Archived
Commentaries

FAQ

Past Projects

About TDH

Contact

December 1, 2004

There was great significance in the fact that for their speeches in Halifax this morning, George W. Bush and Paul Martin switched their chosen colours in neck attire, with Bush now wearing Liberal red and Martin choosing to fashion Conservative blue (he's in Canada now...that what the colour means in this country!).  The great irony in the subtle change is that it seemed to be an indication of tone for their respective addresses.

Martin's speech was standard and adequate, detailing the touching stories and sentiments displaced passengers of flight on September 11, 2001 experienced in Atlantic Canada.  It also, not surprisingly, picked up the language, aggressiveness and sentiments from the current American policy agenda, emphasizing security, freedom, and that sickeningly overused terminology, liberty.

The Bush speech, however, was powerful, and had broad implications as an open window into not only the upcoming relationship between the two countries in the coming four years, but also the administration's plans for its foreign policy agenda.  Most importantly, it employed a different approach to the Bush doctrine, one which might actually have a chance of succeeding in foreign capitals in Europe, for example.

Aside from showing humour and humility with jokes about the NHL lockout, his continued support from the fictional Jean Poutine, and Canada's task of sleeping next to the elephant, Bush put a friendlier and more informed face to his global aspirations.  He framed his future path on three key themes:

                                    1) Working within effective multilateral institutions
                                    2) Keeping up the offence in the war on terror
                                    3) Bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East

With the first point, he criticized international institutions that relied on "endless debate" without appropriate action.  He argued effectively for consequences to be executed upon when they are promised, stating his support for the United Nations is grounded in the desire not to see it sink back into functioning as "a League of Nations."  These comments are particularly poignant, not only for their historical context, but also for their delivery on a day when a prominent US Senator has called for the resignation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, due to his Senate sub-committee's findings with regards to the astronomical fraud that has taken place in the UN's Oil-for-Food program under Annan's watch.

Bush had his standard list of reasoning for his global fight on terrorism, but this time skilfully used a quote from the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King (taken from the April 7, 1942 address regarding the national security plebiscite):

"We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting at home for the enemy to attack us."

Talking about the US, which was struggling with rampant isolationism at that point in history, Bush masterfully used our hallowed Prime Minister's words and reasoning to enter World War II as an effective affirmation of his own doctrine.

Finally, Bush talked about how he did not accept that any culture, regardless of race, religion or creed, was predisposed to "despotism."  By using the anecdote of a widow and her four daughters voting in Afghanistan, Bush talked not only about his vision for the march of democracy throughout the Middle East, but more importantly, for the existence of a Palestinian state existing peacefully next to Israel.

To the speechwriter who gave Bush his words this morning, he should immediately receive a doubling in pay.  There was no new ground that was broached in terms of subject matter, per se, but it is absolutely amazing what new framing that utilizes history, specificity and context can do for a foreign policy that has rarely taken the globe's opposing viewpoints into consideration.

Comments? jonathan@tdhstrategies.com