An Open Letter to Condi

[KipWellsFan]

I just wanted to provide this to the politics talkers to help clear up how I feel about Missile Defense and this issue of claimed Anti-Americanism, because this letter explains much of what I feel.

 

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

[Pale Hose Jon]

Wow, she just got served

[EvilMonkey]

"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."

 

If you are so damn willing to 'protect' after the 'many horrific examples of inhumanity', why do you have such a bug up your ass about helping out in Iraq? Were there not attrocities happening there? Were there not mass graves? Was Saddam not gassing and killing his own people? Was Saddam not starving his people while building palaces of gold? And before you even start in with 'NO WMD's', that shouldn't matter, not if you really wanted to 'Protect'. Get off your f***ing high horse you arragont little pissant country and do something that matters.

 

"I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House ..." do I sense a bit of veiled racism here? Or is it ok because Condi is a conservative?

[KipWellsFan]

"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."

 

If you are so damn willing to 'protect' after the 'many horrific examples of inhumanity', why do you have such a bug up your ass about helping out in Iraq?  Were there not attrocities happening there?  Were there not mass graves?  Was Saddam not gassing and killing his own people?  Was Saddam not starving his people while building palaces of gold?  And before you even start in with 'NO WMD's', that shouldn't matter, not if you really wanted to 'Protect'. Get off your f***ing high horse you arragont little pissant country and do something that matters. 

 

"I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House ..."  do I sense a bit of veiled racism here?  Or is it ok because Condi is a conservative?

 

Sheesh Anti-Canadianism at its best. All countries can be scolded for incidents of ignoring terrible conditions but simply there are limits to what can be done. And Canada sure wasn't about to go into Iraq when there are countries which need your and our aid so much more.

 

Interesting observation about veiled racism but you're fishing and I'm pretty sure there's nothing there. Just trying to take credit from a very well written and passionate piece.

[TheBigHurt35]

If you are so damn willing to 'protect' after the 'many horrific examples of inhumanity', why do you have such a bug up your ass about helping out in Iraq?  Were there not attrocities happening there?  Were there not mass graves?  Was Saddam not gassing and killing his own people?  Was Saddam not starving his people while building palaces of gold?  And before you even start in with 'NO WMD's', that shouldn't matter, not if you really wanted to 'Protect'. Get off your f***ing high horse you arragont little pissant country and do something that matters. 

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

"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."

 

If you are so damn willing to 'protect' after the 'many horrific examples of inhumanity', why do you have such a bug up your ass about helping out in Iraq?  Were there not attrocities happening there?  Were there not mass graves?  Was Saddam not gassing and killing his own people?  Was Saddam not starving his people while building palaces of gold?  And before you even start in with 'NO WMD's', that shouldn't matter, not if you really wanted to 'Protect'. Get off your f***ing high horse you arragont little pissant country and do something that matters. 

 

"I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House ..."  do I sense a bit of veiled racism here?  Or is it ok because Condi is a conservative?

 

Yeah fighting in Afghanistan where terrorists actually were. Totally not doing anything. http://www.canada.com/national/features/af...stan/index.html

[TheBigHurt35]

Yeah fighting in Afghanistan where terrorists actually were.  Totally not doing anything. http://www.canada.com/national/features/af...stan/index.html

 

He didn't claim that "terrorists" were in Iraq. Just an evil dictator committing attrocities. Try reading next time.

[IndySoxFan]

Stick to baseball Kip... If I want opinion on beavers or trees I will ask.

[YASNY]

Sheesh Anti-Canadianism at its best.

 

You come in here with that vile anti-American crap and then complain about that? Man, you got your nerve. I imagine you can just get used to anti-Canadien sentiments. You're probably more responsible for turning the opinions of many American posters against Canada than anything coming out of the press.

Edited March 8, 2005 by YASNY

[DBAHO]

He didn't claim that "terrorists" were in Iraq.  Just an evil dictator committing attrocities.  Try reading next time.

But wasn't the reason for invading Iraq in the 1st place to find those Weapons of Mass Destruction? (And no I'm not an against invading Iraq person, although a lot of people down here are).

[southsider2k5]

I was going to blow this off, like so much that gets said in SLaP, but this paragraph really, really pissed me off.

 

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.

 

Now I hope this is an urban legend not written by the Canadian Foreign minister, because if it is, this person is one ingnorant SOB.

