas in an economic way and in business practices. But you can't call the U.S. an imperial power in any classical way. The French are reacting to [the idea of the U.S. being] a hyperpower. The EU under French leadership see their role as acting as a kind of balance to the U.S. So we're getting back to the old system of checks and balances or balance of power. To me it's unfortunate that...you have megaphone diplomacy now. This isn't the way allies should be doing things. I hope the history of the alliance between the U.S. and France will once again kick in. But at the moment it's not a pretty sight. Q: Is the U.S. acting arrogantly? A: If the [Administration] had spent a good bit more time discussing this, it would have been better.... Generally speaking, Canadians are very pro-America. But polls are running 70% against acting unilaterally in Iraq without U.N. approval, at least insofar as Canada's involvement. Q: How do Canadians feel about free trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is almost 10 years old now? A: The polls are running very strongly in favor of NAFTA. Our difficult time with NAFTA was in 1994, just after it was signed. Our industries had to make extraordinary adjustments to that, but our economy is now doing very well. We have the strongest growth in the G8 [Group of Eight industrialized countries]. Q: Is Canada concerned about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons with missile warheads that can reach the Pacific coast of North America? A: North Korea is just as much a concern for Canada as it is for the U.S. We need multilateral diplomacy. But the time will come, we believe, for some bilateral discussions. So far, we've left things to the Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese to work out. Q: Are U.S. complaints about the Canadian border being too porous valid? Is enough scrutiny being given to potential terrorists? A: We have an extremely close-knit intelligence and immigration-information sharing system. Little by little some of the changes we made are working. We tightened up some of the procedures. We've issued smart cards now, and we find that most of the refugees that enter Canada come up through the U.S. There are reasons for that -- perhaps they feel that the social services in Canada are more generous. But it's now understood that if they come to either country and apply for refugee status, they will be judged based on the criteria of the country they originally entered. In Canada, we're more aware of who's in our country. The Immigration & Naturalization Service says there are between 8 million and 12 million people who are undocumented [in the U.S]. In Canada, they talk about maybe 80,000 to 90,000 people, which is comparatively a much smaller proportion of our population. Q: What about a North American energy policy? A: Canada is by far the largest supplier of energy to the U.S. in oil and oil-related products -- ahead of Saudi Arabia and Mexico and, increasingly, Venezuela. Fourteen percent of natural gas in the U.S. comes from Canada, and hydroelectricity comes across from Quebec and Labrador so that people are starting to look at Canada much more in terms of energy security.

Edited by Patricia O'Connell