Paul Martin and Missile Defense

For those hoping for a long-awaited display of determination from Canada's Prime Minister, this was a week of bitter disappointment. Paul Martin's federal budget gave him the perfect opportunity to shake off his nickname of "Mr Dithers". Instead, it merely served to confirm the suspicion that this is a leader who can't say No.

Money was thrown at anyone who had knocked on Mr Martin's door in the past year: extra cash for Quebec and the Maritimes, national day-care and environmental Programs for the opposition NDP, and modest tax cuts and funding for the military to please the Conservatives, who could have prompted fresh elections by failing to pass the budget. In the words of Toronto newspaper the Globe and Mail, money was "sprayed around the country like a broken garden hose."

There was no overarching political strategy, no clearly defined priorities: Mr Martin's sole aim seemed to be to keep his minority government in power. To placate those who might be tempted to vote for the opposition, the Prime Minister went on a $41.8 billion spending spree much of which will only materialize if the Liberals are re-elected in 2006.

By throwing scraps at every dog which might bite him, Canada's leader has shown his lack of leadership. His decision this week to turn down America's invitation to participate in the ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, which would shoot down missiles headed for North America, highlighted this even further.

Last summer the newly-elected Liberal government sought the "closest possible involvement" in the Program, and agreed to further co-operation on the monitoring of North American airspace.

However, after that Mr Martin delayed making a decision, doing nothing to make the case for BMD. Instead, he allowed the debate to become dominated by the arguments against. "Martin hasn't been able to control the agenda," said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre. "He has delayed and lost control of his choices."

Finally, after laying down several conditions of participation all of which were met by the US, and directly contradicting assertions made by Canada's US ambassador Frank McKenna, Mr Martin announced Canada's decision to opt out of the scheme.

While appearing to stand up to American militarism and challenges to Canadian sovereignty, Paul Martin has actually ceded Canada's sovereign right to make decisions about missiles heading towards its territory. In addition, it is obvious his last-minute decision stems from his failure to stand up to opponents of the scheme and rebels within his own party, as well as anti-American sentiment in the country as a whole.

This example of poor leadership has not gone unnoticed in America. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has postponed a visit to Ottawa, with US officials making clear this is in direct response to the Liberal decision. The Prime Minister's willingness to have his decisions made for him has meant his stock has plummeted in Washington, and Canada is now seen as a country too crippled by internal divisions to play any meaningful role on the world stage.

The US, and others, had higher hopes for Paul Martin. His calling of an inquiry into the siphoning of funds from a Program to promote unity in Quebec seemed to signal the return of the hard-headed finance minister of old. But his continual caving in to various interest groups, be it via the budget, decisions regarding national defense, or his "fiscal cafeteria", has meant the "Mr Dithers" label has stuck.

Perhaps dithering is the wrong term. The Prime Minister has made some snap decisions, the inquiry being one of them, as well as calling a June election last year and the signing of a health accord with the provinces. However, they are decisions Mr Martin has come to regret. He seems to dislike taking a stand altogether, procrastinating until he has no choice or rushing decisions to get them over with. This is not the mark of a leader, but of a man unsure of his party's direction.

Despite all this, the Liberals will probably make it through the next election. The budget is largely popular despite its vagueness, and the majority of Canadians (54%) want nothing to do with missile defense. Whether or not the party achieves a majority, and the effect their policies have on the country, however, is another matter.

Photos courtesy of CBC.com, AP and CP photos