Rebutal of Cellucci comments: Interesting Read

[Phil]

Sunday, March 30, 2003 Back The Halifax Herald Limited

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Allegri / National Post / CP
U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci says the American government is disappointed in Canada's refusal to participate in the U.S. war against Iraq.

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.

[james99]

People are confusing the past with the present.

[travisc]

Why is it everyone on this forum seems to disregard the past as a factor in this discussion? Even so recently as 14 years ago, the US supported actions in Iraq and Afghanistan that led to the problems of today. Many of the people in power in the US were in power then. How can we not hold the US accountable for its own actions? You're all so quick to rush and praise them as defenders of freedom and democracy, but forget so many other opportunities they had to do so but chose not to out of disinterest in those parts of the world.

[SkiBud]

No kidding, Canadian reaction to 911 was good/expected and the right thing to do. But that is exactly what it was - a reaction to a catastrophic event. Same as the lame statement that occurs on CBC radio and now my local paper all the time.

"The US did not come into WW2 until much later , after they were attacked " blah blah blah.

Fact is the US did support the UK in 1940 with food and war material but thought they should stay out of "Europe's War". Not until Japan bombed and Hitler declared war on the US. That marked the beginning of the end of those 2 facist regimes.

Truth is the US and UK have learned from the mistakes of history , that doing nothing makes things worse. Canada/France and other's are still repeating history's mistakes.

[hugh]

A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to be illegal,

I'm tired of this. Exactly what law is being broken?

If 15 of 15 countries on the security council had voted to liberate Iraq, would the law still have been broken?

If 14 of 15 said okay (France of Course would be the dissenting vote) would it have been illegal?

Why is it everyone on this forum seems to disregard the past as a factor in this discussion?

Because we're talking about what is right and what is wrong. Fundamentally we believe that Democracy is Good and Tyranny is wrong.

[travisc]

Hugh, that statement is extremely hypocritical in light of the numerous thugs and dictators that the US has supported (and continues to support) over time. Was it okay for Saddam to be a tyrant when he was working with the US?

[james99]

If we needed the USA's assistance then they would be here for us, regardless of the past.

The fact that the US joined WWII late doesn't mean they won't be here in the future. That's why the past isn't important.

[Phil]

I had read somewhere else that the U.S. only wants Democracy for those countires that are not currently their "friends".

None of the current Middle East countries, like Saudi and Qatar are Democratic, yet because they are friends of the U.S. it does not seem to matter.

I am sure there are several other non-democratic countries supported by the U.S., but they are ok because they are "friends" of the U.S., until they fall out of that circle of friends like Iran did with the fall of the Shah, and Iraq did with the invasion of Kuwait in 1991...etc.

[SkiBud]

The main objective of the US/UK mission is to remove the WMD's that Iraq has and refused to turn over after 12 yrs , these weapons could have been used for terrosist activity. He threaten his neighbours and the region by pocessing these weapons.
If Saddam would have complied with the UN resolutions he could have remained in power.
The fact that he is a tyrant who murders and tortures his own people and the Iraqi people will be glad to see him gone was a secondary motive that made the decision to take him out alot easier.

[SkiBud]

Originally Posted by travisc

Hugh, that statement is extremely hypocritical in light of the numerous thugs and dictators that the US has supported (and continues to support) over time. Was it okay for Saddam to be a tyrant when he was working with the US?

YES The US only supported Saddam in the 80's because Iraq held US hostages for 400 days and Iran attacked Iraq. Iran was a common enemy of both countries so it was logical to support Saddam.

[james99]

Actually 444 days. I remember an interview with one of the hostages who was asked what you thought about his Iranians captives. He said something about buying Iraqi war bonds.