National Post comments on Canada's position on the war with Iraq

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=94579545-4EC1-487A-BA88-C57B94CDCF7C

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.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=8639C571-A30A-4286-88F8-DC2493C630BF

So, war it is. Well, for some but not for others -- like Canada. But that's not entirely accurate either. I dare say the 700 Canadian Forces personnel in the Iraqi theatre of operations, the majority of whom are on board our three frigates in the Persian Gulf, are taking small consolation from the statements of the Prime Minister that we are only at war with the terrorists and not with Saddam. If one were jaded one might ask if Canada has convinced the Iraqis and al-Qaeda to colour-code their weapons and munitions so our folks will know which bombs, boats and missiles they must legally ignore if they are displaying Iraqi colours. How, in God's name, did we get ourselves in this position?

"Canada will not participate." With those four words a mere three days ago Jean Chrétien chose short-term domestic gain over Canada's long-term interests. Once again leadership on a difficult issue was sacrificed at the altar of domestic expediency or put more succinctly -- the public opinion polls won the day.

As one of many who considered the ultimatum of "serious consequences" contained in UN Resolution 1441 would benefit from an additional two weeks before military action, I nevertheless was shocked at the cavalier performance of our nation's leader this past Monday when he once again deliberately poked our neighbour in the eye. Knowing full well that the U.S. President was to address the world some six hours later, Chrétien decided to adopt the French philosophy: "It doesn't matter what the U.S. leadership has to say, we are against the use of force."

It's one thing to make a bad decision in the long-term interests of the country, but to compound it with inaccurate, and in some cases outrageous, justifications is downright hypocritical.

During the past few months, on a daily basis, the Prime Minister assured the media and the public that Canada's position on any possible war with Iraq was clear and unchanged. Unfortunately, and presumably intentionally, he clouded the issue by stating that Canada would only participate under the authority of a UN resolution while at the same time acknowledging, on a number of occasions, that the UN's Resolution 1441, dated Nov. 7, 2002, would legitimize the use of force if need be. As speculation grew over the United States, Britain and Spain seeking the Security Council's approval of a second resolution authorizing (for the second time in a row), the use of force in response to Iraq's non-compliance, the Prime Minister detected a way to preclude Canada's participation in any "coalition of the willing." Committed to participate in any war under the provisions of 1441 because of his own public pronouncements of support, he decided that the U.S./British/Spanish second resolution would trump 1441. The problem was that the second resolution was never presented to the Council for a vote and therefore never took effect. That "minor" procedural detail did not deter the PM from declaring, with surprising sincerity, that the Security Council had not authorized the use of force and therefore as loyal supporters of multilateral decision-making, Canada could not participate in any war. It is relevant to recall paragraph 13 of Resolution 1441 which states, "[The Security Council] Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." Resolution 1441 still stands and Canada, in accordance with the previous utterances by its leadership, is morally obliged to participate no matter how modest our actual contribution might be. For the PM to suggest, ad nauseam, that the Security Council has not authorized the use of force is to conveniently ignore reality.

If nothing else there is a hint of consistency in the PM's stance on Iraq. During an interview conducted by a somewhat incredulous George Stephanopoulos recently, Mr. Chrétien stressed that Canada was always there when needed, reminding the ABC reporter of our participation in the first Gulf War. Being respectful to the extreme, or perhaps ill-prepared, Mr. Stephanopoulos neglected to point out that the PM, then the leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, led the unsuccessful vote against Canadian participation!

Yet another major chink in the PM's argument for hiding behind the UN's skirt was his decision to ignore the wishes of the Security Council when it came to NATO's bombing of Serbia/Kosovo in 1999. Faced with the distinct possibility of a veto precluding the passage of any Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force, Canada joined the "coalition of the willing" and proceeded to bomb a sovereign nation anyway. Did the former Yugoslavia pose more of a threat to international peace and security in 1999 than Iraq does today? Hardly. Mind you, in this regard the has some company -- questionable as it might be. Robin Cook, the government house leader in British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has announced his resignation indicating that war with Iraq, without UN authorization, is illegal. This comment comes from the same individual who was one of, if not the major, cheerleader during the aforementioned non-UN authorized bombing of Serbia.

