Missile Counter-Attack

This arrived in my mailbox this morning.... I haven't been able to grab it anywhere online, and the Winnipeg Free Press is by subscription..... so, courtesy of Terry, enjoy:

Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- criticsof our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State CondoleezzaRice

Winnipeg Free Press

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get overyour fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It'sa chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the WhiteHouse 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) financeminister 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 deficitsthat 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'scaucus 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 ourHouse of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that
there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktaton missile defence in front of a highly controlled,
pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state thatnow prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a
residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checksand balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, presentthem 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 commandour 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 Canadianattitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform youropinions 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 withcertain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventionalwisdoms, 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-modulatedefforts to protect the rights of people, not just
nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing therisk of climate change, they believe that we need
agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethniccleansing, 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 bereformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stopviolence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibilityto 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 providingreal 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 ofhow 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 overdepletion 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 relationsbecause of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent pointof 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 formerCanadian foreign minister.