WSWS : News & Analysis : North America : Canada By Keith Jones 3 April 2003

The US ambassador to Canada has rebuked the Canadian government for not joining the US-led invasion of Iraq and broken with diplomatic protocol to solidarize himself with the right-wing premier of oil-rich Alberta.

Speaking to a big business audience in Toronto March 25, Paul Cellucci said Americans were “disappointed” and “upset” that the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien has stood aside from the “coalition of the willing.” Using unprecedentedly harsh language, he suggested Ottawa has left Washington in the lurch at a time of great peril.

If there was any question as to whether Cellucci’s remarks were reflective of the views of the Bush administration, US government officials were quick to dispel it. Both State Department and White House aides let it be known that Cellucci, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, had spoken out against the Canadian government on express instructions from the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Cellucci told the Economic Club of Toronto that if Canada’s security was ever threatened, the US would commit whatever resources were required for its defense: “We would be there for Canada, part of our family, and that is why so many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now.”

Whilst insisting that the partnership between Canada and the US will endure, the ambassador warned of “short-term strains.” Asked what form those strains might take, Cellucci replied, “You’ll have to wait and see.” However, he then let slip that the US government believes “security trumps trade.” This is a thinly veiled threat that the Bush administration will introduce cumbersome procedures to regulate the inflow of goods and people from Canada, if Ottawa fails to bring its security, immigration and military/geopolitical policies in line with those of the Washington.

With 40 percent of Canada’s GNP directly dependent on trade with the US, the Canadian economy is acutely vulnerable to any disruption of cross-border traffic. Nonetheless, the most inflammatory part of Cellucci’s speech was his ringing defense of the premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein.

A flagrant violation of diplomatic protocol

Cellucci suggested that Klein had been unjustly chastised by the federal Liberal government for objecting to its stand on the war. Complained the ambassador, “When Mr. Klein issues strong support for the United States, the Canadian government comes down hard on him.” In fact, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a very restrained letter that simply reiterated that the federal government is solely responsible for formulating Canada’s foreign policy after the Alberta premier had taken the highly unusual step of writing an open letter to Cellucci lauding the US invasion of Iraq.

Writing in the name of “the people of Alberta,” Klein extended “thanks to the United States for its leadership in the war on terrorism and tyranny” and lavished praise on President George W. Bush. “Future generations,” declared Klein, “will owe a great debt to those who fight today.”

Cellucci’s defense of Klein is a flagrant violation of traditional diplomatic practice which calls for noninterference in internal political controversies. What renders it all the more significant is that Klein is the premier of a province whose exports of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) to the US rival those of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and whose political and corporate elite regularly rants against the purported “inequities” of Canada’s federal system. When Klein’s Alberta Tories met in convention last weekend, one of the principal topics of discussion was whether they should threaten Alberta’s secession from Canada to force constitutional change.

Cellucci’s intervention is all the more remarkable in that he concedes that the Canadian government—notwithstanding its official policy of not participating in the US invasion of Iraq—is providing significantly more support to the US war effort than many of those listed as members of the “coalition of the willing.” Canada is currently leading a multination “anti-terrorism” naval task force in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea that is escorting US warships to the Iraqi war theater. More than 30 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) officers are embedded, as part of various exchange programs, in US and British military units that are waging war on Iraq. The recent announcement that some 3,000 CAF personnel will be deployed to Afghanistan to prop up the US-installed regime in Kabul has freed up US logistical and military assets for the invasion of Iraq.

That Washington nonetheless feels compelled to strike out against Canada is an indication of the Bush administration’s isolation and sense of vulnerability

Having embarked on a drive to reorder the Middle East and the world in the interests of Wall Street, the Bush administration no longer feels bound by the system of multilateral institutions and inter-imperialist alliances through which the US exerted its power in the decades after the Second World War. Instead, it is resorting to bullying against even its closest economic partners and geopolitical allies.

In the case of Canada, the Bush White House and the Republican Party have longstanding connections to the political right and big business—connections they are now seeking to use to pressure, if not destabilize, the Chrétien Liberal government.

Notwithstanding Cellucci’s breach of diplomatic protocol, the Official Opposition Canadian Alliance and much of the corporate media have seized on the ambassador’s remarks to ratchet-up their attack on the Chrétien Liberal government. Leading the pack has been the ultra-right National Post. The day after Cellucci’s speech, it devoted the front page and most of four other pages to reports and commentaries trumpeting Cellucci’s remarks and charging that the Chrétien government has placed Canada’s principal economic partnership at risk. Later in the week, the Post floated the rumor that Bush might cancel a planned visit to Ottawa next month, ostensibly because of thewar, but with the real aim of snubbing the Chrétien government.

According to former Canadian trade negotiator Michael Hart, the message of Cellucci’s speech is that the White House has “given up on this particular government [and] we’re waiting for the next one.”

