 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
quote:
How about when the PM says yes, then maybe, then out of the blue says no, to an issue that is important to their administration? You can't see they might be a little... picqued by the whole business? |
He said yes? News to me... |
It has been suggested.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...editorial&hl=en
quote:
Martin fizzles over missile plan
Far more damaging to the future of Canadian-American relations than Prime Minister Paul Martin's decision yesterday not to join Washington's missile defence program, is his government's protracted backtracking, evasion and contradicting itself on this issue.
In the months since Martin took the leadership of the Liberal party, proclaiming a new era of co-operation and dialogue with the U.S., he has shuffled, recanted and, yes, dithered, from initial support for missile defence, to a long period of ambiguity and, finally, to rejection.
At the same time, the prime minister has lost an important opportunity to engage the Americans in a much more comprehensive and meaningful dialogue on the future of North American military defence and the role Canada can play in it as a full partner. The scope of that type of forward-looking strategy discussion goes far beyond notions of defensive missiles shooting down incoming nuclear ballistic missiles at some date in the future.
The result: clumsy theatrics triumph once again over substance. The prime minister declares Canada won't participate in the missile shield, despite his earlier statements to both U.S. President George W. Bush and to Canadians that we would, which is read in Washington as a betrayal. In doing so, Martin kneecaps the credibility of his newly appointed ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna. The American ambassador to Canada, meanwhile, muses that Canada is giving up "its sovereignty -- its seat at the table -- to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming toward Canada."
The meaningful defence of a sprawling land mass as vast as North America against a wide range of threats, conventional and unconventional, requires a broad and versatile set of strategies. There will always be a need for troops on the ground, aircraft, ships (both at sea level and beneath it), coastal defences, electronic monitoring and intelligence gathering. In recent years, Canada has been a poor player in some of these facets of our own defence, let alone in our partnership with the U.S.
This week's federal budget hinted that trend is about to change: Significant new investments on national defence are in the offing, though the timetable for such reinvestments is long and tenuous, given the Liberals' track record on the military. The prime minister was in a position to argue this country was positioning itself for a much larger role in North American defence -- indeed, he tried to do so yesterday. But that's a message that won't penetrate the only signal Washington will likely receive -- the image of a squeamish prime minister doing an about-face. And of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois gleefully applauding another aborted opportunity to improve bilateral relations. And of the Conservative party sitting on its hands, competing with the Liberals for dithering rights.
A strong national leader and statesman would have formulated and articulated a clear position, then championed it both at home and abroad. He would have rejected the reduction of North American defences to one of mere missiles, and sought to engage the Americans in a multi-pronged plan in which both nations could play their respective parts.
Unfortunately, we saw none of that. |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2005 08:59
|