O Canada

Last year during the lead-up the to Second Gulf War, our northern neighbor's Liberal government seldom missed an opportunity to cast aspersions on the Bush Administration in particular, and US policy in general. Much of this animus can perhaps be ascribed to then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who—to borrow Mark Steyn's memorable synopsis—had turned Canada into “not so much a one-party state as a one-man state.” Even so, when Chretien finally stepped down as PM late last fall, there seemed little reason to predict that a new tone would sound from Ottawa. Old habits do after all die hard.

So color me surprised indeed.

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into terrorists' hands. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

“The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are,” Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal. “That means terrorists have access to all of that.”

[Update: Note that—contrary to the reporter's claim—Martin did not claim that terrorists procured nuclear weapons from Saddam, only that there has been nuclear proliferation. It seems that sloppy paraphrasing is not the exclusive province of Maureen Dowd.]

The PM's comments run counter to opinions expressed by leaders in such countries as France and Germany who have accused the U.S. and Britain of fudging evidence of WMDs to justify the war against Iraq.

When asked to assess the threat level since Saddam was captured by U.S. troops, Martin said he believes it has increased.

“I believe that terrorism will be, for our generation, what the Cold War was to generations that preceded us,” he said. “I don't think we're out of it yet.”

Martin disagreed with former prime minister Jean Chretien, who publicly blamed poverty for terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks. “The cause of terrorism is not poverty, it is hatred.”

Did I say that I was surprised? Make that gobsmacked: A Canadian head of state appears to understand root causes better than—oh, let's see: Bill Clinton, perhaps?

What's more, Martin's speech this week does not appear to have been a fluke. Consider this analysis of another speech by the prime minister, this time before the Woodrow Wilson Center on April 30:

With yesterday's landmark speech, Paul Martin tacitly acknowledged what Canada's foreign policy establishment has refused to accept for decades: that the United Nations is a failure, for which there is no solution.

The Prime Minister's proposed alternative is a new international body, the G-20 summit of world leaders, representative of North and South, developed and developing, rich and poor: a working group unfettered by the UN's bureaucracy and its anachronistic Security Council. […]

After decades of working closely with our major allies to confront the global threats of fascism and communism, Canada began to drift away, increasingly investing diplomatic capital in the United Nations, even as we undermined our traditional commitments by slashing the defence budget.

As a result, by the 1990s Canada was committed to a policy of multilateralism, addressing the world's conundrums primarily through the United Nations, although other forums such as NATO could be used in a pinch.

The problem with UN-based multilateralism is that it distances Canada from its natural allies, leaving us hostage to an institution over which we have little influence.

Memo to Kofi Annan: If you've lost Canada, then you are truly, utterly screwed.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.