Posted on 02/26/2005 12:57:44 PM PST by NorthOf45
McKenna goes ballistic over decision
Don Martin
National Post
February 26, 2005
OTTAWA - He went, um, ballistic at hearing the news.
Frank McKenna is one angry Washington-bound Canadian ambassador after being left in the dark about the government's decision to deny its blessing to the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.
Put less diplomatically, "he is seriously pissed," according to a senior government source.
The anger is understandable, and explains why the former New Brunswick premier has gone underground and is not returning media calls.
McKenna appeared before a parliamentary committee on Tuesday to shine up his credentials before being formally dispatched for duty in the U.S. capital.
During and after the meeting, McKenna correctly observed that Canada, as a partner in the North American Aerospace Defence Command's sky-sweeping missile-seeking duties, was already a de facto participant in the ballistic missile defence shield.
What he didn't know, but should've been told, was that the Prime Minister had just informed the Americans that Canada would deny its political okey-dokey to the concept.
That big bang you heard was a Martin kill shot intercepting McKenna's political credibility before he could reach the Canadian Embassy in Washington.
There's a strange theory in circulation that Martin did a masterful job of fence-sitting the file; that he used McKenna to promote Canada's quiet participation in missile defence before officially washing his hands of any political culpability.
Sorry, no. It was a three-day convergence of extreme political ineptitude by a Prime Minister who had decided to follow the polls and flip-flop his opinion after more than a year of indecision. How bad was it? Let me count the ways.
- By denying McKenna advance notice about a done decision of obvious importance to his job, Martin embarrassed and infuriated a showcase ambassador he took a year to find, ensuring his welcome to Washington will be on the cool side of cordial.
- By leaking news of the decision the day before the budget and confirming it the day after, Martin turned his much-praised budget into a one-day news wonder. Particularly shortchanged is Defence Minister Bill Graham, who lost the chance to bask in afterglow of a huge military spending boost.
- The weird timing forced both Martin and Graham to fib in the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday by suggesting the decision not to endorse missile defence had not been made when, in fact, it had.
- The Prime Minister irritated his Cabinet by using his ministers as false cover for allegedly making a decision on Thursday that had already been relayed to the Americans two days earlier.
- Martin has officially reneged an oft-stated promise to put the question to MPs for a debate.
The awkward way the decision was announced confirms this was not reflecting deep Liberal pride in the position.
When Jean Chretien announced Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-led coalition of the willing in the war against Iraq, he declared it defiantly in the Commons in the middle of Question Period to a thundering standing ovation from all parties but the Conservatives.
Martin, by contrast, dispatched Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew to the Commons on only an hour's notice, where he did a lacklustre reading of a text before an audience of just 10 Liberals. Martin surfaced briefly a few minutes later to read his own text, stammered through just four questions from reporters before bolting for cover in his office.
This was not a communications plan of strategic brilliance. It is the polar opposite, a reluctant decision forced on Martin because he was running out of dither time if he hoped to avoid the issue hijacking his policy convention next week.
Look, it's entirely possible the Americans are pouring billions into a concept that will never fire a shot in anger at an enemy. They are, after all, having trouble getting the test-fire phase off the ground.
But here's the cost of saying a symbolic 'yes': Zip. No cash. No land required for missile launch sites. No bureaucracy to supervise the erection of the shield.
And here are the consequences of saying 'no': The thawing of a troubled relationship is back in the deep freeze, confirming Canada's place in American minds as a northern wimp who won't even join a military umbrella to protect its own air space.
For ambassador Frank McKenna, that suddenly makes Canada a very tough country to represent to the United States. He has every right to be angry.
Does Canada seriously think that, if the missles are incoming, that we are going to wait for their OK before reacting?
Memorable quotes include:
One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.
One Conservative critic openly mocked the idea that Martin would get a phone call. "What, are (the Americans) phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation?" said Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day.These missiles are coming in at, you know, four kilometres a second."
An my personal favorite..."This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
Where is the public outcry then? Don't the Canadian people see how dangerous this is? For them and us.
I would like to see him quit in protest. Perhaps possibly do to Dithers what Dithers did to da Cretch.
Well, in a word, yes. I saw posts here earlier that the Canadians have demanded our interceptors not overfly Canadian airspace without previous govt approval. So, while the missile is inbound we're supposed to get on the horn and file a flight plan with the Canadian Prime Minister. Talk about idiocy incarnate!
Further evidence that Parliament, and Canada as a whole, is not behind Martin ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351739/posts
There was an article the National Post website yesterday or day before.
There was a comment space below the article and something over a hundred comments had been posted (there may have been more). Well over half appeared to be supportive of Martin's stance and "courageous" decision to deny the Americans any support on anti-missle issue.
He won political points by responding to the polls. Just like Clinton did -- and see what that got us!
No, but Canada does get free missile defense - a gift from U.S. tax payers!
I keep waiting for Western Canada to become the dominant voice in Canadian politics. I know common sense still rules in that part of Canada at least.
Conservative allies from Canada exempt from the foolishness of their majority and following opinions.
Well, at least there is some entertainment value in the latest from our "allies" up North.
This was lame. Perhaps he'd like to speak to the last person to live by the opinion poll. Bill Clinton. It didn't serve him well over the long term.
Martin doesn't like our stance? Take it up with the U.N. Another irrelevant body.
And here are the consequences of saying 'no': The thawing of a troubled relationship is back in the deep freeze, confirming Canada's place in American minds as a northern wimp who won't even join a military umbrella to protect its own air space.
I'm going to remember this.
Q: How stupid is Paul Martin?
A: Stupid enough to reject the chance to be a free rider.
And, he's stupid enough to do this at the costs of alienating his country's most trusted ally and largest trading partner and diminishing his own nation's collective security.
This is action is akin to sending a Christmas gift from a friend back unopened. It doesn't benefit you, and it only irritates your friend. Regardless of any Liberal crowing about the 'principle of the matter,' Martin's decision can only be interpreted as an act of spitefulness towards the U.S.
Good job, Paul. You're a freakin' genius.
We could make the interceptors just a little smarter. If the incoming missile trajectory shows that it will, for example, overfly Alaska and hit Vancouver instead, then we could be sensitive to the Canadians and not intercept it.
Would they like that better?
Yep. We could hand it off to the Canadian ballistic missile defense organization headquartered in the Prime Minister's office.
If China or some other power fires missiles over Canada into the United States, we will of course try to intercept them whether the Canadian government likes it or not.
But if China fires missiles at Canadian cities, it's a lot less clear what we would do. Why should we incur the wrath of China to defend a neighbor that refuses to be defended?
Generally speaking, an ICBM can be redirected to some degree while in flight, but substantial course changes require more fuel or less payload, so you can figure fairly early in its flight where a missile is headed.
Most Canadians support the PM on this. And like most liberals, they have an ends justifies the means. They don't care if the House of Commons was consulted or not. The Conservative Party defeated reorganization of the different Ministries, but the Liberals just went and did it anyway. In Canada, the party in charge makes the rules. They can do what they want with impunity.
Do you think this will affect NORAD? (Dumb question?) The reason I ask is, I can see NATO going through changes, soon, because the europeons have chosen another course than we have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.