|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-04-04 19:59:31
Here's the best response I've seen yet. Fromm the Halifax Herald.
Sunday, March 30, 2003 The Halifax Herald Limited
Dear Mr. Cellucci:
Remember WWII?
Canada has always been there whenever the U.S. truly needed us. But when we went to war twice in the last century, America hesitated. So don't lecture us about freedom, democracy and friendship.
By Silver Donald Cameron
To:
Ambassador Paul Cellucci, Embassy of the United States of America, 490 Sussex Dr.,
Ottawa, Ont.
DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:
Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive. Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S. pressure and Canadian opinion - a familiar position for Canadian prime ministers - and he will not tell you to go pound sand. But someone should.
Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq.
"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family."
Codswallop. And that's being diplomatic.
The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United States. A monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestor for repelling an invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The very first instance of military co-operation among the 13 colonies occurred in 1745 under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor as governor of Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and captured the Fortress of Louisbourg.
Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your privateers sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The birth of Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border.
Do you remember manifest destiny, the 1840s U.S. doctrine which held that your country had a God-given mission to rule all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the slogan that rallied Americans to threaten an invasion in 1902 over the Alaska boundary? Yours is the only country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened.
And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in 1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A million Canadians fought in the Second World War, and 45,000 died. We need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and democracy.
Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as close as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians - I am one - have family members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991.
And when great catastrophe strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each other.
As governor of Massachusetts, you must have been present at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston each year - an annual gift from Nova Scotia to commemorate the immediate and massive assistance of Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917.
Our chance to reciprocate came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Canadian communities took in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S. planes forced down by the terrorist attacks.
Halifax alone hosted 7,200. We housed them in our homes and schools and churches, fed them and comforted them and treated them as family. We probably gave more immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country. Yet when your president later thanked nations for their help, he did not mention Canada.
The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a deliberate choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years - an astounding diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening.
A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is a sideshow, a grudge match, a distraction. It will breed more martyrs, and more terrorists.
Back in Massachusetts, in 1846, a young man was arrested and jailed for refusing to pay taxes, to avoid supporting his government's deplorable policies.
He explained this in an essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, which has ever since inspired people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. His name was Henry David Thoreau, and no doubt the governor of Massachusetts thought he was a pretty poor American. He was not; like King, he was a voice for what is finest in American life and values. And the issue on which he took his stand may sound a bit familiar. He was opposed to an imperial war - the unprovoked U.S. invasion which stripped Mexico of 40 per cent of its territory.
Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies.
That is the message you should take back to the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will understand it.
Sincerely,
Silver Donald Cameron
Award-winning author Silver Donald Cameron lives in D'Escousse.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-04-06 15:14:20
Banquo
I think Simpson puts it very well
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030405.ibsimp0405/BNStory/International/
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 06:30:45
I also read his editorial, he fully reflected my view and beliefs! I was impressed!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-06 15:27:19
This requires a bit of a history lesson. I will try and be short though.
==================
In 1690 the British colonies of New England attacked the French in what s now modern day Canada. Mr. Cameron should realise that this is not Canadians versus Americans.
1745 The British invaded what is now Nova Scotia, but was under French rule as Acadia. Mind you I think the part of about the French invading British controlled Canso in 1744 out of the story.
From 1803-1812 British privateers seized over 10,000 American ships that had the nerve to trade with the French, contrary to a British embargo. That said, Mr. Madison did declare war on us in 1812 - of course we were British at the time.
1840s and Canada's support of the British Empire - not to mention Social Darwinism - is pretty much akin to Manifest Destiny
WWI - Canada did not decide to go to war, it had to. Mr. Cameron needs to brush up on the Statue of Westminster.
WWII - we may want to note the American industrial machine that let us keep up the fight. Without the US support in that respect, the war was over. A lot of Americans died as well. I think we owe them a great deal for the Pacific war. A European-centric view of WWII often leaves out the most bloody part of the war.
==================
Mr. Cameron's views are quite well know in Nova Scotia, but his views reflect an emotional argument combined with mis-information and partial historical facts taken out of context. His response offers no solution to Canada's lack of direction.