 

Does the fine Minister have any clue WHY the Canadians have been able to have a surplus for 8 years? Well besides the near 60% nominal tax rates that most Canadians pay, the US has subsidized Canada for decades. That's right, go back and look it up. Who is Canadas biggest trading partner? Where does almost all of their trade surplus come from? Where do they sell the cars that are assembled in Canada?

 

And as for their fine health care system, who subsidizes that? The US drug companies sell medications to Canadian citizens for cheaper than they sell medications to American's. You want to see the Canadian health care system collapse under debt, charge them what we get charged for the same things. Pass on the double digit percentage increases in the cost of the medications and attribute it to cost and development. Canada is a first world industrial nation, why shouldn't they pay as much as I do for medications made in MY OWN COUNTRY?

 

And as for defense, does anyone really think they would keep their pretty little budget balanced if Canada had to shoulder its own burden for researching and developing their own defense? If the US let it be known that they wouldn't come to the aid of their friends to the north if they were invaded, would they get away with spending such a little percentage of their GDP on defense? I am sure Russia would love to have a foothold to America's north, and Canada would be silly not to defend against that.

 

With the amount of subsidation and protection that Canada gets from the US we might as well Annex and make it our 51st state. Heck I wonder if any US states get a cost to benefit ratio like Canada does, when you factor the fact that Canadians don't pay US taxes, all they do is buy our products on the open market.

 

Canada does not have to go along with everything the US does. That's why they are their own country. But when I see their own government officials basically taking credit for things that are a direct result of my consumption and tax dollars, that is BS. If Canada thinks they have such a great system and ideals, go at it alone and see how far they get. Their system would collapse without the work of the US worker, and it is complete ignorance to think otherwise.

 

/rant

[YASNY]

With the amount of subsidation and protection that Canada gets from the US we might as well Annex and make it our 51st state.

 

Let's not.

[KipWellsFan]

You come in here with that vile anti-American crap and then complain about that?  Man, you got your nerve.  I imagine you can just get used to anti-Canadien sentiments.  You're probably more responsible for turning the opinions of many American posters against Canada than anything coming out of the press.

 

Well I did put it in green!

[kapkomet]

And no response to southsider's rant. It's because it's the truth. See the avatar.

[KipWellsFan]

And no response to southsider's rant.  It's because it's the truth.  See the avatar. 

 

Well I could make the argument that Canada is also the United States biggest trade partner, and bickering about how we would fall into squalor if the United States said so is kind of pointless. It's not going to happen, just like Russia isn't about to invade us. Also no one seems to realize the large amounts of natural ressources we export to the US, ie Oil and water(which I've heard is quite scarce). On this issue of health care southsider could very well be right but I'm not about to believe that we are at any serious risk of becoming nothing but one of the top countries in the world.

[TheBigHurt35]

You come in here with that vile anti-American crap and then complain about that?  Man, you got your nerve.  I imagine you can just get used to anti-Canadien sentiments.  You're probably more responsible for turning the opinions of many American posters against Canada than anything coming out of the press.

 

Yeah, it takes a real man to throw bombs at the U.S. government from behind a computer screen in Manitoba. :rolly

 

KWF's actually doing us moderates and conservatives a favor. He's aligning leftist ideology with people of his intellectual caliber, which will almost ensure another Republican victory in 2008.

 

Keep up the good work, Kip! :finger

[Pale Hose Jon]

He didn't claim that "terrorists" were in Iraq.  Just an evil dictator committing attrocities.  Try reading next time.

 

I did some research and nearly every list of the worst dictators in the world show crown prince abdullah of saudi arabia ahead of sadam hussein. So using your reasoning we should invade Saudi Arabia correct? Most of the 9/11 hijakers are from SA, it is the most oppressive country in the world.

 

 

But wait, SA is one of the US's best friends. We love them, yet they have the #2 ranked dictatorship in the world.

 

Fahd bin Abdul Aziz became king of Saudi Arabia in 1982. He remains the ruler, but when he suffered a stroke in 1995, his half-brother, Crown Prince Abdullah, took over practical control. Fahd and Abdullah rule by decree; there are no elections at any level. In the words of Fahd: “If we were to have elections, the winners would be rich businessmen who could buy the votes.”

 

In Saudi Arabia, one must not criticize the royal family. Trials often are held in secret. Adultery and abandoning Islam are crimes punishable by beheading, and people given the death penalty often are not told their sentence until the execution itself. Lesser crimes are punishable by flogging: Using a cell phone on an airplane earns 20 lashes. Floggings often are given in shopping malls and announced on the public-address system.

