“ While I agree with Prof. Cameron's assertion that Canada has lost its place in the world as a strong middle power player on the international stage - a bridge between our European cultural roots and neighbourly southern relations. However, the notion that his definition of what is Canadian - rooted in the similar feedback loop of what we are NOT - American lap dogs ("the customer is always right, "knee-jerk neo-mercantilists," etc.) does not, in fact, define who and what we are any better than those values the Professor espouses to be un-Canadian. We seem to have little desire to hold a national dialogue structured to understand what it is exactly we are, and are striving to be. We get caught up in these infantile attempts to assert ourselves as individuals apart from our big brother, constantly denying perhaps what we actually are; a knowledge economy with a huge percentage of GDP reliant on civil ties with the US – you know, the democratic nation we share the world's longest unprotected border with. Notwithstanding the fact that the vast, VAST majority of the world still thinks of Canada as thousands of clean lakes and rivers, waterfalls and tundra, deep forests and all sorts of other benign, safe, and (in their minds) insignificant imagery, what we perhaps truly are is an international economic, (burgeoning) military and intellectual power that punches far above our weight. Our continuing inability to confront these facts will always prevent us from being all we are capable of being. If the Professor prefers for us to become the utopian image of what Canada “is” – a branch plant economy sprinkled with a little agrarian romanticism, we must then give up our economic growth, international treaty obligations, status as a home for industrious entrepreneurial immigrants, and place at the table as a conciliatory voice of reason between Western powers. I wouldn’t even mind if that became the case, but close examination of our economy, and an open dialogue around what it is we truly are as Canadians is required – and Professor Cameron may not like the answer many Canadians come back with.

“ Thanks for your comment, David. I agree that we need a dialogue on what Canada stands for (and there is an interesting initiative to do this, run out of the SFU Centre for Dialogue, called “Canada's World.” See: http://www.canadasworld.ca/). At the same time, I think your arguments make my point quite eloquently, if unintentionally. You see Canada as a welfare-seeking, trading nation: “a knowledge economy with a huge percentage of GDP reliant on civil ties with the US”. You call Canada “an international economic, (burgeoning) military and intellectual power that punches far above our weight.” Remind me how we’re punching above our weight? I beg to differ with the claim that we are a “(burgeoning) military…power.” As for the cliché about “the world's longest unprotected border,” I see an increasingly Homeland Securitized border. I was amused to hear the howls of protest when Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security Secretary) propagated the urban myth that 9-11 terrorists gained access to the U.S. through Canada. What this reflected was a typical misunderstanding between Canada and the US. Canada, as I am sure you would agree, seeks welfare based on pursuit of trade and investment in the global economy. The US is fundamentally concerned with military power and security (I owe this distinction – trading states vs. national security states – to Richard Rosecrance). The US is far less obsessed with keeping the trucks moving across the border, and far more concerned with ensuring national security and power. Part of the reason for the difference is simple asymmetries of structural economic power. The US trades less than Canada (exports represent about 12 percent of US GDP, and only a small portion [1/5th] go to Canada, whereas over 80 percent of our exports go to the US, and they represent about 40 percent of our GDP). But there is a deeper reason. The US, as a global hegemon, sees the world through national security lenses. Consider the comments on the US governments “BuyUSA” website: “Canada views good relations with the U.S. as crucial to a wide range of interests, and often looks to the U.S. as a common cause partner promoting democracy, transparency, and good governance around the world. Nonetheless, it sometimes pursues policies at odds with our own. Canada decided in 2003 not to contribute troops to the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq (although it later contributed financially to Iraq's reconstruction and provided electoral advice).” It goes on to provide a litany of disagreements on security, including: “Canada's leadership in the creation of the UN-created International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes; its decision in early 2005 not to participate directly in the U.S. missile defense program; and its strong support for the Ottawa Convention to ban anti-personnel mines.” (Source http://www.buyusa.gov/canada/en/traderelationsusacanada.html). And yes, you are right, all the Canadian policies that the US government has singled out for criticism above are things that I whole-heartedly support!

“ I appreciate your points, Prof. Cameron, to perhaps clarify my stance, I do not advocate an alignmnent of interests with the United States simply because our current economic relationship with them. In fact, we continue to diversify our portfolio of trade partners to decrease the lop-sidedness of our trade reliance on the US (witness today's announcement of a trade agreement with the EU). What I am saying is that I disagree that we should pursue the vision of our nation as a clean, unassuming, agrarian middle power, and confront the reality of who we are. We "punch above our weight" quite nicely for a nation of 32 million - we are the world's 11th largest economy, a founding member of the G7 and the nation that "invented" peacekeeping (and the Blackberry). These are values we should embrace, not run from. We are the US' single largest supplier of foreign oil, the world's second largest untapped reserve of the black gold, and a respected leader in global business innovation. Frankly I could care less what a US-based pressure group (or Janet Napolitano) thinks of Canada - we should not define ourselves as Canadians through the eyes of the United States, as you also agree, but at the same time, we shouldn't run from our accomplishments, nor down play the power we can wield if need be. I agree completely with you (and Rosecrance - which makes me pine for life back at school - Rosecrance and Nye were the patron saints of Dalhousie U's I.R. dept.) that the we differ fundamentally from the US with regards to what motivates us as a nation, and this is why I advocate a frank discussion on who we are - you and I seem to simply disagree (I think) on what those values are. I am happy you provided that link to Canada's world - I will absolutely check it out. Thanks.

“ Nicely put, David. I think we both know where the other stands. Just one very small clarification: the BuyUSA website is an official US government website administered by the Department of Commerce. I doubt you would find a Canadian government website on international trade delineating all the security issues on which Canadians disagree with the US! Cheers, Max

“ Prof. Cameron: When you say "...We seem to think that deals with Colombia and Peru will help stem the tide of radicalism in Latin America (and ingratiate us with Washington).", do you include yourself in the "We"? I undestand you are in favour of these agreements, please correct me if I'm wrong. You also mentioned "Canada, as I am sure you would agree, seeks welfare based on pursuit of trade and investment in the global economy. " Dont these agreements fit into this description? As a peruvian living in Vancouver, I would love to meet you in person some day and exchange some ideas over a cup of coffee (or a glass of pisco sour)...

“ I might be inclined to suggest that, counter to Professor Cameron's claim, Canada's first involvement in a counterinsurgency war occurred some 100 years ago during the Boer War. Professor Cameron?