Canada's Sovereignty

[mirror]

This is without a doubt the biggest problem after global warming, that Canada is facing at the present time.

Why do you think you are getting all this gobblygook that our health care system is in jeopardy, our school systems are a mess, our governments are no good, etc.

This sellout of Canada, and all the good honest values we represented, started with Mulroney, has been accelerated by Martin, and is now rolling downhill like an avalanche.

Time to redefine ties with U.S.

Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy blasts Washington's ` imperial attitudes' to international agreements

Outrage over the duplicitous diplomacy used to avoid treaty obligations on Devil's Lake is not enough.

Cancelling a meeting of trade bureaucrats in defiance of a NAFTA trade ruling on softwood lumber is blowing smoke in the wind.

Telephone tag between the Prime Minister and President George Bush is a sop, not a solution. Huffing and puffing will neither impress nor influence the Bush administration in Washington, nor their regional allies like the governor and senators of North Dakota.

The reality is that we are dealing with an American political system currently steeped in the ideology of "empire." It recognizes few rules, adheres only to those treaties that are expedient to basic interests, and believes that the only political currency that counts is the exercise of raw power.

In its mildest form, it practises a la carte bilateralism, co-operating only when it wants to, and when it suits short-term domestic or international objectives. In its bad days, it simply follows a strategy of "take no prisoners," "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead," "don't tread on me," "America First," or any other of the clichés used by ultra-patriots. These are the extant policy directives from the White House.

While most Canadians responded with dismay to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, few could quite grasp that the same cavalier, imperial attitudes exemplified in Washington's rejection of various agreements on disarmament, its fierce opposition to the International Criminal Court, its indifference to climate-change warnings, and its undermining of the U.N. would prevail in our continental relationship as well.

There is a chronic and dangerous failure to fully appreciate the shift going on in the political demographics of the U.S. and how this change affects attitudes not only toward Canada but also to the broad U.S. approach to its international role.

The reality is that political power is shifting to the south and west of the United States, bringing with it less understanding or interest in our country and certainly an anti-internationalist notion that the U.S. can and should go it alone. Growing, as well, is the attitude — especially prevalent amongst congressional Republicans — that the U.S. should legislate extraterritorially to compel other countries to abide by its decisions.

Anyone who thinks that neighbourly proximity brings favours or privileges is living in a dream world. In the changing landscape of U.S. politics and policies, Canada lacks the necessary traction.

We rely too often on old connections and our ability to negotiate a crisis, rather than trying to anticipate issues and build a different political case to meet the challenges that the new, parlous state of U.S.-Canada relations presents.

Part of the problem is that we are working through a system of border arrangements that are obsolete. Of the more than 200 treaties governing our relationship, most rely on goodwill — they have no prescribed set of dispute-settlement mechanisms that are binding or subject to arbitration procedures.

[Toro]

That's interesting.

When did Chretien first meet with Mr. Bush? Did he at all? If Axworthy is saying that the traditional continental model is under fire, then Chretien's attitude of benign indiffence - at best - certainly did not help Canada. That's one thing Martin has done right, getting the two countries on better terms with one another.

Also, Mr. Axworthy, the world changed on 9/11. The Bush administration has probably pushed things too far, but its not surprising the country has become more isolationist in protecting its interests after the bombing of the WTC.

[mirror]

Read this, particularly the last part of the article as it is quite long, and weep!

It certainly collaborates the kind of thing Axworthy is talking about.

The Heather & Gerry Show

Still, their exceptional closeness to Martin was undisputed by the time he was anointed Chrétien’s successor, capped off by Bono’s blessing “The world needs more Canada”—the slogan emblazoned on every Indigo wall. Not only had Onex contributed $315,000 to Martin’s $12-million war chest, but a former party official beat the corporate bushes for him directly out of Schwartz’s office. The only question on most party minds was not whether Schwartz and Reisman would flex their newfound political clout, but how.

For those trying to decode their agenda, the first signs had surfaced two years ago, after student protests provoked authorities at Montreal’s Concordia University to cancel a speech by former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, sparking outrage in the Jewish community. Shocked into action, Schwartz and Reisman summoned a group of fellow philanthropists, including Toronto tycoons Larry Tanenbaum and Brent Belzberg, to plot a counter-strategy.

Declaring themselves an “emergency cabinet,” they commissioned a poll from Ottawa lobbyist Hershell Ezrin, once David Peterson’s top aide. When its results confirmed their suspicions—that Israel was losing ground in the war for public opinion—they quietly set up a new lobby, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, with Ezrin as CEO, to make their case with more conviction and financial muscle. No sooner had news of the self-­appointed body leaked out than concerns rippled through the country’s leading Jewish organizations, which feared being left out in the fundraising cold. After a series of closed-door meetings, CIJA finally agreed to fold two of the most venerable bodies, the Canad­ian Jewish Congress and the Canada-Israel Committee, under its organizational wing. CIJA’s board—on which Schwartz and Reisman sit—now oversees both the strategic direction and purse strings of the new lobbying conglomerate. “What we’re talking about here,” says one official, asking that his name not be used, “is essentially a takeover of the country’s Jewish institutions.”

