|
Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (Lloyd Axworthy)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kate Manus |
came across this yesterday.. open letter to 'Condi' from our former Foreign Affairs minister (published in the Winnipeg Free Press where Mr. Axworthy is currently the dean @ the U of W):
Dear Condi,
I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.
I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.
But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.
As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.
Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.
Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.
Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such as missile defence can be made openly.
You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.
Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.
Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.
If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.
Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.
Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).
I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.
These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.
To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.
To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.
And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.
On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.
This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.
There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.
Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.
Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.
In friendship,
Lloyd Axworthy |
|
|
| Epicurus |
So beautiful, so true. I love Canada, and Lloyd rocks. Period.
But here's something to think about with regards to Canada and US relations. Canada is only going to become more important in the future to the States, not only for strategic purposes, regarding "terrorism" and missile defence systems for instance, but more importantly from a natural resource perspective. Alberta currently has the second largest oil reserve in the world, believe it or not, next to Saudi Arabia. The catch is that the oil in Alberta is in the form of tar sands, and so cost of extraction is extrememly high relative to extraction of oil in Saudi. Still, with oil prices exhorbitantly high, it's becoming more cost effective for Albertans to increase production since their profit margins are higher. It's no secret that the neo-cons have focused most of their Canadian courting efforts on Alberta, and have set up think tanks there to try and affect policy as much as possible.
A second, and in my opinion, more important natural resource that almost never gets talked about is fresh water. Canada has by far the largest fresh water supplies in the world (20%!!!). As quoted in Fortune magazine:
| quote: | | "Water promises to be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century: the precious commodity that determines the wealth of nations." --Fortune |
In the next 50 years, and so during our lifetime, expect Canada to become the center target of US foreign policy. Brace yourselves. |
|
|
| kreamy |
| hell ya, must be the beer we drink...makes us smarter. oh ya and poutines...mmm poutines. |
|
|
| Marcus007 |
We aren't all what were made out to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud Canadian who loves his country and all, I just don't think we're that much better than the States. Our corruption just isn't as open and as reported as down south. Just take a look at the ongoing sponsorship scandal; it isn't all picure perfect.
But, compared to the US we're a utopia. I have no doubt in my mind that US culture will collapse in the next ten to fifteen years. You know where they're gonna head? That's right, nice old Canada.
/me watches as Harper stands by and waits.
:/ |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kate Manus
I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more. |
uhhh you snubbed them, not the other way around
also, Canada is no longer the U.S.'s closest neighbour
| quote: | | I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results. |
That's just patently incorrect... the last test was a success.
| quote: |
But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game. |
the Americans would have paid for it, not Canada.... they just need our airspace and NORAD cooperation
| quote: |
As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence. |
the monster national day care program is another boondoggle in the making.
oh, and did the Lieberals ever return the $100 million they netted from Ad Scam?
Were the Lieberals fiscally prudent when they wasted $2 billion on the gun registry (a mere list)?
| quote: |
Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.
Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny. |
Canada supports dictators. Yay for Canada!
| quote: |
Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such as missile defence can be made openly. |
We have an elected dictatorship. The PM, who by the way isn't even mentioned in the constitution, appoints the Supreme Court justices, provincial judges, Senators, heads of Crown corporations (20% of the economy), the Govenor General, Lieutenants General, etc.
Canada is the LEAST democratic country in the West, by far.
| quote: |
You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations. |
An outright lie. Consider how Martin will not allow a proper free vote on same-sex marraige.
| quote: |
Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, |
Why should he? Canada has now become irrelevant.
| quote: |
Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire. |
NONSENSE! Canada is much more of a one-party state than the U.S. The Lieberal Party was in power longer in the 20th century than the Communist Party in the USSR! The media also blatently helps the Lieberals.
| quote: |
These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states. |
No. Lieberals believe in contracting out defense to the U.S. military.
| quote: |
To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.
To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.
And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices. |
All of the above are attempts by the Lilliputians to keep Gulliver down.
| quote: |
On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. |
How'd Canada fare in Rwanada?
oh yeah... thousands died.
We don't have the military to back up the policies.
Also, Kosovo was an illegal war.
| quote: |
Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will. |
Canada can't even protect itself from the Danes, who recently took over part of Nunavut.
| quote: |
Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree. |
Canada is not in a position to dictate terms.
| quote: |
Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.
In friendship,
Lloyd Axworthy |
Canada is no longer a friend of the U.S. Canada has allied itself with France. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Here's a better take on the issue...