At times of crisis political leadership should not qualify as an oxymoron. It's not good enough to check which way the political wind is blowing and compliantly bend in that direction. If we are going to fabricate and adjust the facts to justify polls-driven foreign policy, perhaps its time to finally admit that our modest yet important Canadian influence on the international stage is now fading to a fond memory of times past.

Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired,commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=221ECB7D-4AAA-4555-A387-5A7C873CC355

There was, reportedly, "no reaction" from the White House on the day that Canada announced it would not participate in the coming war with Iraq. They can hardly have been unaware of the Prime Minister's decision: Though Mr. Chrétien did not think to call the President beforehand, someone in his office did think to tip off CNN, which went live with the announcement.

But then, what's there to react to? It isn't that the decision was expected, or unexpected, for that matter. Rather, after so many months of keeping everyone guessing, Mr. Chrétien has achieved what one must imagine was his aim from the start: He has dithered so long that, on the very brink of war, no one cares what Canada does.

It's not as if Canada could have contributed much in military terms, even had Mr. Chrétien not packed off what remains of our forces to Afghanistan for the duration. Indeed, one possible explanation for Mr. Chrétien's decision not to commit troops to the Iraq campaign is that we weren't asked: What would otherwise be a humiliating snub thereby becomes a principled stand. But our participation, however meagre, would have lent the Americans moral support, and Mr. Chrétien's refusal to do even that is as telling as it was predictable.

For this decision signals more than merely the end of the Prime Minister's little game of hide-and-seek. At a stroke, Mr. Chrétien has effectively achieved the left's long-held ambition: Canada's withdrawal from NATO. It is a matter of relative unimportance that he has done so just as NATO is about to collapse.

Once the present campaign is out of the way, that is, the Americans are going to take stock. They are in a battle, they believe, for their very survival, a desperate race to snuff out macroterrorism at its source, in its sponsor states, before it can strike again. They need to know who their real friends are, who they can rely on, who has something to offer.

In such a climate, the United States will have little tolerance for the kind of nonsense it once might have been prepared to endure, whether the decadence and log-rolling that has always been the special forte of the United Nations, or the near paralysis into which NATO has lately sunk. In the post-Cold War world, and more particularly in a post-Sept. 11 world, does the United States really need to tie itself into a fixed alliance with the likes of Belgium, France, Germany -- or Canada?

Indeed, did it ever? It's not as if any of these countries have really pulled their weight in the alliance. Even this might be tolerable, were it not for an unfortunate side-effect: Nestled under the American defensive umbrella for 50-odd years, European and Canadian public opinion eventually forgot that it existed. Without need to provide for their own defence, they came round to the view that no one did, that defence itself was unnecessary.

The Canadian version of this was especially acute. For most of the last four decades, Canada has lived in the pretense that, while the Americans were allied with us, we need not be allied with them. We could be a kind of Sweden, declining to associate ourself with American foreign policy -- such militarism! such anti-communism! -- even as the Americans paid for our defence: neutrality on the Americans' dime. We could enjoy a moral free ride, as well as an economic one.

But the Americans are no longer in the mood for such delusions. The last few weeks have seen to that. Already there is talk of removing troops from Germany, and that's just the start. It may be that, post-Iraq, the Americans will discard all such fixed alliances, in favour of more ad hoc "coalitions of the willing." Or if they do wish to cast these alliances in some more permanent form, it will be with states that are actually prepared to contribute something in return -- or at the very least, will not desert them in a crisis. Hmmm. Now who does that leave out?