I will re-iterate. Mr. Cellucci did his job. He stressed to us (as his counterparts in other nations did) the US's 'disappointment'. If all we can offer in response is this style of argument, then I am indeed embarrassed to to be a Canadian. I could respect my government and my nation if given a valid reason to oppose this war. Historical half-truths and the much-vaunted seal of approval of the UN, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of moral fortitude.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 20:19:01
How about : it is a war crime to invade another country that has not invaded or threatened any other country in 12 years. Do we join the USA in invading every country in the world that has an oppressive government. Why Are the Americans subsidizing the Turkish government that oppresses its Kurdish people? Why does the USA not concentrate on the war against terrorism which we are still supporting. Remember Osama Bin Laden. The War in Iraq appears a little too convenient timed to settle OLD issues. Why did the "coalition resort to producing fraudulent claims of proof of Iraq's possession of WMD?
Canada and Canadians decide which wars we support;
There was no viable threat to the USA; or they would have recieved our support.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-07 12:26:47
fatmomma,
Are you suggesting that Canada (and the West in general) take a more isolationists view of the world? that unless something directly effects our own self-interest that we should stay out? If Saddam was isolated, that would ensure our own safety, but would we not be condemning the people if Iraqi to a life of semi-hell? In 1988 we saw Saddam order the slaughter of over 100,000 Kurds. In 1991, after the Gulf War ended, Saddam had the rebels in the North and the South killed. In 1996 we saw his two son-in-laws killed by his own orders. We now have evidence of mass murders at a warehouse complex outside Basra. The government of Saddam can definitely not been see as the most human rights friendly regime. Yet you are right, there has yet to be a proven link to terrorist activities that would directly threaten the security of the West. So it pure self-interest the only motivation you see for Canada's foreign policy?
You suggest the war is illegal because Saddam has not violated the borders of another nation in 12 years. Yet what about the humanitarian reasons that the UN itself says can be used for the justification of conflict? I have cited two clear examples of human rights violations of above and evidence of a third. Do these not count towards making the case of humanitarian intervention?
You suggest that the US did not make the case that there were WMD in Iraq. Yet why did Russia, France and Germany suggest that the UN inspectors were making progress in the disarmament of Iraq and that they required more time to finish the job? Hans Blix himself felt they were making progress, so would it not follow that these nations as well as the head of the inspection team felt there were indeed some grounds to continue the search for WMD? The US claims thus can hardly be considered or seen to be fraudulent in this light.
I think we as a nation can decide what conflicts to support and the removing a police state regime such as Saddam's is one conflict we should be supporting. Mr. Cellucci is correct in telling us that his nation is disappointed that Canada is not doing so.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-08 14:49:56
"Are you suggesting that Canada (and the West in general) take a more isolationists view of the world? "
Superpowers should do so... yes, because most people of the world eye with suspicion anything that those superpowers do...
I'm mostly repeating myself (I've written about this already)... Why didn't any of the western powers at least stop delivering weapons to Saddam's regime in 1988?? just stopping exporting weapons could still be considered isolationism, since its not affecting anything outside their own countries.
Canada promotes intervention in the case of Genocide - "International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty" http://web.gc.cuny.edu/icissresearch/main.htm - when this Genocide occurs, and falls under the Commission's report, recent events in Iraq could not justify invading Iraq... On the other hand, we could have intervened in Rwanda at the time of the genocide...
p.s : I really did not know that they were 100 000 kurds which were killed by the regime? Can you give me a non-biased hyperlink? Were these civilians, military? Can you give me the political context? Was it a civil war?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-08 16:10:19
Regarding the URL request, it is hard not to find a non-biased link. For example, www.jewishagency-ed.org/actual/iraq/4.html, says between 100,000 and 300,000 deaths. Globalsecurity.org states that between 50,000-100,000 Kurds were killed between February and September 1988 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/1corps.htm).
The White House gives the same number as Globalsecurity. This leaves out the numbers that fled into Turkey or 'disappeared' as some sources claim.
I found that when Professor Ramesh Thakur gave a lecture in Waterloo on the International Commission on State Sovereignty (he was a member of that group and also a Vice rector at the United Nations University), entitle, the Responsibility to Protect, that he provided more flexibility then you.
For the actual report, see http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/menu-en.asp. It also has the background research.
Here is part of the report
4.19 In the Commission's view, military intervention for human protection purposes is justified in two broad sets of circumstances, namely in order to halt or avert:
1. large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocide intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or
2.large scale "ethnic cleansing," actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.
One such quote that I recall was "by not taking action, we are more complicit than those who committed the actions themselves." Referring to the genocide of the Tutsi's in 1994. Prof. Thakur reminded several of us in the room that we we must remember that political decisions are still going to be made and thus a "double standard is unavoidable" - as noted by the UN (and Canada's) reaction to Somalia, Rwanda, and Kosovo.
