I was watching the response of UK PM Tony Blair to the terrorist attacks in London today and I was struck by how well Australian PM John Howard carried himself and how a bi-lateral meeting between Canada and the UK is pretty much the furthest thing from anyones consciousness.
Dare to compare though.
GDP
Canada (13th): $1,203,000,000,000
Australia (18th): $611,700,000,000
Population
Canada: 32,085,041
Australia: 20,090,437
Exports to the UK (in each countries currency, right now $1 CDN = $1.08 AUS)
Canada: 9,437,700,000 (3rd highest export partner for Canada)
Australia: 5,197,000,000 (6th highest export partner for Australia)
Imports from the UK (Pounds)
Canada: 3,335,000,000 (17th)
Australia: 2,405,000,000 (20th)
So by the quick measures I have found Canada should be more important to the United Kingdom than Australia. For political reasons it appears that Canada and the United Kingdom are drifting apart and Australia and the United Kingdom are tightening their relationship.
To the anti-Iraq War crowd and to the people putting Quebec at our political centre this will come as good news. However, I question how wise it is to further alienate ourselves from the Anglosphere. I am sure there is a lot more to say on this topic. But time and this medium prevents it at this time.
Update: C-Span provides the full press conference with PM's Blair and Howard wherein you can find this response by PM Howard regarding how much responsibilty the Prime Minister should bear due to their foreign policies.
…Can I just say, very directly Paul, on this issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its’ foreign policy to be determined by terrorism it has given the game away. To use the vernacular and no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats. And no self-respecting government of any stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq. Can I remind you that the attacks of the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq. Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in the liberating of the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we should not have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting that we shouldn’t be now in Afghanistan? When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work with the United Nations, when al Qaeda gloated about that they referred specifically to the role that de Millo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorist.
By definition you cannot put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts and the objective facts are as I’ve sited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq and indeed all the evidence as distinct of the supposition suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life. This is about the perverted use of the principles of the great world religion that its’ root preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.
Can you imagine PM Paul Martin delivering an answer like this? Me neither.
Update: Damian Brooks expands on this point over at this blog (thanks for the link)