 

Saudi women may not drive. If they walk alone in the street, they risk being stopped, beaten or detained as suspected moral offenders. Last March, at a girls’ school in Mecca, 15 students died in a fire. Witnesses said the religious police prevented the girls from escaping because they hadn’t put on their headdresses and denied male rescuers access because they are not allowed to mix with females.

 

 

http://archive.parade.com/2003/0216/0216_dictators.html

[southsider2k5]

One difference is that the Saudis are moving away from that. They are about to hold their first free elections. Granted without women participating, but it is a start. Saudis are also learning the lesson about being careful who you fund...

[TheBigHurt35]

I did some research and nearly every list of the worst dictators in the world show crown prince abdullah of saudi arabia ahead of sadam hussein. So using your reasoning we should invade Saudi Arabia correct? Most of the 9/11 hijakers are from SA, it is the most oppressive country in the world.

http://archive.parade.com/2003/0216/0216_dictators.html

 

The problem is that you're getting your "facts" from Parade Magazine.

 

While I do not disagree that Saudi Arabia's government is very corrupt, I strongly disagree that they're worse than Saddam's regime or the former Taliban regime. The Saudi government is also going through reform now, something that would've been unthinkable in Saddam's Iraq.

[KipWellsFan]

Yeah, it takes a real man to throw bombs at the U.S. government from behind a computer screen in Manitoba. :rolly

 

KWF's actually doing us moderates and conservatives a favor.  He's aligning leftist ideology with people of his intellectual caliber, which will almost ensure another Republican victory in 2008. 

 

Keep up the good work, Kip! :finger

 

MANITOBA RULES!

[EvilMonkey]

MANITOBA RULES!

 

That's it? You get slammed 9 ways to Sunday and that's all you can come up with? That reply is about as strong as your army up there.

[EvilMonkey]

Interesting observation about veiled racism but you're fishing and I'm pretty sure there's nothing there. 

 

I don't think it is fishing too much. Imagine the situation if Condi was working for a Democratic president, and the letter was written by someone like Tony Blair. Jessie Jackson would be creamin his jeans at all the anticipated airtime he would be getting, demanding resignations, reparations and appropriations! Al Sharpton would be knocking Jessie over to get to the cameras first. Dorothy Tillman would be demanding that we stop importing British television on any cable system broadcast in Chicago, and want to investigate the British's ties to slavery before we could watch Monty Python again. Julian Bond, would decry the secret cabal of neocons working with outside influences to keep the black man down. All over something as 'slight' as this.

[Soxy]

I don't think it is fishing too much.  Imagine the situation if Condi was working for a Democratic president, and the letter was written by someone like Tony Blair.  Jessie Jackson would be creamin his jeans at all the anticipated airtime he would be getting, demanding resignations, reparations and appropriations!  Al Sharpton would be knocking Jessie over to get to the cameras first.  Dorothy Tillman would be demanding that we stop importing British television on any cable system broadcast in Chicago, and want to investigate the British's ties to slavery before we could watch Monty Python again. Julian Bond,  would decry the secret cabal of neocons working with outside influences to keep the black man down.  All over something as 'slight' as this.

Well, that's an interesting opinion.

[KipWellsFan]

That's it?  You get slammed 9 ways to Sunday and that's all you can come up with?  That reply is about as strong as your army up there.

 

Bighurt slams me after basically every post I make, and I'm not going to respond to anything he says with any seriousness. I know from his posting that he's a very smart guy but that intelligence disappears when he responds to my posts.

Edited March 9, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[KipWellsFan]

I don't think it is fishing too much.  Imagine the situation if Condi was working for a Democratic president, and the letter was written by someone like Tony Blair.  Jessie Jackson would be creamin his jeans at all the anticipated airtime he would be getting, demanding resignations, reparations and appropriations!  Al Sharpton would be knocking Jessie over to get to the cameras first.  Dorothy Tillman would be demanding that we stop importing British television on any cable system broadcast in Chicago, and want to investigate the British's ties to slavery before we could watch Monty Python again. Julian Bond,  would decry the secret cabal of neocons working with outside influences to keep the black man down.  All over something as 'slight' as this.

 

 

I don't care about any of those people.

 

It's obvious that the point he's making is that Powell resigned because he dissented/disagreed and he's slamming Condi for not acting at all independently of her "master".