So Mr. Chrétien's decision has the virtue of clarifying matters. In future, not only will Canada be defenceless, or nearly so, but also friendless, at least as far as military matters are concerned. Our defence policy will be that of the possum: to roll ourselves into a little ball, making ourselves as inoffensive as we can to any possible attacker, in the hopes that we might avoid being a target. Let others do the hard work of tackling the rogue states of the world, expansionist dictatorships and their terrorist allies. We'll just be over here in the corner.

On a certain level, there's something to recommend this approach. We save a lot of money, we make friends in the Third World, and we spare our citizens from harm -- we hope. Perhaps the Americans, once they are rid of us as "allies," will not take further reprisals. But that is not really the question. The question we should ask ourselves is: Is this the kind of country we want to be?

It is instructive to compare the debates in Britain and Canada. In the British press, the suggestion that Britain might opt out of the war at the last minute brought forth anguished discussions of whether Britain could ever again be trusted to be a dependable ally -- to be, as The Daily Telegraph put it, "a brave and honourable influence in the world."

Can anyone imagine talking about Mr. Chrétien's foreign policy in such terms? It isn't just that stabbing your best friend in the back is cowardly and dishonourable. It is that the very notions are alien to him. That isn't, he might protest, what foreign policy is about. It isn't what Canada is about. Courage, honour, patriotism, duty, loyalty, sacrifice: These are too high-falutin', we snigger, the stuff of American propaganda films.

If there is a principle underlying the Canadian position, it is a blind, unthinking devotion to multilateralism. But this is not a principle: It's a process. Mr. Chrétien does not pretend that the war is illegal. Indeed, he has said on many occasions that Resolution 1441 provided ample legal justification for the use of force. His objection consists entirely in the Americans' inability to obtain assent for yet another resolution, largely because the French reneged on promises they made in negotiations on 1441. Because there is a lack of consensus on the Security Council, that is enough to condemn the enterprise in Mr. Chrétien's view, no matter what the cause, no matter what the motives of the various parties.

This is the patriotism of fools: multilateralism, über alles. The United Nations, right or wrong. We will be paying the price for generations.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=397C162A-CD0A-445D-91E9-5991EA6505F3

'It is right that this House debate this issue and pass judgment,'' the Prime Minister told the Commons yesterday, before explaining his thinking on the Iraq question for three-quarters of an hour. ''That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.''

These ''others'' who struggle in vain include Canadians because unfortunately, the Prime Minister I just quoted was Tony Blair.

This corner is in receipt of more detailed information from the governments of France and Great Britain about their leaders' positions on the Iraq question than anything the government of Canada has deigned to offer.

In London, the government put a question to MPs; defended its position in broad daylight; put the Prime Minister up first; faced a vote.

In Ottawa the government told opposition parties that if they wanted a debate they could bloody well ask the Speaker for one. It fell to the Bloc Québécois foreign-affairs critic Francine Lalonde to request the debate. It began Monday at dinnertime and ended at midnight, when the acting Speaker cut off Jason Kenney (Alliance, Calgary Southeast) in mid-sentence.

Jean Chrétien did not attend the debate. Bill Graham, the Foreign Affairs Minister, did pop by, shortly after 10 p.m. The government's lead speaker was Gar Knutson, the junior minister for the Middle East.

It is true that the trappings of democratic legitimacy are more useful to a prime minister joining a war despite his domestic public opinion than to one whose abstention matches the preference of most voters.

That still doesn't explain why Mr. Chrétien has not even matched the level of transparency set by the popular Jacques Chirac, who explained his popular Iraq policy to the French yesterday in a formal televised speech.

Mr. Chrétien's own most detailed explanations of his independent Canadian policy have come in two addresses to Americans: first to a business audience in Chicago; then to that tiny minority of American television viewers who haven't figured out that the best Sunday talk show is Tim Russert's on NBC.

Some MPs find Mr. Chrétien's laconic shtick tiresome. ''It shames me as a Canadian that our Parliament is so Mickey Mouse when it comes to these big issues,'' Bill Blaikie (NDP, Winnipeg-Transcona) told a near-empty Commons on Monday night.

