Since its 18th Century separation from the other developing nations that have a common heritage, the United States of America has claimed to be "different". Actually, it is one trans- Atlantic expression of British, European and other strains of human enterprise and genius. The Middle East has always thought of U.S. Americans as barbarian

Franks', latter day Crusaders intent, at first, on challenging the former Ottoman Turkish Empire and, more recently, other states, especially radical Islamists, as a hostile civilisation.

The confrontation began soon after the independent colonies formed in 1787 an increasingly militarised Union that sent thousands more, many pacifist, "Late Loyalists" to Canada. No longer having the protection of the Royal Navy, U.S. merchant shipping paid heavy tribute to buy off the

Barbary pirates" in and near the Mediterranean. That prompted the building of a U.S. navy which is now a continuing threat to Muslim nations.

When agreements with Arab potentates had been negotiated, millenarian Protestant missionaries aimed to help Jews return to Palestine and to convert them and

decadent" Muslims and Eastern Christians in the process. They had little success in those ways but U.S. interests did sponsor trade, exploration, tourism, schools, the English language, medical and other scientific knowledge in North Africa and east of Suez. They suffered hardships, aroused Islamic ire and generally engendered mistrust and suspicion.

All the while, English and French entrepreneurs watched Yankee manufacturers of guns and other products of The Great Democracy closely but British consular officials, especially those who had similar religious interests, assisted their fellow anglophones whose

Puritan pioneers had bequeathed an Old Testament fascination with the Land of the Bible and the messianic conviction that their republic was to be "a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel". Many of those were to become Christians and farmers in a modern, U.S.-modelled Holy Land. Few Jews, then or later, caught that vision.

Subsequent U.S. intervention in the Muslim world has been a mixture of messianism, altruism, curiosity and commercial greed, notably an obsession with oil. The result of the past 200 years of such

soft imperialism' is the current Iraq dilemma, the Palestinian problem, the Iranian provocations, Saudi Wahabbist (Wahhabist, Salafist) terrorism and an aggravated internal rivalry among Muslims.

The "Great Satan" of the U.S. of A. (but let us call it, rather, the pious, self-righteous, short-sighted and nationalist policies of those who govern our southern neighbours) has created a universal reaction, even in other democratic nations. It may be a misunderstanding, but there is a perception that "21st Century America" intends to try to remake the whole world in its own image and to use a secular (Sabbath restrictions notwithstanding) Israel as its base in the Middle East. Should Canada be an accomplice in that plan?

The fact is that, since leaving the unity of the Empire/Commonwealth, "America" has been a combination of friend and irritant. When it is isolationist it weakens us all and when it acts unilaterally it creates problems it cannot solve unaided.

Recently, trans-national organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union have shown themselves to be ineffectual in both short-term and extended crises.

Since WW2 the U.S.A., Britain, France, Russia and China sit in the U.N. Security Council as guardians of their "collective security". It has become increasingly evident that their interests are not the same. China needs Persian oil. Russia sees Iran both as a customer for nuclear air-defence systems and as ballast against Western control of the Persian Gulf. France, as usual, tries to bolster its fading gloire by sending irenic, commercially motivated, signals to any country that might be a customer for its armaments, wine or cheese.

If effective international cooperation is to outbid both nationalism and the chimera of postnationalism that beguiles an increasingly multi-ethnic Canada, a third way must be found. Would such a thing as a largely Englishspeaking New Commonwealth be possible? Even the North American French-speaking "nation" might do well to be part of such a powerful partnership.

Australia and New Zealand share with Britain, the United States and Canada a heritage in parliamentary institutions, the common law, a broad tolerance and a common language. With some exceptions, few people in 'Anglophonia' are not comfortable calling one another foreigners. I was called that, officially, when I was a graduate student in New York but when I failed, as requested, to wear my "native dress" to college functions I blended easily into the U.K.- U.S.- ANZACCanadian crowd. We were not really complete strangers to one another.

This space has speculated previously about the possibility of a future Confederation of North America with some regional autonomy. The fact that Britain is likely to resist complete integration into an expanding E.U. and that Australia and New Zealand will increasingly feel the need for support in a South Asia dominated by China and India prompts the thought that a closer association between countries, each of which was once part of the British Empire, may become desirable. The preponderance of its population would be in North America but those other ties and the speed of modern transportation and communications suggest the possibility - if there be the will.

A Declaration of Interdependence would be the foundation of a New Commonwealth.

Closer U.S.-Canada relations are always suspect in this country which has one-tenth the population of the United States. And 'American' constitutionalists would be wary of 10 Canadian provinces having 20 senators in an Upper House if there were only a two-nation legislative union. In an often evenly-split Senate the Canadians would hold a balance of power. But a five-nation New Commonwealth with a central decision-making body could, potentially, be a 50-year experiment, renegotiable after that time.

An ideologically-driven nation that is the only remaining superpower is a threat to world peace when it insists on making decisions independently. It is time to put the U.S.A. back into the larger context of similar nations, which I call here the New Commonwealth, where it will not begin unilaterally ventures it cannot conclude without "coalition" help.

Some will still remember the 1939 "Union Now" advocated by Clarence Streit.

It may be time to update and widen that idea.