Predictably, Chrétien and his Liberal government have sought to play down the controversy. A handful of backbench Liberal MPs called for Cellucci to be censured or expelled, but the government’s is hoping to demonstrate to Washington that Canada remains a steadfast ally. The very day of Cellucci’s speech, it was leaked to the press that John Manley, the deputy prime minister and finance minister, had argued in cabinet for Canada to join the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The differences between the Chrétien government and its opponent on the right are entirely tactical. While the CanadianAlliance and the National Post are pressing for Canada to fully integrate into Fortress America, the Chrétien Liberals speak for a faction of Canada’s corporate elite that is seeking to maintain the maximum room to independently assert its own predatory interests. This faction is clutching to the hope that the old multilateral order can be revived once Iraq is occupied.

Workers in Canada can only oppose imperialist war and the offensive on the social position of the working class by joining with workers in the US and around the world in a political struggle against the profit system.

See Also: Canada balks at joining US war on Iraq [20 March 2003] Who’s going to be next? Canada’s prime minister denounces US “regime change” policy [4 March 2003]

Posted: April 1, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern <a href=worldnetdaily.com>WorldNetDaily.com

Saddam Hussein, though the object of widespread hatred, is certainly not without friends and supporters in the United States. Foremost among them would be those people marching in our major cities and university campuses who call themselves "anti-war activists."

Few comments draw quicker howls of righteous indignation than to call these so-called "anti-war" protestors "anti-American." To suggest that someone is anti-American falls somewhere on the outrage scale below an expression of an undying devotion to the musical talents of Barry Manilow.

OK, I like Barry Manilow's music. So there. I also think that most of the anti-war protestors are, indeed, anti-American. There. I've said it.

For you to attack my position here, and indeed for me to defend it, we have to establish just what I believe "America" to be. The concept of America goes far beyond territorial limits and the definition of an American is not covered solely by a birth certificate or an address. America is more than a territory or a geographical boundary. America is a society, a culture and a way of life.

America is an institution where the individual is sovereign and individuality is respected and admired. In America a person is free to follow his dreams, exploit his talents, go the extra mile and then sit back to enjoy the rewards of those efforts.

In America, justice occurs when a person gets what he deserves, not when he uses the power of government to plunder the wealth of another. In America, people admire self-sufficiency, not dependence; personal strength, not weakness; faith, not cynicism; and courage, not cowardice.

Americans prefer the chaos and uncertainty of economic and social freedom to the security of a paternalistic government. In America, the accumulation of wealth through hard work and good decision-making is admired, not reviled. Accomplishment is rewarded, not penalized.

Americans believe in freedom, and are willing to sacrifice their fortunes and their very lives to protect that freedom – and to bestow the blessings of freedom upon those who live in horrendous tyranny under a brutal and dangerous dictator.

As I see it, then these appeasement protestors are, for the most, par anti-American.

Watch them. Listen to them. Read their signs. These are people who revel in collective, not individual action. They show no talent for independent thought. They chant their trite slogans like sheep bleating in a tightly packed flock. They carry their mass-produced signs showing the mindless graffiti of the left. Like any herd animal, if you separate one from the flock you'll find them ripe for the intellectual kill. Separated from the collective support mechanism of the protesting mobocracy, they quickly exhibit their complete lack of knowledge and their aversion to the hated practice of logical thinking.

"No war for oil," they bleat.

You ask, "If we wanted to fight a war for oil why wouldn't we just go to Venezuela? It's so much closer and the people there are already fighting for a change!"

No answer – just that dumb slack-jawed stare of a leftist in headlights.

"Give peace a chance!"

"Peace? You mean the kind of peace where the children of dissident parents are kidnapped and returned with their eyes gouged out? The type of peace where those who speak ill of the great and wonderful dictator of Iraq have their tongues cut out and are hung from lampposts in Baghdad to bleed to death? Is that the kind of peace you're promoting?"

Though there are exceptions, they are few. The overwhelming majority of the so-called anti-war demonstrators in this country are leftists. The money that pays for the accoutrements of a good appeasement demonstration; the stages, sound systems, permit fees, security and medical facilities, come generally from leftist organizations, many with direct ties to Marxist and socialist organizations.

Many of these demonstrators are Democrats. They are driven by their hatred for George W. Bush and their bitterness over the loss of a close election. They fully realize that a sudden withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq would serve to preserve and strengthen Saddam Hussein and his Baathist goons, and would be a certain death sentence for tens of thousands of Shiites and Kurds seen as supportive of the coalition invasion.

On some level, they might actually care about the future of the Iraqi people, but on a higher level they care about returning leftists to their rightful position of power in Washington, a Democratic victory in 2004. They fantasize over a defeat of the Republicans more than victory over the Republican Guard.

So, spare me the formulaic indignation over the "anti-American" label. It fits all too well.

SPECIAL OFFER!

Get an autographed copy of Boortz's strong dose of anti-left venom, "The Terrible Truth About Liberals." From questioning the true definitions of democracy and racism to challenging the entire social security system, Boortz provides fresh insights into nagging social and political issues. He may be contentious, but he's never dull. Available now at ShopNetDaily!

Neal Boortz is an author and nationally syndicated libertarian talk-show host. Full disclosure compels him to reveal that he is also a "reformed" attorney who is being paid massive amounts of money in exchange for his promise not to actually practice law any more.

