Jean Chretien has never paid much attention to international affairs, but the one thing he "knew" when he took over as prime minister in 1993 was that Canada was no longer going to be back-slapping buddies with the U.S.
He said he was going to force the Americans to renegotiate the North American free trade arrangement and he mocked Brian Mulroney for his too-cosy friendship with presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.
Chretien said Canadians did not want to be "camp followers" of the Americans nor did they want a prime minister whose "great ambition in life is to go fishing" with the U.S. president.
Nearly a decade later, on the eve of a G-8 conference in which he's hosting the most important world leaders, it hasn't quite worked out that way.
There's no doubt he's succeeded in establishing a relationship with President George W. Bush that would never be described as cosy. Some have characterized their relationship as frosty, but it is more correct to say there is no relationship. The two men represent different political generations and simply have little in common.
And though Chretien and Bush don't get along all that well, there is no doubt Canada today is more in the American camp than ever before on a range of issues from military co-operation to joint border management to a deep and wide integration of the countries' economies.
To be fair, say analysts, the deeper U.S. ties are not really Chretien's to claim or be held responsible for. It is the exigencies of the post-Cold War era that have reshaped the geopolitical axis of the world and redefined Canada's place in it.
"Canada has become much more North American in the past decade and it would have happened with or without Chretien," says Christopher Sands, director of the Canada Project at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
It also makes it easier for a prime minister who tends to define international relationships in terms of trade and investment opportunities.
Though not as bad as Bush, who last month completed a tour of the massive Kremlin in seven minutes and who checked out Berlin's historic Brandenburg Gate from the windows of his speeding limo, Chretien does not have a great interest in the rest of the world.
If he makes news while travelling abroad, it is frequently for the wrong reasons, as was the case two years ago when in Jerusalem he attempted to dodge questions about why he was not visiting the east side of the city which is claimed by the Palestinians.
"I don't know if I am in West, South, North or East Jerusalem right now," he explained.
The prime minister was at it again a few weeks ago in Italy when he told a newspaper the remote Alberta resort of Kananaskis would be a safe place for G-8 leaders because it is protected "from the back by mountains, from the front by a river, from the south by an Indian village and from the north by 500 bears."
Maureen Appel Molot, director of Carleton University's Norman Paterson Institute of International Affairs, confesses to bewilderment at Chretien's actions and comments when he travels abroad.
"He's certainly not a stupid man, but there is obviously a lack of interest, perhaps a lack of careful attention to speech. There's perhaps a degree of flippancy that can cause more trouble abroad than it does at home," she said.
Molot says the relative decline in defence and foreign affairs spending during Chretien's period reflects his lack of interest beyond domestic politics.
"I think one of the most devastating criticisms came from his own deputy prime minister, John Manley, when he said last year, 'You can't just sit at the G-8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom. If you want to play a role in the world, even as a small member of the G-8, there's a cost to that.'
"If ever there was an indictment of this government's foreign policy, it was there," she said.
"Chretien's foreign policy legacy?" repeats Sands, when asked to consider the prime minister's record on the international stage. "That's not a particularly big file. Even in the U.S. relationship, he really hasn't cut a big swath."
All of which makes it hard for foreign policy analysts to understand why Chretien is so focused on making Africa the focal point of the G-8 summit.
"I have no idea why he's taking this on," says Molot. "There's no doubt he's seized with it and seized with it in a way that has led to some questionable decisions, the most obvious one being (Canada's) position at the Commonwealth meeting where we wouldn't criticize Zimbabwe because there was concern that any criticism might make it more difficult for Canada to persuade leaders of the African states to sign on to the plan for Kananaskis."
She questions whether the G-8 is the right forum for such action, particularly considering the current explosive situation in other parts of the world.
"We're having the G-8 summit, the first since the Sept. 11 attacks, in an environment where we're hearing more and more reports about likely terrorist attacks and our prime minister is saying, 'Well, terrorism will be on the agenda but Africa has to be the priority.' I have very great reservations about this."
Molot says this year's emphasis on Africa by Chretien is typical of his flavour-of-the-day approach to foreign policy.
"It was all about Asia in 1997 when Canada hosted the APEC conference. Last year it was all about the Americas when the OAS summit was in Quebec. Has there been any staying power on either one of those? When you look at the nine-year period (that Chretien's been prime minister), you see a lot of initiatives but only a few of which have been carried through to their logical conclusion. There's very much a sense of once-over lightly."
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.