|
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 a 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 US 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 US 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 US 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.
|
