Missile Counter-Attack: Axworthy [fmr. Canadian Foreign Minister] fires back at U.S.

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

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.

Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister.

3) ALL foreign flights diverted to Gander during 911 because US airspace was closed.

While it was indeed great of you to put our people up for a few days, keep this in mind: We could have landed those planes at the former Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Maine. Nothing there but potatoes.

We appreciate your assistance on 9-11, as well as the "Canadian Caper" in 1979 Teheran.

But considering we've defended this entire continent for the past 60 years, we deserved the payback.

buccaneer81

Woodstock (NB) High School 1981

Mount Allison University (Sackville, NB) 1985 BA International Relations.

lecture – a discourse given before an audience especially for instruction 2. reprimand

This knee jerk uninformed talk about annexing or invading Canada is extremely tiresome and counter productive. It's a puerile fantasy born of ignorance and arrogance.

You are ignoring what I am saying and attempting to change the subject to what you want to talk about - which is your “lecture” to Americans on an American site about how you “feel” about them expressing their displeasure in yet another Canadian betrayal of America.

You came onto this thread to lecture us and you are continuing to. As I just told you – I don’t care whether things “work out” between Canada and America – they may or they may not. Canada is moving to the left while America is moving to the right – who knows whether we will stay as allies – certainly a border is not a guarantee of anything. So your “lecture” about what you think of as “productive” discussion is meaningless.

What is it to you, some anonymous foreigner, whether Americans are ranting about something that has upset them on an American site? It seems to me that it is none of your business. Did you even read the original post on this thread? The insult here is coming from Canada, not America. And as I said, for you to try and turn this upside down and make Canada into the victim is typical of how many of us see Canada at this time – as is the letter from your former foreign minister to Dr. Rice.

Well Bourbon I applaud the sincerity of your post. Unfortunately, the irony is there is no way to test my theory unless we have fair trade between the US and Canada.

Right now we don't, in spite of NAFTA.

I can tell you that to a great extent the resistance to MD on the part of Canadian voters is due to resentment that has built up from US protectionism over the last decade and a half.

You said, "Canada has a 1000 different ways to exert pressure on the U.S. to resolve trade disputes, not the least of which are treaty organizations built to resolve such disputes."

The US Department of Commerce has consistently ignored rulings by trade panels on eight different occasions by launching new appeals when the rulings aren't favorable to the US.

Not once have the US accepted a ruling from the WTO (which the created), GATT (to which the US is a signatory) or NAFTA (which the US initiated).

Nafta wasn't our idea it was yours. It was signed under the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney and the ink wasn't dry before the softwood embargo was initiated by the US forestry lobby.

Same goes for beef the incidents of Mad Cow were discovered because Canadian ranchers reported them before they could enter the market.

Canada has agreed to ship only cattle under three years old to the US market and Montana ranchers went to court to block it.

I saw the news report showing Montana ranchers coming out the the court house dancing and yelling, Yippeee!

That lawsuit had nothing to do with safe beef and everything to do with Western ranchers protecting higher prices for their product. Even President Bush wants to renew imports of Canadian beef. Unfortunately he either can't or won't translate stated policy into concrete action.

Now when it comes to oil there is no problem at all. No complaint there. Ship all the heavy oil you want at $30 + a barrel.

Dear Mr. Axworthy:

In light of your infamous remarks regarding Canada's responsibility of shouldering some of the North American defense burden, I had briefly contemplated authorizing an invasion of your country by the Armed Forces of the United States.

I was, however, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that such an invasion would counterproductive, as the payoff would not be worth the bother of activating the 37 troops and $372.68 necessary for a successful invasion of your country.

Therefore, as Commander in Chief and President of the United States of America, I send my warmest regards and a hearty GO F*CK YOURSELF!

-George W. Bush

And we can already calculate the response from the Canadians if North Korea or Iran manages to get one of their missiles to hit Canada.
They will be in a uproar if that were to happen and would be calling for the resignation of President Bush, and accuse us ( the USA ) of " Incompetence " for being incompetent of being able to protect them from a missile attack.
This is the same old mind set of the liberals, they want it both ways.

"Anyone in the world can invest in Canadian mining enterprises and reap the rewards of exploding commodities prices, even Americans, if they can find a broker who is licensed to sell Canadian mining stocks."

So, you wouldn't, by chance, be a registered broker on the notoriously honorable Vancouver Stock Exchange would you?

;^)

It is times like this that I am absolutely ashamed of my Canadian heritage. I thank my lucky stars that my children were born in the USA.

The pomposity and arrogance of idiots like Ax[UN]worthy is numbing. The only redeeming feature of what's left, of what was once a great nation, are the western provinces, which are in the majority populated by individuals that cringe at the words of this hack.

The pomposity and arrogance of idiots like Ax[UN]worthy is numbing. The only redeeming feature of what's left, of what was once a great nation, are the western provinces, which are in the majority populated by individuals that cringe at the words of this hack.

