-Caveat Lector- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2497.htm Friends don't let friends start wars of aggression JOSEPH HEATH Freelance Montreal Gazette Monday, March 31, 2003
-------------------------------------------- Joseph Heath holds the Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political Economy at the Université de Montréal. -------------------------------------------- Local cheerleaders for the war against Iraq, having failed to convince many Canadians of the substantive merits of the American case, have recently begun to switch tactics. They are now claiming that, regardless of how we feel about the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue, we owe it to our American friends, as a matter of pure loyalty, to assist them in their hour of need. They point out, quite correctly, that Canada benefits greatly from the protection of the United States security umbrella. One of the reasons that we get away with spending so little on our own defence is that we know the U.S. would protect us, were we ever to be attacked. So do we not owe it to the U.S. to show a bit of gratitude and help them out now that they are at war? This argument was picked up recently by Paul Cellucci, the United States ambassador to Canada. After making some thinly veiled threats about compromised trade relationships, Cellucci had this to say: "There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate, there would be no hesitation," he claimed. "That is why so many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now." The claim seems to me correct, as far as it goes. The problem is that it completely misses the point. I have no doubt that if Canada faced an actual security threat, like a foreign invasion, the United States would indeed help out. But what if Canada merely felt threatened? And what if Canada was unable to produce any concrete evidence that the threat was imminent? What if many of the documents Canada put forward in support of its claims turned out to be forged or inconclusive? Furthermore, what if the American leadership concluded that the threat was not serious enough to justify pre-emptive military action? Under such circumstances, could we really expect American assistance with "no debate" and "no hesitation," simply because we asked for it? Anyone who reflects honestly upon the question, and who understands how the U.S. political system functions, knows the answer. Under such circumstances, absolutely no American assistance would be forthcoming. Why? Because the U.S. military does not consider itself responsible for protecting Canada against imaginary threats. No matter how much they might like us. Thus, the problem with the ambassador's claim is that he is presupposing what he should be proving. He starts by assuming that the American position is correct - that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. But that is precisely what is at issue in the disagreement between Canada and the U.S. The government of Canada had judged that Iraq did not pose a security threat sufficient to justify pre-emptive war. It bears repeating that Canada is not the only country in the world to come to this conclusion. It is precisely because the overwhelming majority of nations in the world share this judgment that the U.S. was unable to obtain a second Security Council resolution. The fact that Mexico shares our position speaks volumes (especially since Mexico is much more vulnerable than Canada to threats of the type that Cellucci was peddling). In spite of accusations that it has been waffling, the Chrétien government has actually been perfectly on message when it comes to this issue. Last week, both Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham were careful to draw a terminological distinction between the "war on terror" and the "war against Iraq," thereby emphasizing that the government of Canada does not regard the latter as a legitimate component of the former. Both went on to emphasize that Canada remains wholeheartedly committed to the war against terrorism. In other words, we are prepared to assist the U.S. with security threats that we judge to be salient. No one can deny that when the United States was attacked, Canada jumped to its defence (with no debate and no hesitation). We just need to keep reminding everyone that the United States was attacked by Al-Qa'ida, not Iraq. Does loyalty to our American friends compel us to act against our own better judgment? Does it compel us to act against what we perceive to be their best interests? I don't think so. Everyone knows the saying, "friends don't let friends drink and drive." Perhaps we should introduce a new saying for international affairs: "friends don't let friends initiate wars of aggression in defiance of world opinion." Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutra <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
