[Former Minister of Foreign Affairs] Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and
Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

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 a 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.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html