We are left to piece together Mr. Chrétien's thoughts on Iraq from his answers in yesterday's Question Period.

Stephen Harper asked whether Mr. Chrétien had contacted the Iraq government to urge Saddam Hussein out of the country and avert war. Mr. Chrétien replied that Saddam knows he must disarm, apparently unaware that the Bush administration and 250,000 soldiers have moved past that requirement.

He pronounced himself ''disappointed'' with Mr. Bush's decision for war. He is against regime change: ''not a policy that is desirable any time.''

Anyone who does not like Saddam should avoid him at cocktail parties. I am afraid I am not making this next quotation up: ''There are other leaders in the world who are not my friends and I just avoid them all the time.'' Mr. Chrétien seemed to be advocating that the world treat Saddam the way Mr. Chrétien treats Paul Martin.

Under grilling from the Bloc and NDP, Mr. Chrétien refused to display anything stronger than disappointment with the prospect of war and regime change. ''Some people did not agree with me and decided to proceed, and I will respect their judgment.''

The disagreement of ''some people'' reveals an international crisis, which you might expect Mr. Chrétien, the multilateralist, to want addressed at the United Nations. You'd be wrong. ''You have to be realistic.... If there could be a meeting, we agree it might be useful.

But it seems impossible to meet before --'' he paused to seek a description for the events that lie ahead -- ''before the Americans reach a decision.''

So war is inevitable. Time, then, to consider the aftermath? No, actually. Joe Clark asked whether Mr. Chrétien is preparing for an international reconstruction program after war. The Prime Minister was snide: ''Before working on reconstruction we might wait for the war to start.''

One last time. Why is war unnecessary? ''The government came to the conclusion that nobody has established clearly that there was no disarmament proceeding in Iraq at this time.'' Ah-ha. Resolution 1441 called for full, immediate co-operation. Mr. Chrétien seems to believe any level of co-operation greater than zero is full and complete.

The more his opponents tease his logic out of him, the easier it becomes to understand Mr. Chrétien's reluctance to put it out for everyone to see.

Did ya see the Alliance's Stephen Harper this morning? He absolutely hammered the "purple" Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, on the government's lack of principles. It was beautiful! I thought Graham was going to pop a vessel in his forehead, he was so ticked off!

BTW, what are those two "cuts" on Graham's right cheek? It started off with one a few months ago, now it's two, and they don't seem to be healing .....

My condolences to the Canadians who wish to be our ally.The rest of the citizens have made their position clear. My affection for Canada has been damaged and only Canada's rejection of this road they're traveling could ever restore it.The disdain I feel for it's ruling government far exceeds that which they have shown to mine.

The U.S. has the Clintons, Gore, Daschle et al. We Canadians have our jerks to. You have flyover country and so do we. Just like the big liberal cities almost control your country, they do control ours. Chretien never got significantly more than 40% of the vote.

... "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."

There are a lot of good people in Canada. And we with them the best. But their government has basically concluded that they don't need a significant military because the US will always be there to ensure nothing bad happens.

So they can whine about the US and enjoy our protection without having to expend blood or money to enjoy that protection.

That's the way it is. We should demand though that Canada doesn't become a haven for terroists thru their loose immigration and asylum policies.

If we have to strongly tighten the northern border it could be tough on trade and all those Canadians who like to come south for the winter.

Maybe they should think about that before they vote for an anti-American government.

Canadian multilateralism is a failure. Chretien is a failure. This entire country is one big fat failure at the moment. Come on over to Windsor Ontario after the war and I'll make it up to you guys.

What is awful about this attitude from these people is that if we actually did have a missile shield apart from Canada because they chose not to participate, and we did not use it to defend a Canadian city, we would never hear the end of it from these very same people.

They would not blame whoever launched the attack, oh no, that would be too easy. Instead they would blame us and burn our flag, ad nauseum.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.