That shakeup has left some in the community with bitter feelings, but virtually no one will talk on the record. Only Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B’nai Brith Canada, has publicly protested, refusing to join in. “We were told we could have two members on some subcommittee,” Dimant scoffs. “We’re 130 years in this country—we had no desire to give away our historic rights.”

CIJA can already claim political dividends. Last fall, Martin’s government switched Ottawa’s votes on two United Nations resolutions that had long been a thorn in Israel’s side. Those votes were largely symbolic—they vetoed two obscure UN committees on Palestinian affairs—but in foreign policy circles, the turnabout qualified as a diplomatic bombshell. “In case you missed it,” read the headline on John Ibbitson’s column in the Globe, “our Mideast policy has shifted.” According to Ibbitson, instructions for that about-face had come straight from Martin’s office, where the prime minister was “under intense pressure” from Schwartz. The Onex chief has denied that he ever personally intervened on the subject—but then, why would he? It seems inconceivable that Martin has any doubts about what his very close friends think on the Middle East or, indeed, on any other question. Besides, there’s no need for Schwartz and Reisman to wade into the nitty-gritty of policy making when they have CIJA’s newly revamped subsidiary, the Canada-Israel Committee, to do that very job.

But the Middle East isn’t Schwartz and Reisman’s only interest. With most of Onex’s holdings based in the U.S., Schwartz has already fretted publicly about the state of Canadian-American relations. Now it seems more than coincidental that one of the video tributes to Reisman at a recent awards ceremony came from a key figure in that uneasy cross-border minuet: Frank McKenna, Martin’s newly named emissary to the White House.

Meanwhile, on Bay Street, analysts have been on the lookout for signs that Schwartz has wrestled more elbow room for privatization within medicare. Recently, Onex’s highest-priced purchases have been companies that provide ambulance and staffing services to U.S. hospitals, and Schwartz hasn’t hidden his enthusiasm for exporting their wares north of the border should Canadian rules change. “We would welcome it,” he told a reporter, “and without a doubt [we] could reduce costs, which we’ve shown we can do in the U.S.” That possibility, as it turns out, already has support within the government’s own ranks. Two years ago, a federal report recommending the privatization of more hospital services was published by Liberal Senator Michael Kirby, who sits on Indigo’s board.

But whatever lies on Schwartz and Reisman’s wish list may never see the light of day. With Martin fighting for his political life and another election looming, the country’s reigning power couple faces the ultimate test. As some of Schwartz’s confreres in corporate Canada openly troll for a new Liberal face to succeed Martin as the country’s CEO, will he and Reisman stand by their man as they once stood by John Turner? Or will they move on to another, more electable prospect—one, say, like Frank McKenna, with whom they’ve already cultivated ties?

For now, they seem bent on revelling in their insider status while it lasts. On the night of the U.S. elections last November, they were hosting an early buffet dinner on Cluny Drive for British historian Sir Martin Gilbert, who was in town to deliver that evening’s edition of the annual Gerald Schwartz/Heather Reisman lecture series at Holy Blossom Temple. Then, just as guests were polishing off dessert in the library, Reisman breezed in with a surprise announcement: she and Schwartz wouldn’t be going on to Holy Blossom to hear Gilbert’s talk after all. They’d discovered a scheduling conflict, she explained: the prime minister was expecting them to join him in watching the election results on TV at 24 Sussex Drive. “People just sat there, open mouthed,” recounts one source. But with a wave Schwartz and Reisman were off, rushing to catch their private jet to Ottawa. Power, however evane­scent, has its demands.

[mirror]

One of the things I enjoyed about former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy's article is that he finishes off by paying tribute to the wisdom of a Conservative thinker.

These pissin' contests between political parties waste everyone's time and do nothing to sorting out the real issues we are all facing as Canadians.

Political parties aren't the solution to Canada's problems, we are.

[B. Max]

Since there is no global warming, i can't take the other seriously either. This country handed its sovereignty over to the UN years ago.

[mirror]

BM

I think Axworthy is talking to you:

Neither will listening to the chorus of continentalist claptrap promoting more U.S.-Canada integration — look no farther than the present disputes to see where such policies have landed us — or the calls for protectionism and retaliation that can still be heard from the Left. It's time for new policies and tough action to shift our trade and security strategies away from a preoccupation with continental matters to a more global footing.

[B. Max]

I've never had any use for Axworthy.

[mirror]

That is perfectly understood.

[Toro]

I've never liked Axworthy much either. He wrote an open letter to the Winnipeg Free-Press to Bush about six months ago and mentioned that he went to California "to speak at a University" and discovered there were people who "disagreed with you, Mr. President," - shocking eh, at a California university - and how Bush should listen to them. Could you imagine if the tables were turned? If a high-profile ex-minister of the United States wrote and open letter to Paul Martin, ol' Lloyd would have been on his high-horse telling the US to butt out.

I like his brother though.

[mirror]

Do you really think that is a fair analogy? Practically everything the US does affects us, but it is not necessarily the other way around. And if you were good friends with someone, and you thought they were screwing up, would you say something to them?

Anyway do you dislke Lloyd or do you not agree with his point of view?