BumfOnline

Mark Steyn gloats over the victory of John Howard in Australia and I don't blame him one bit. In his column in the Australian, he reiterates his favorite Howard line:

That's the meaning of "no point in being an 80 per cent ally". Howard isn't claiming that Australia has to do everything America does, but he is saying that real alliances are primal and instinctive. After 9/11, Howard invoked the relevant clause in the ANZUS Treaty as the Continentals did in the NATO Treaty – that an attack on one member was an attack on all – but the difference was that the Prime Minister meant it and the French and Belgians didn't.

Not that anyone would argue that Howard's support of Bush is anything to do with ANZUS. America is a member of all kinds of organisations and attends any number of formal summits where everyone professes to be the best of pals, and isn't.

The Canadian Prime Minister (whose name escapes me) was in Washington a while back and said that, as the UN wasn't working too well at the moment, we needed to have regular meetings of the G20 where the leaders of the world's 20 top nations could thrash out the planet's problems.

Terrible idea. First thing you know, there'd be a secretariat and a bureaucracy and draft proposals and summit agendas and compromise language and watered-down negotiations and it would be as useless as all the other international gabfests where 23 per cent allies are trying to agree a fake statement pretending they're 100 per cent guys.

With John Howard, you don't need that: just get him on the phone.

Steyn's discription of John Howard reminds me of Don Cherry during the run-up to the war last year. The most remarkable Coach's Corner you've ever witnessed saw Grapes and Ron MacLean go toe-to-toe over Canada's lack of interest in standing by their ally. Cherry was incensed by the thought of not helping "our friends" while MacLean chose the CBC-friendly "nuanced" view of, well, you know, maybe there's more to it than, um, gee, the States are kinda angry, and, um, maybe we should wait and until the UN, er, um, does, uh, something too.

At the time, Grapes was chastised for being "simplistic" in the complicated world scheme of things (as if the classic "It's all about OIL!!!" mantra is much better) but I understood where he was coming from. In hockey, you're on the same team with many different kind of guys. There are going to be teammates who piss you off and vice-versa, resulting in increased tension and the odd tussle in practise. However, when the game's on the line and an opponent sticks a member of your team, your job is to defend him, despite your differences. The guy might even have deserved it, but if he's being attacked maliciously, you have to step in. There's no such thing as an 80% teammate: either you're in the game or you're not. It's a badge of honour, and that's how Grapes sees this global conflict.

Steyn is comparing Howard to that essential team player. He may have differences with the US and its leader, as sovereign nations often do, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, when the defining moment of our age looms in the near future, you'd better start picking sides and hope you pick the same side as your friends. John Howard ensured that Australia did so, and he'll be remembered for a long time because of it.

Canada, on the other hand, chose three of the most duplicitous free nations on earth--France, Germany, Russia--with which to side, and none of these are our closest neighbour and trading partner, let alone a singular "hyperpower".

You decide who got the short end of that stick.

Grapes, the political wunderkind. Who'd 'a thunk it?