Yeah, Mr. Axworthy's hubris is off the charts, isn't it? And sadly, he is not an aberation. I'm don't know where relations between America and Canada will end up. But I agree with President Bush when he said after 9/11 that Americans are slow to anger but fierce when aroused. There is a limit to what we will put up with.

Perhaps Western Canada would be better off forming their own independent, *free* nation?

Thanks for the reminder and for your post.

Ok if your just being facetious.

Are you being facetious when you say, "twits north of the border"?

Facile remarks are closely related to Sarcasm which Oscar Wilde called the lowest form of Wit.

But I'll give you credit that what you said shouldn't be taken seriously.

Unfortunately many posters on these threads bandy about the words annexation and invasion in a way that indicates they are completely serious.

As far as Northern Defense is concerned Canada's principle contribution during the Cold War was the DEW line which has been operating continuously since the fifties without interruption. To say we are not contributing is factually incorrect.

The dispute is over MD. The Canadian government has for years been against the weaponization of space and view MD as a step toward the future goal to do just that.

What will the US do with that capability?

Monopolize earth orbit?

Tell the French, Russians and Chinese they can't launch a satellite without US approval or it will be destroyed by orbiting weapon platforms.

And what if those countries launch their own hunter killer platforms? Will the world be treated to a rain of uncontrolled reentry of battle damaged space junk?

All of this is science fiction at this point but well within the realm of possibility.

the DEW line which has been operating continuously since the fifties without interruption. To say we are not contributing is factually incorrect.

What arrogance! As if you benevolently "donated" the DEW Line sites to protect we poor Americans. You were thinking about your own sorry hides. If we go down so do you. Tell that to Paul Martin.

No actually the Vancouver Stock Exchange no long exists.

The coke and Bourbon fueled boiler rooms of Howe St. are no more.

The TSX took it over and moved it to Toronto and the Canadian resource industry is now subject to the most strict filing regulations in the world under the NC 14-101.

You would be hard pressed to find a pure paper or drill play anymore. The companies on TSX-Venture are now run by legitimate executives and geologists who could survive close scrutiny.

Now you can be delisted for communicating any information that has not been cleared by the exchange and published promptly in the public domain and communicated in print form to investors.

And no, I am not licensed to sell securities in any jurisdiction. Which is why I didn't make any reference to a particular public company.

I never been to jail and I would it to stay that way.

Chill out dude it's impossible for a simple fact to be arrogant.

The DEW line is there because Diefenbaker agreed to focus Canadian military spending on missile defense against Soviet bombers at the behest of Eisenhower.

As far as I know we split the costs and the stations were manned by Canadian and SAC radar ops.

I'm saying that Canada has been on board MD from the beginning the disagreement is over the ramifications of this latest development without a treaty mechanism to control it.

Ok, I really apologize. It appears you are impaired. "twits north of the border" and the rest of it is...? Ready? those that write silly letters to the paper. Kind of refers to the original article. And just as an aside I don't base my opinion on anything Oscar Wilde said.
With China, Europe, Russia, and India all indicating the desire for an active presence in space you would do what? Rely on their good intentions? Would you like to be second in reaching the high ground? Canada opted out of any say on the world stage. Canada is an also ran in the space race. America shouldn't wake up one day and find their access and their security at the hands of a Chinese space weapons platform.
Oh, by the way, on your little anti-American post here, what makes you think America would do that? What in our actions indicate that? You sound more and more liberal. Did you not get anything from the eighties? Peace through strength, tear down this wall, any of it familiar? None of it was due to Canada, so you might have missed the whole cold war thing.

No Anti-Americanism here.

The possibilities I mentioned were openly discussed as future development projects under the Star Wars initiative proposed by President Reagan.

US military planners are working on high velocity rail guns and other kinetic weapons as we speak. Those capabilities can be used to intercept missiles and destroy satellites.

Would the US destroy another nations satellite?

Well if it was a military or spy satellite probably yes; if the Pentagon or the President thought it was in the US national security interests to do so.

Would the US destroy another country's communications satellite? It might, if that was also deemed to be in defense of national security.

Would this make world security on the ground harder to control or predict? Almost certainly.

Oh. and I didn't miss the Cold War. I was living on a military base in the high north during the Cuban missile crisis.

Sunsong:
we here on Free Republic express our displeasure with the treatment we have received and you have the balls to come here onto an American site to lecture us about how we feel.

beaver fever:
I'm not lecturing anyone on their feelings.

I'm not lecturing. I'm just stating the facts.

buccaneer81:
What arrogance!

beaver fever:
Chill out dude it's impossible for a simple fact to be arrogant.

IrishCatholic:
Oh, by the way, on your little anti-American post here, what makes you think America would do that?

beaver fever:
No Anti-Americanism here.

Notice a pattern here? Massive denial? Does beaver fever think that everyone else is wrong while he alone is right? Or is he just dishonest?

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.