While I am sure he would have supported the UN in this matter, I feel that some of the arguments do carry over. When we see the slow death of the Iraqi people due to the actions of the government, when we see the Kurds in the north living under the threat of their own government, when Saddam has proven he is willing to use WMD against his own people, when we see that the borders of neighbours will be violated given the chance, I am not sure how much longer we as a nation should let one person push the us to the very edge of what is acceptable international behaviour.
With a commitment to rebuild a shattered nation (I wish the Afghani people had the same level of public support as the Iraqi people), I think this war can be justified. Even though several of the people in the academic world that have given me several of my arguments I know would disagree me.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 17:05:29
Thanks for the link, i only checked the first one, and compared with other articles... In all cases, the Kurds have been exploited by everyone since the beginning - its very sad.
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/irak/chrono-kurde
The numbers of deaths 50 000-100 000 deaths, seem from all the sources more to come exactly from the 1988 era, where there were opposing factions (UPK, PDK and Iraq)... The issue seems complex, and this article convinced me that you are right :
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1998/03/NEZAN/10174
A reason more why strong condemnation should have been done at that time, I'm sure that if there would have been a strong condamnation at that time, Saddam's regime would have stopped ...
But i have the same vision as the academics, you simply can't say 15 years later, that now justice will be done...
The definition of "large scale loss of life, actual or apprehend" is quite vague ...
Thanks again for the info!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-07 03:45:09
how about the flagrant fraudulent reports of proof of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction
What about The USA trying to find votes to support them in a second resolution where they did not present a valid presentation ; they chose to use bribery or threats of economic repercussions.
Where are all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that so greatly threatened the USA.
The USA is lacking in morals in this attack; nor Canada in refusing to participate in this massacre.
No doubt, the Americans will be seeking monetary assistance from UN countries to rebuild that which they destroyed.
We have already had to send taxpayer's money for humanitarian aid due to the American actions.
Valid reason for not supporting this war: It is illegal; threat to USA unfounded. Threats of terrorist attacks to North America will be much greater thanks to the anger and fear spread by this unwise, unjust invasion.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 15:52:39
Yes, that is a good dilemma we have there, pay for the bills to help the people of Iraq or stand aside and let the US pay. If we think logically, we shouldn't pay a penny (its an illegal act after all), but we also have to think with our hearts a bit, and pay part of the bill even it would not be correct to do that...
Very interesting dilemma indeed...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 06:34:39
"could respect my government and my nation if given a valid reason to oppose this war. "
You should read more editorials of the arab world, and you'll get all the reasons you want... I think the Canadian government understood the instability it would cause.
You know that Canada is quite keen on the 'rule of law' motto (there is a great proportion of ministers, MP's, PM's which are / were lawyers - a bit too much in my eyes, but thats another story), so why would they change this motto all of a sudden??
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: RCGGILLIS
Date: 2003-04-07 13:57:14
codc01,
I think many people in the western world should read more Arab editorials/news and then may be we would se that calling for the destruction of the US is not something new. The conflict between Israel and its neighbours has very much often placed the US on the wrong side of the Arab leadership. Funny things is, Israel, which probably understand the Arab mentality much better then most nations on Earth, supports the war, and that nation has lived with the repercussions of religious based violence a lot longer then most.
Several members of the Bush administration are also lawyers.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-07 15:50:02
You're trying to tell me that the pro-US Arab regimes permitted, before this war, for the call to the destruction of the US in editorials? I don't think so ... The thing which is now different than before, is that all muslims of the world (except maybe members of the Iraqi opposition and the liberated Iraqis) have the same view... I don't think they all had the same view on the US before this war...
(I'm talking about people on the street here, not about the government views...)
As i will repeat once again, the anger can either recede or boil, it will all depend on what the US administration does after this war... Wait and see is my attitude.
Several of the US administration people are lawyers also? :( We live in lawyer land!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-07 18:18:20
The US funds and supports anti-western muslim extremists when it suits their purpose. For example, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Osama Bin Laden, also. Their views were well known, their hatred of the US was no barrier to recieving US military aid. The US was looking after it's own interests, and 'in the interests of National Security' there is no such thing as morality, only action and consequence. Yet the US seems to refuse to believe that there is a link between the two.
Tibet was invaded and annexed by China, yet there was nothing worth to gain for the US from Tibet so no action was taken.
Democracy was crushed in China, but this was in the interests of the US economy, so the action taken was the lifting of sanctions and the cancellation of visa extensions for chinese students to reward China for squashing the 'uppity' slaves to the US economy.
Reply to this message
|
|
