Hollywood, Fidel And Other Borderline Cases

Eric Ellis, Seattle

10/01/1997 

BILL Clinton and Canada's Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, could do worse than call in the famous marriage counsellor Dr Ruth Westheimer.

She'd no doubt have a few choice words to say about the often fractious state of affairs between Canada and the United States, which claim to share the world's longest and most peaceful frontier.

Like a bickering old couple who should have either split or patched it up for the kids' sake years ago, the two go at each other mercilessly, embarrassing family and friends alike with their frequent airing of cross-border dirty laundry. If it's not Cuba, it's Vietnam, or migrating salmon, or landmines, or "shock jock" Howard Stern, or "smart" border cards, or NAFTA, or Donorgate, or milk, or Hollywood, or Chretien's loose tongue or . . .

Canada says the US is too arrogant and the US says Canada is hyper-sensitive.

Canadians say its culture is polluted by Hollywood - the latest outrage being Stern's debut program to Canada when he was rude about the Francophone Quebecois on air.

Americans responded by noting that Stern is rude about everyone, and reckon the reason why most Canadians live within 100km of the border is not to escape the Arctic cold but because it makes them more interesting.

They are probably both right, but through it all Washington and Ottawa somehow claim they are the best of friends.

However, last month's filing by British Columbia's feisty premier Glen Clark of a $US235 million ($327 million) lawsuit against the US Government and the States of Alaska and Washington was not considered a friendly act.

Clark was seeking compensation for what he unapologetically calls American piracy in "stealing" salmon from Canadian waters, in contravention of a long-held treaty.

But then again friendly was not the tone of Bill Clinton's letter to an Alaskan senator about the US ferry which was blockaded in July by cranky Canadian salmon fishermen protesting over alleged poaching - behaviour helpfully described by the US tabloid USA Today as "warlike".

"I want to assure you that we have made clear to Canada how seriously we view the action against the M/V Malaspina," President Clinton wrote.

Another such incident, he said, would "necessitate our taking appropriate counter-measures".

USA Today was moved to comment: "If recent events in Bosnia and Rwanda have taught us anything, it is that people who once lived side by side in peace can become bloodthirsty enemies if cooler heads don't prevail.

"Anyone who thinks it can't come to that is naive."

That may be a little premature, simply because there are still more votes to be won fanning the issue on both sides of the border until diplomats get around to sorting out a new treaty.

Chretien, who will host the APEC summit in Vancouver in November, admitted as much at a recent meeting when he divulged, in what was supposed to be an unrecorded conversation, that "I like to stand up to the Americans. It's popular".

But then came US-Canada realpolitik. "But you have to be very careful," Chretien said, "because they're our friends."

For all the fuss about the deep pockets of China, Indonesia and Taiwan over allegedly inappropriate US political financing, the most profligate foreign spender in Washington is Canada, defending cross-border trade valued at $US1 billion a day, with a $US6 million lobbying budget. A good slice of that cash has been spent recently pressuring the White House and Congress to back the Canadian-sponsored international ban on landmines - the so-called Ottawa Process for which Canada's Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axsworthy, is a contender for a Nobel Peace Prize. That 90 nations signed the Oslo protocol banning landmines was a source of great pride for Canadians. That the US refuses to do so, thus encouraging China, Russia, Pakistan and India into maintaining similar intransigence, has been a source of great anger.

The Americans claim they could not sign because as the world's de facto policeman, they could not put their troops sprinkled at various international hotspots, such as the Korean frontiers, at risk. Canadians argued back that that is precisely the reason why they should be banned.

Canada also rails against the notorious Helms-Burton Act, which penalises foreign companies that do business in Cuba.

The most notable victim of the act has been a Canadian company, the diversified mining house Sherritt International, Cuba's biggest single foreign investor. Sherritt's Toronto-based directors are banned from visiting the US.

Visiting the US is another touchy subject that has come up this week.

The US has moved to introduce a "smart card" for Canadians to proffer when crossing the border. Failing that, they must go through what they see as the indignity of filling out immigration papers.

The US says the reason for the new card is to follow non-citizens who come to the US illegally from Mexico. Canada has said it understands but is furious that Canadians are not exempted.

After all, the two sides have always come and gone as easily as crossing a State or provincial line, often not even needing to wave a passport. But no amendment has so far been forthcoming from Washington and neither has let steam out of the rising tension.