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlig...zie041229a.html
BMD doesn't deserve such a bumpy ride
by Lewis MacKenzie
Never get behind me in a grocery store check-out line. You are guaranteed to be a silent observer as our cashier calls for a price, hands over to her replacement, chats with a relative who is entitled to 10% off most, but not all, of her items and is on her first day solo without someone showing her the ropes. I have equal luck on long commercial airline flights. No matter how I much I want to use the transit time to prepare for whatever awaits me at the other end, I am destined to be assigned a seat beside a gregarious talker. Last week’s trip to Calgary was no exception.
Him – glancing up from his paper before I have my seat belt fastened: “Can you believe this missile defence thing? Those Yanks and that Bush guy are steamrolling us into helping them fill space with nuclear weapons.”
Me - long pause - do I take the bait or not? What the Hell: “Well , not really, the only nuclear-tipped missiles out there would be the ones coming our way and those are the ones the U.S. wants to destroy before they get here.”
Him: “But with all those nations like China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and God knows how many others building nuclear missiles, this Star Wars system is going to need thousands of U.S. interceptors to handle the threat.”
Me: “Absolutely not, and don’t confuse this current system with Ronald Regan’s Star Wars. The critics of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) are intentionally calling it “Star Wars” to scare the public, particularly regarding the scope and cost of the system. The number of interceptors planned for the current system will be so small - somewhere around 40 to 50 – that none of the potential enemy countries you mentioned would be encouraged to increase their number of offensive missiles, as it would be easy for them to overwhelm our defensive shield with a fraction of their current inventory. This system is designed to handle the tiny number of incoming missiles that countries like North Korea or Iran might throw in our direction, intentionally or otherwise, as well as any that might be launched by some wacko terrorist organization, when and if they take control of some state’s nuclear capabilities.
Him: “That’s ridiculous! None of those folks have the capability to launch a ballistic missile against us and if they did, they wouldn’t risk being annihilated by the U.S. in retaliation.”
Me: “You are right today – but what about tomorrow? We are dealing with groups who have as their number one stated priority the elimination of their Great Satan, the U.S. and her allies. Within the past few years some of these groups have sprayed children running away from school with machine gun fire, sent suicide bombers to blow up night clubs, and slowly, sometimes taking two to three minutes, have severed innocent victims heads from their bodies, keeping them alive as long as possible in the process. Do you really think they would be deterred by the thought of U.S. retaliation? Should we wait until they have the capability before we do anything about it?
Him: “Well let the U.S. worry about that, it’s not our problem. A little earlier you said, ‘our defensive shield’, it’s not ours, it’s the Americans’!”.
Me: “It just so happens that we are already involved. We have hundreds of military cooperation agreements with the U.S. signed since the end of the Second World War. The North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) is the most important one, and we provide the deputy commander and many of the staff. Our Air Force responds to threats to North American, not just Canadian airspace. We are already involved with the system you seem to dislike, as NORAD will provide targeting data to the BMD’s interceptor missiles regarding any incoming missile target. Frequently those will be Canadian officers at NORAD’s headquarters passing on that critical information. My friend, if you aim the rifle at a deer and someone else pulls the trigger, you share the meat.”
Him: “ I don’t care what you say, the polls are showing the majority of Canadians are against us getting involved and this is a democracy”.
Me: “ Sure the polls show a close race and that result emerged from a question like, ‘ Are you in favour of joining the U.S. in its expensive and unproven ballistic missile defence program?’ Result: 50/50. Think if the question was, ‘The U.S., NATO, Japan, Britain, Australia, Russia, France, Israel, and Denmark are all cooperating with the implementation of a ballistic missile system that you won’t see, won’t pay for and won’t be based on Canadian soil, but will make you and your family safer. Are you in favour of joining?’ I would anticipate a dramatically different result.
Him: “I still say we would be safer without a bunch of nuclear interceptors out there in space”.
Me: “Actually, nuclear weapons are banned in space and they aren’t very effective out there anyway. It's space! The interceptors will not have explosive war heads. They will destroy incoming missiles with kinetic energy, like a head-on car collision. The interceptors will be launched from land or sea where they are obviously easier to service, upgrade and control.
Him: “Yeah, but haven’t all the tests failed?”
Me: “That’s why you test, to perfect the system. Do you really think that a nation which sent men to the moon in 1969 and can put a cruise missile through the bathroom window of a house 1,000 kilometres away will fail to perfect a system to track and hit an incoming warhead the size of a BMW?”
Aircraft Captain: “Ladies and Gentlemen. We have Calgary in sight. Please place your seat backs in the upright position, fasten your seatbelt and until we have safely come to a full stop at the terminal, try to stop arguing with the person seated beside you, particularly the two of you in 13 A and B. After all, we are Canadians”.
Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired, commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.
This article is presented here with the kind permission of the author. It also appears in the 29 Dec 04 issue of The Globe and Mail. |
|
|
|
|
