Canada’s Stephen Harper steps in it again

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a speech before the Australian Parliament on the 6 year anniversary of 9-11 in which he wrongly suggested that the 9-11 attacks were brought on by America’s alleged “abandoning” of “our fellow human beings to lives of poverty, brutality and ignorance, in today’s global village.”

Today, via John Hood, I read about a speech Harper made yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations in NY in which he took another couple of shots at the US:

NEW YORK–Canada’s relationship with the United States is stalled thanks to an “unhealthy” trend in the U.S. toward nationalism and away from deeper economic ties, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a prestigious foreign policy think-tank here yesterday.

He said he was “deeply concerned” that the political discourse in the U.S. had been infected by “populism, protectionism and nationalism in an unhealthy sense.”

His candid comments came in an analysis of the Canada-U.S. relationship, one that Harper said is “the closest … probably of any two countries in history.”

Uh, I highly doubt that.

In his speech, Harper emphasized the “shared values” of Canada and the U.S., and seemed taken by surprise when an audience member asked why, despite these common traits, Canada was not hated internationally, as is the U.S.

“It’s certainly hated in some circles,” Harper said.

“I suspect in the circles where the United States as a nation is genuinely hated, I suspect Canada is equally hated as are all countries that stand for these values. The American administration is, to be frank, more widely unpopular than the United States itself, but that’s an issue for American domestic politics.”

Unlike the U.S., Harper said, “Canada has no history anywhere in the world of conquest or domination. It’s probably hard to perceive of Canada being in that type of a position.”

And we do? Perhaps Mr. Harper could explain to me how the major wars over the last century that the US has been involved in have had anything, anything at all to do with “conquest” or “domination”? WWI? II? Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq?

In contrast, Canada is seen in the world as a “positive and non-threatening force,” he said. “What my government is trying to do is to use those values to promote positive change in concert with our allies.”

Yeah, “non-threatening” is exactly the way a country should want to be perceived, especially in a post-9/11 world. That must be what makes Canada so appealing to Islamofascists.

And it also remains to be seen whether or not Canada will finally join on with the US missile defense system, or whether or not Canada will continue to rely on the US for protection in the event of a missile attack on their soil. Sheesh, how hard of a decision does this have to be?

Oh, that’s right. Harper wants Canada to continue to be seen as “non-threatening.” That way, Canada can continue to sponge off the US for protection, while the US continues to take the brunt of the “you’re the world’s biggest bully!” commentary from foes, and friends alike – “friends” like Stephen Harper.

These are comments that won’t be forgotten, Mr. Harper, in the unfortunate event that you end up having to call on the US to aid Canada on its own soil after being attacked because it’s so “non-threatening.”