Vancouver Province
for April 21, 2000

Jean Chretien's trip to the Middle East is bad news for whoever wins the leadership of the Canadian Alliance for unless the Liberal Party of Canada has forgotten it's only philosophical commitment, namely get elected at all costs, they will dump this unsatisfactory man. And if that happens, the sagging fortunes of the Liberals will be reversed.

But, you say, Mr Chretien is flying high in the polls - why would the Liberals want to dump him? Because the polls are wrong and Liberal insiders ought to know that.

The Liberals always do well in the polls preceding an election. In May of 1984, under John Turner, the Liberals led in the polls across the country yet were smashed in the Fall landslide of Brian Mulroney. The recent actions of the Prime Minister are indefensible though loyal Liberal troopers, which is to say those who depend upon his political generosity - which is to say a hell of a lot of people - are telling all who will listen that he didn't say those things, or alternatively he was misquoted, or in the further alternative it's all a media plot to discredit this great Canadian leader.

The facts are different. Mr Chretien has made an ass of himself and his country doing considerable harm to a very delicately balanced peace process.

This peace process must take into account four major wars, innumerable atrocities on both sides, Arab interests that are by no means united, constant swings in Israeli public opinion with resulting political unrest along with countless other intertwined issues. Leaving aside the normal gaffes one has come to expect from Mr Chretien's voice box - such as saying that Lebanon is not under the influence of Syria, ignoring the 35,000 Syrian soldiers on Lebanese soil - the most serious pronouncement he made was when he supported Israel's claim to control the Sea of Galilee. Now what he said was that he understand Israel's position on that issue but in the context of Middle Eastern politics that, coming from a head of government, must be seen as an endorsement of Israel's position.

The mischief from such a remark is enormous. Though Canada is not a player in the peace process (given the foot in mouth disease of Mr Chretien that's a blessing) the damage from such remarks is considerable. We seem to forget so easily that in many parts of the world Canada is seen as a client of the US and though it might feel good to dispel such a notion, this is hardly the way. The mischief comes from the fact that the negotiations are multi faceted. Even if one were to assume that Mr Chretien's statement is true and that in due course all of the Sea of Galilee does belong to Israel that can only happen concurrent with the settlement of all the other issues including not only Israel's border with Syria, the threat to Israel from incursions from Lebanon, border questions with Jordan, the use of Israel of settlers in disputed lands in order to create a political fait accompli and the future of a Palestinian nation but dozens of other issues and sub issues. Mr Chretien, in selecting any issue to comment on any of them was wrong but to take this of all controversies and pronounce his views was idiocy and gross interference in the affairs of others. If he had wanted to talk about the Sea of Galilee why not look for the spot where Christ told Peter to fish or where John the Baptist plied his trade.

How unmindful of our own history! Does Mr Chretien not remember Jean Baptiste Day in 1967 when French President Charles De Gaulle shouted "Vive La Quebec Libre". Does he not quickly reject and condemn any attempt by American presidents to pronounce on Canadian affairs? What would he say if, for example, President Clinton expressed the view that Quebec should be designated a "distinct society"?

The man is clearly past it. He is not yesterday's man, he's the day before yesterday's man just like Joe Clark. The two of them would do their parties and indeed the Canadian public a great favour if they just went away.

Only the Canadian Alliance would be distressed to see that happen because they would then have to face younger, more appealing leaders instead of these two old fogies who just don't get it.