“George Bush is not has moron At all!” This precision by Canadian the Prime Minister is very revealing. Not of the attitude of the head of the Canadian government towards his American counterpart. But rather, of an attitude towards to the American president from many people, not only in Canada but everywhere in the world (including in the USA). In the end, would this polemic (see bellow) have made such a scandal if the analysis qualities of the American President were not so questionable?
The facts…
November 22, 2002, Prague (Czech Republic), NATO summit
While giving a speech, President Bush invites his NATO counterparts to increase their defence budget because of the war against terrorism. Listening to this speech, Françoise Ducros, communication adviser of the Canadian Prime Minister, would have said, in private, “what has moron!”
Printed by the press on the two sides of 49th parallel, the declaration, whose author does not remember having said, starts a scandal. For many people, this was the reflection of the anti-American attitude of the Canadian government. One remembers that a former liberal Prime Minister had already said very negative things about Nixon! “I’ve been called worse things by better people.” Jean Chrétien was one of his ministers at the time.
Françoise Ducros, as a good lieutenant, presented her resignation, which the Prime Minister refused. Others polemics, and she represented her resignation because “en raison de la controverse, il me sera impossible d’accomplir mon travail” (because of the controversy, it will be impossible for me to achieve my duty). Jean Chrétien finally accepts her resignation.
The why…
What interests me is not the polemic, but the why the polemic. There is undoubtedly almost every day small sentences that could create diplomatic incidents here and there. But why this small sentence, which was perhaps never pronounced, initiated passions. Because, said or not, it says very loudly what many people think.
If George Bush and his administration had a reputation of moderation and not of confrontation. If his administration did not unilaterally support the Sharon government and its will of expels Yasser Arafat, instead of reaching a hand to both parts in what is a very complex conflict. If he had not simply rejected Kyoto without consulting anybody. If he were able to see nuances in a complex world and not to declare that the world is a simple dichotomy “You are with us or against us”. Would this sentence have done such an effect?
I do not think so. We would either forgotten an isolated sentence taken out of context or really put the emphasis on the fact that Mrs. Ducros does not remember to have said it at all. Because, after all, let’s be serious “anti-Americanism” is much more than small declarations say on the spur of the moment.
No memory…
September 20, 2001, President Bush makes a speech to thank for international support, which his country received during the difficult times it has just lived. The countries mentioned are numerous, but here we notice an omission however: Canada! Outcry in Canada, how President Bush could forget their “faithful allied to the north”. The Chrétien government ends the contention by a small formula: “the supports of Canada is obvious and does not need to be mentioned”. Nice formula, which will make it possible Bush to come to Canada a few weeks later and to repeat to those who did not already know that Canada is a friend of the USA.
Who had the idea of the formula?
Françoise Ducros. And today she is labelled as anti-American!
Entries (RSS)