Open Letter To Paul Martin On Missile Defence, Nov 11

It is strange not only that you would attack one of your own elected MPs within a tenuous minority government, but that you would do so in such a manner. For all that one may choose to criticize Ms. Parrish, to my knowledge she has not, even in jest, suggested misfortune on another person. Now, some have suggested the joke was intended to reach an American audience. And that is what is truly pathetic. While you wring your hands, Stephen Harper eagerly hopes, and the press has runners waiting, all in anticipation of the next mildly reproachful comment about United States foreign policy, can anyone doubt that similar, indeed more critical and disparaging things are said about us by officials south of the border? But such would hardly be headline-grabbing issues there, nor can I imagine Americans losing sleep over what we might think. As Prime Minister, you have had the opportunity to effectively point this out, instead of making lame jokes suggesting we are all meek sheep ("as we all as a nation...together say aloud..."). While you and Mr. Harper wrestle for possession over the mealy phrase "better relations with the United States", have you ever thought to stress instead that the U.S. might benefit from better relations with Canada? That friendship, if that is what our relationship is supposed to be, depends on mutual regard? Where is our pride? Where is our dignity? Does it not offend you, Prime Minister, that we were expected to sacrifice the lives of some of the best of our own in a now transparent charade, the hunt for alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Are you not uncomfortable that we have assisted in creating the chaos there by sending two of our warships to the Gulf and increasing our commitments in Afghanistan; a far more significant gesture, one needs say, than the "moral support" Mr. Harper now claims he intended to offer? Are you not disturbed that whereas beforehand, an atrocity such as 9/11 against this country would have been inconceivable, it is now quite possible, given our substantial involvement (on a per capita basis, one of the highest) in Afghanistan? And so are you not just a little insulted that in spite of our thus having accepted this serious compromise of our own security, Ambassador Cellucci said Americans were "disappointed" with us? Just a little insulted, Prime Minister, not necessarily bloody well outraged like some of us? Do you really think that by signing on to National Missile Defense, the United States will buy more of our cows? Can anyone believe that displaying an eagerness to offer concessions works to ones advantage in negotiation? By chance, I happen to finish this on Remembrance Day, a time when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are in a unique position. While the rest of us think of those who gave their lives for us, you and Mr. Harper have the great privilege, indeed the duty, to wonder: what would those brave souls think of you? What they preserved for us was the freedom to choose. What they earned for our country was great respect and honour. Your present position on National Missile Defense represents a wholesale squandering of these. Yesterday, with bizarre logic, a self-contradictory editorial in the Globe and Mail urged you to sign on. This would be cost free, it claimed. And economically beneficial, it implied. This shamefully published with intent on the eve of Remembrance Day. National Missile Defense is inseparable from the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which every MP voting on missile defence would be obliged to be familiar with. Under the current U.S. Administration, this includes development of new nuclear weapons, the possible resumption of nuclear testing, the possible use of nuclear weapons in situations previously confined to conventional weapons, among other very disturbing reversals of long-standing policy. This is not merely a retreat from the idea of Non-Proliferation; it is resolute goosestepping in the opposite direction, and an affront to what Canada stands for. Those from this country who died in the Great Wars were not fighting so much for our cause as for a global one. For a similar reason, the right position with respect to National Missile Defense has never been merely to choose whether we participate or not. The right position, held by many distinguished Americans well-informed on NMD, including most of their Nobel laureates, is to express opposition to it. It is with regret, Prime Minister, that I note you never had the courage to consider that honourable option. Yours sincerely, Janis A, Kraulis November 11, 2004