A Naked Display of Imperial Power By TARIQ ALI

The historic significance of the protests against the war in Iraq is that they have been unprecedented in size, scope or scale. This is the first truly global response to a political event: millions have come out on the streets of Western Europe, North and South America, Western Europe, the Far East, Australia and New Zealand and last week, the Arab street exploded with the largest spontaneous demonstration Cairo had seen since Nasser’s funeral.

What will be the effect of the war now raging in Iraq on the peace movement? Its fair-weather friends (symbolised in Britain by the pathetic and spineless figure of the Liberal leader Charles Kennedy) will naturally drop out, but the movement itself will grow in strength and determination. The US occupation of Iraq will necessitate a change in tactics, but the overall strategy of the global peace movement will not alter.

It is now obvious to a large majority of the world’s population that the real threat to peace and stability comes not from the depleted armouries of decaying dictatorships, but from the rotten heart of the American Empire or its regional satrapies (Israel, Britain). It is this new awareness of world realities that has radicalised a new generation across the globe. Those who accept the official justifications for the conflict simply cannot understand the resistance to this war. It has nothing to do with support for Saddam, but reflects a refusal to believe the untruths being spouted by Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair and their apologists in the media. Apart from the United States, few citizens elsewhere believe that the fiercely secular Ba’ath Party of Iraq has any links with Osama’s gang. As for ‘weapons of mass destruction’ the only nuclear stockpile in the region is situated in Israel. And even if Saddam Hussein had the capacity to acquire these weapons, an imperial princess had already pointed out that it would be a futile act.

In the January/February 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, for example, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice wrote: “The first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence‹if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.”

Unusable in 2000, but now Saddam must be removed by bombing Iraqi cities and a land invasion before he gets them? Like many of the other pretexts for this war it doesn’t add up, thus fuelling a broad-based opposition.

What appears to have happened is that a Christian-Jacobin faction from the extreme-right of the Republican Party (backed by hard-core Zionists) has utilised 9/11 to capture the White House, the Pentagon and the Department of Justice. Their aim is the pursuit of a bold and audacious imperialist agenda of which the occupation of Iraq is seen as the first step. Iran and the Korean Peninsula are the next targets.

Its spokespeople, compared to the flatulent rhetoric of their New Labour toadies, are refreshingly honest: in order to preserve US hegemony they will use force wherever and whenever necessary.

European hand wringing leaves them unmoved. If the United Nations can’t be used as an instrument of US power it should be dumped without too much delay. And, one could argue from the other side, if the UN is genetically incapable of preventing pre-emptive strikes by imperial rogue states that openly violate its charter (leave alone ratifiying the occupation of Iraq and becoming an after-sales service for the Empire) then it is time to think of other more effective arrangements. The creation or strengthening of existing regional associations of nation states would be an obvious next step. Recently, the Organisation of American States isolated the US and refused to endorse any attempts to topple Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (another oil-rich state considering moving from the dollar to the Euro).

The antiwar movement was given a tremendous boost by the French-German decision not to back the war. This is the first occasion on which a disagreement between the inner core of the EU and the United States exploded into a public rift and helped polarise public opinion both in Europe and North America. Add to that the Turkish parliament (unlike the House of Commons) disrupted the war effort and the Canadian Prime Minister used strong language to denounce the conflict. The opposition of these states is limited (only Belgium refused to permit the use of its air space), but that it exists at all marks a turning point in European-US relations. If the US continues on this course then the EU will have to re-open a public discussion regarding its future. A fierce private debate is already taking place in France and Germany. The ramifications of the assault on Iraq will have global consequences and a resistance to the Empire is inevitable. Its timing is the only point of dispute. Where will this take the peace movement?

The model of what needs to be done by today’s dissenters was established in the last year of the 19th century. Mark Twain, shocked by the chauvinist reaction to the Boxer Rebellion in China and the US occupation of the Philippines, sounded the tocsin. The problem, he argued, was imperialism. It had to be opposed. His call led to a mammoth assembly in Chicago in 1889, which founded the American Anti-Imperialist League. Within two years its membership had grown to over half a million and it attracted some of the most gifted writers and thinkers of the United States (Henry James, Charles Elliot Norton, W.E.B. Dubois, William Dean Howells, Frederic Douglass, Jr, etc.)

Today, when the United States is the only imperial power, the importance of a global Anti-Imperialist League cannot be understate, but it is the US component of such an organisation that will be crucial. The resistance can only be political. The history of the rise and fall of Empires teaches us that it is when their own citizens finally lose faith in the efficacy of infinite wars and permanent occupations that the beast implodes.

The World Social Forum (which hosts the movement of movements every year) has, till now, concentrated on the power of multinational corporations and neo-liberal institutions. But Friedrich von Hayek, the inspirer of the “Washington Consensus”, was a firm believer in wars to buttress the new system. The World Social Forum should think of campaigning against the military presence of the US in 120 countries. Economics is after all only a concentrated form of politics and war a continuation of both by other means.

Tariq Ali’s latest book, The Clash of Fundamentalisms is published in paperback by Verso.