[NV Greens] Fwd: Dear Condi (A letter from your northern neighbor)

Sun Mar 6 20:09:54 PST 2005

>
>Missile Counter-Attack
>
>      Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian --
>      critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to
>      U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
>
>By LLOYD AXWORTHY
>Winnipeg Free Press
>Friday, March 4th, 2005
><http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html>
>
>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
>
>Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of
>Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister.
>(c) 2005 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
>discussion and debate service of the Committees of
>Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
>provide varied material of interest to people on the
>left.
>
>For answers to frequently asked questions:
><http://www.portside.org/faq>
>
>To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
><http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>
>To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
><moderator at portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>
>For assistance with your account:
><support at portside.org>
>
>To search the portside archive:
><http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand