Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
p0ink
New member
The War Canada Missed
National Post, Canada | 3-23-03 | Editorial
National Post, Canada
As the war to liberate Iraq took shape yesterday, millions of Canadians were struck by pangs of Prime Minister envy. The object of their affection: British PM Tony Blair, who on Tuesday delivered an impassioned and convincing call to arms against Saddam Hussein. "The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago," he told his Parliament. "Even now ... the world hesitates, and in that hesitation [Saddam] senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy. What would any tyrannical regime possessing [weapons of mass destruction] think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them."
Meanwhile, here at home, our own PM was giving Canadians the opposite message. Never mind the stunning catalogue of lies and evasions that Mr. Blair read out. Inspections were working, Jean Chrétien said, and the war now unfolding is "not justified." Caucus members clapped wildly at these words. But their giddiness will no doubt dissipate in coming months, as the United States realizes what has become of Canada -- formerly a good friend, but now just an unusually whiny European nation, transplanted stateside. Yes, we happen to be a steady supplier of natural gas and car parts. But wars are always watersheds. And during this one, we may well fall below such Coalition-Of-The-Willing members as Bulgaria and Poland in Washington's estimation. "We're disappointed that some of our closest allies, including Canada, do not agree on the urgent need for action," said a State Department spokesman this week. Like many of our countrymen, we're disappointed too.
The thing to emphasize about Canada's policy on Iraq is not just that it is wrong, but that it is effectively not a policy. That is, Mr. Chrétien's stated view -- that war would be legitimate only if redundantly authorized by yet another UN Security Council resolution -- is not so much a principled position as a misguided appeal to form and process. The idea that the legitimacy of liberating Iraq and disarming a monster such as Saddam Hussein should rest on the vote of a terrorism-sponsoring nation like Syria, or a faded veto-wielding power like France, is indefensible.
The United Nations is not an elected body with democratic legitimacy. It is merely a means toward the end of making the world a safer place. To the extent the body would produce the opposite effect -- say, by giving comfort to dangerous dictators -- it should be ignored. Yet such common sense appears to be lost on Mr. Chrétien. Like many Canadians, he is locked in another age, still basking in Lester Pearson's 1956-era glory. He regards the United Nations as a necessary complement to Canadian multilateralism, and therefore a vital crutch to our national identity.
Indeed, one of the great frustrations over the last few months has been the limited opportunity opposition politicians have had to press Mr. Chrétien for some principled explanation of his non-position. And here, the contrast between Canada and Britain is again instructive. The issue of war has been debated several times at Westminster -- with leaders on both sides articulating their views in detail. The speech Mr. Blair delivered to a packed Commons on Tuesday ran almost 5,000 words. On the same day, former U.K. foreign secretary and leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook rose to make a strenuous and highly lucid argument in opposition. Yet here in Canada, the government's shifting position has developed ad hoc in scrums and off-hand Question Period remarks. With little focussed discussion, and no stable government line to fasten on, opposition politicians had scarce opportunity to ignite a proper debate or present alternatives.
And so, while delivering our prayers for a speedy and relatively bloodless conclusion to the war that is now upon us, we would also like to send this message to our U.S. friends: Mr. Chrétien speaks for the Canadian government, but he does not speak for all Canadians. Contrary to the Prime Minister's Natural Resources Minister, Herb Dhaliwal, we do not believe Mr. Bush lacks "statesmanship." Nor do we think he is a "moron" or "bastard" as other Liberals would have it. Many of us, rather, agree with Stephen Harper, who declared on Tuesday that Ottawa's position embarrasses the country. "The Prime Minister's behaviour is gutless," the Opposition leader said. "We have historically as a country stood beside our best friends and allies, the United States and Britain, whenever they have been together. This is where we should be now." We also applaud Ernie Eves, who similarly declared that "The United States of America is our greatest neighbour [and] our greatest trading ally," and that "you have to be there in times of need for your friends and allies." The Ontario Premier has spent this week watching the lines at the U.S. border getting longer, and rightly wonders what effect Ottawa's position will have on trade relations.
In fact, Mr. Chrétien does not even speak for everyone in his own Cabinet. Though they were subsequently whipped back into a fence-sitting posture, such leading figures as Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and Defence Minister John McCallum have blurted declarations in support of the United States too.
The war will be over in days. But the damage done this country in U.S. eyes will likely linger on for years. By placing our self-serving multilateral pieties above our alliance with our greatest ally and the plainly just cause of liberating Iraq, our government has damaged Canada's international position.
National Post, Canada | 3-23-03 | Editorial
National Post, Canada
As the war to liberate Iraq took shape yesterday, millions of Canadians were struck by pangs of Prime Minister envy. The object of their affection: British PM Tony Blair, who on Tuesday delivered an impassioned and convincing call to arms against Saddam Hussein. "The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago," he told his Parliament. "Even now ... the world hesitates, and in that hesitation [Saddam] senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy. What would any tyrannical regime possessing [weapons of mass destruction] think viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them."
Meanwhile, here at home, our own PM was giving Canadians the opposite message. Never mind the stunning catalogue of lies and evasions that Mr. Blair read out. Inspections were working, Jean Chrétien said, and the war now unfolding is "not justified." Caucus members clapped wildly at these words. But their giddiness will no doubt dissipate in coming months, as the United States realizes what has become of Canada -- formerly a good friend, but now just an unusually whiny European nation, transplanted stateside. Yes, we happen to be a steady supplier of natural gas and car parts. But wars are always watersheds. And during this one, we may well fall below such Coalition-Of-The-Willing members as Bulgaria and Poland in Washington's estimation. "We're disappointed that some of our closest allies, including Canada, do not agree on the urgent need for action," said a State Department spokesman this week. Like many of our countrymen, we're disappointed too.
The thing to emphasize about Canada's policy on Iraq is not just that it is wrong, but that it is effectively not a policy. That is, Mr. Chrétien's stated view -- that war would be legitimate only if redundantly authorized by yet another UN Security Council resolution -- is not so much a principled position as a misguided appeal to form and process. The idea that the legitimacy of liberating Iraq and disarming a monster such as Saddam Hussein should rest on the vote of a terrorism-sponsoring nation like Syria, or a faded veto-wielding power like France, is indefensible.
The United Nations is not an elected body with democratic legitimacy. It is merely a means toward the end of making the world a safer place. To the extent the body would produce the opposite effect -- say, by giving comfort to dangerous dictators -- it should be ignored. Yet such common sense appears to be lost on Mr. Chrétien. Like many Canadians, he is locked in another age, still basking in Lester Pearson's 1956-era glory. He regards the United Nations as a necessary complement to Canadian multilateralism, and therefore a vital crutch to our national identity.
Indeed, one of the great frustrations over the last few months has been the limited opportunity opposition politicians have had to press Mr. Chrétien for some principled explanation of his non-position. And here, the contrast between Canada and Britain is again instructive. The issue of war has been debated several times at Westminster -- with leaders on both sides articulating their views in detail. The speech Mr. Blair delivered to a packed Commons on Tuesday ran almost 5,000 words. On the same day, former U.K. foreign secretary and leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook rose to make a strenuous and highly lucid argument in opposition. Yet here in Canada, the government's shifting position has developed ad hoc in scrums and off-hand Question Period remarks. With little focussed discussion, and no stable government line to fasten on, opposition politicians had scarce opportunity to ignite a proper debate or present alternatives.
And so, while delivering our prayers for a speedy and relatively bloodless conclusion to the war that is now upon us, we would also like to send this message to our U.S. friends: Mr. Chrétien speaks for the Canadian government, but he does not speak for all Canadians. Contrary to the Prime Minister's Natural Resources Minister, Herb Dhaliwal, we do not believe Mr. Bush lacks "statesmanship." Nor do we think he is a "moron" or "bastard" as other Liberals would have it. Many of us, rather, agree with Stephen Harper, who declared on Tuesday that Ottawa's position embarrasses the country. "The Prime Minister's behaviour is gutless," the Opposition leader said. "We have historically as a country stood beside our best friends and allies, the United States and Britain, whenever they have been together. This is where we should be now." We also applaud Ernie Eves, who similarly declared that "The United States of America is our greatest neighbour [and] our greatest trading ally," and that "you have to be there in times of need for your friends and allies." The Ontario Premier has spent this week watching the lines at the U.S. border getting longer, and rightly wonders what effect Ottawa's position will have on trade relations.
In fact, Mr. Chrétien does not even speak for everyone in his own Cabinet. Though they were subsequently whipped back into a fence-sitting posture, such leading figures as Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and Defence Minister John McCallum have blurted declarations in support of the United States too.
The war will be over in days. But the damage done this country in U.S. eyes will likely linger on for years. By placing our self-serving multilateral pieties above our alliance with our greatest ally and the plainly just cause of liberating Iraq, our government has damaged Canada's international position.
