Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenya AA who wrote (16656)	3/6/2003 4:01:28 PM
From: Mao II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Resisting Bush's rush to war GORDON BARTHOS George Bush ran for the White House in 2000 preaching that America, a superpower, must be "a humble nation" to earn the world's confidence and support. Sadly, that noble ideal died in the ashes of the Twin Towers a year later. Humility no longer figures at the top of the presidential to-do list. Within days of 9/11, Bush was demanding the world fall into line with his military/security policy. Or else. "You're either with us or against us," he warned last year. He then added a chilling rider: "You're either evil or you're good." How should Canadians react to the notion that we're "evil" if we don't jump to the president's demands when he wraps them in the emotive language of "terror" and "security"? By challenging the presidential premise. By dissociating ourselves from unwise American policies. By putting forward our own, alternative ideas. And by minimizing our exposure. That's just what Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has been doing during Washington's shambolic bid to stir the world to rage over Iraq. Canada supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 demanding Saddam disarm, or be disarmed. But Bush remains determined to topple Saddam even as chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix suggests he's capitulating. That puts us on the fast track to anarchy. "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop? Who is next?" Chrétien retorted when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer demanded both disarmament and regime change. As the Security Council tears itself apart under U.S. pressure, Chrétien has declined to reflexively march to this drum roll, and has sought to distance us from a manufactured crisis. He insists the Security Council retain the political lead in disarming Iraq. He resists a unilateral U.S. attack, or one with only a few allies. He has put forward a "Canadian compromise" seeking to preserve the council's unity while pressing Iraq to disarm. He has encouraged our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies to adopt a like-minded approach. And by committing Canadian troops to peacekeeping in Afghanistan he has deftly ensured that we can play no major offensive role in a divisive Iraq war, and a messy occupation. Canadians can't prevent Washington from having its way, the PM's thinking seems to run, but we can retain the option not to be complicit. These political markers mirror public opinion, and reflect a sense that Washington is going down a perilous path. After Saddam is crushed, will Republican hawks target North Korea or Iran, the rest of the "axis of evil?" Will they attempt to broker a lopsided settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or "pre-emptively" target some other hapless regime? Les horreurs, as the French might say, se multiplient. American leadership, while critical, has not always been enlightened as the world struggled in the past decade with genocide, ethnic cleansing, war, terror and nightmare weapons. In 1994 and 1995, the U.S. and other great powers turned their backs on Rwanda and the Balkans as a million people fell victim to genocide. The U.S. did move, rightly, in Kosovo in 1999, to thwart ethnic cleansing. And its campaign against the terror-friendly Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 was legitimate self-defence. Canadians fought in both causes. But Bush has not made a compelling case for toppling Saddam, in addition to disarming and containing him. Not in the Security Council's eyes. Not in the world's. Not yet, at least. And that invites us to sit out this war. Canadians will remain allies against terror, and in defending this continent. An attack on the U.S. is an attack on us, and will be dealt with as such. However, it doesn't follow that every attack the U.S. chooses to launch must necessarily be an attack with us. We must be assured that war is necessary and lawful, and that peaceful options are exhausted. However the Security Council ultimately chooses to deal with Saddam, Chrétien has affirmed Canada's right to dissent from U.S. policy — despite intense pressure, and in the twilight of his prime ministry. His successor may find that useful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gord Barthos writes The Star's editorials on foreign affairs. thestar.com