Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Lloyd Axworthy

  • Missile Counter-Attack Open Letter to US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice

    Dear Condi,

    I’m glad you’ve decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It’s a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

    I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

    But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can’t quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

    As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we’ve had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we’re going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

    Sure, that doesn’t match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a “liberation war” in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

    Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government’s role should be when there isn’t a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

    Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such as missile defence can be made openly.

    You might also notice that it’s a system in which the governing party’s caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don’t want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada’s continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

    Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

    Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one- party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

    If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don’t embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

    Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the “northern territories,” Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn’t really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

    Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of ‘experts’ from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

    I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti- Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

    These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

    To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

    To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court — which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

    And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed — beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

    On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ while you’re in Ottawa. It’s a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

    This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

    There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world’s largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

    Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree — and agree to respect each other’s views when we disagree.

    Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

    In friendship, Lloyd Axworthy

    Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister.

    (c) 2005 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

  • Stop the US Foul Play

    Perverse as it may seem, we should be grateful to the Bush administration for its recent clumsy efforts to undermine the International Criminal Court just as it came into existence on July 1. The administration’s maladroit use of the United Nations Security Council to alter the terms of the Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the Court, should be a wake-up call for all those committed to building an international system based on a rule of law and all who care about maintaining the United Nations as a credible organization.

    First, any illusion that the present U.S. administration might have a smidgeon of respect for international treaties or multilateral co-operation should be finally dispelled. The disdain of the Americans is palpable; they’ll resort to crude means to wreck any form of international architecture with which they disagree.

    The argument they made in demanding immunity from the ICC — that this was simply a way of protecting their peacekeepers — was a false one, and they know it. As Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s permanent representative to the UN, pointed out, the United States has all the safeguards it needs — particularly the fact that the ICC is a jurisdiction of last resort.

    This means that if any crime were committed by an American, be it by a soldier stationed in Bosnia or by the Secretary of Defence in Washington, then the U.S. justice system — civilian courts or military tribunals — would be entitled to prosecute the case. The ICC only comes into play when a nation state is unwilling or incapable of exercising legal action against an act of genocide or a crime against humanity, as defined in the treaty.

    Unfortunately, this refutation of the Americans’ oft-stated objection never got the attention it deserved; too often, the media bought the false notion that this was a jurisdictional dispute. The antagonism of Washington’s current rulers toward the ICC, and their reason for disavowing the Clinton administration’s signature on the Rome Treaty, is that they do not want to be restrained by any limitation on their actions, including compliance with international criminal law.

    What’s particularly shocking about this attitude is that it flies in the face of all President George W. Bush’s aims as set out in his campaign against terrorism. We hear constantly that this is a great battle between forces of good and evil, of justice versus injustice. Yet rather than embrace a genuine, broadly supported effort to construct a global system of legal co-operation in investigating, capturing, prosecuting and incarcerating international criminals including terrorists, the Bush administration set out to emasculate such an institution.

    That was bad enough. But the Americans compounded the damage inflicted on the international multilateral system by their tactic of holding hostage the renewal of a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans and subverting the role of the Security Council. The so-called compromise arrived at by backroom deals among the permanent five members of the council is frankly a cave-in to U.S. demands.

    And it sets two very dangerous precedents. First is the use of blackmail on peacekeeping to achieve the purely self-interested objective of one of the council’s permanent members. Second, the compromise acquiesces to the Security Council’s questionable right to amend by interpretation a treaty arrived at in open discussion by representatives of more than 100 nation states in a founding convention. The compromise, giving a 12-month hoist to any application of treaty provisions, abrogates the original intent of the drafters. It does not protect the integrity of the Rome Statute, as claimed.

    Fortunately, that position is not going unchallenged. Our ambassador at the UN, supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, has led the fight to preserve the validity of the court. Mr. Heinbecker was able to obtain an open debate at the council and used that to expose U.S. myths and mobilize opposition to the original and more blatant initiative to achieve blanket immunity. It was Canadian diplomacy at its best.

    And it must be continued by our seeking to invoke the engagement of the UN General Assembly on this vital matter. The permanent five members have sought by a sneaky procedural device in the wording of the compromise resolution to keep the assembly out of the picture. But this position is not impregnable; it’s imperative that the assembly be seized of both the inherent threat to future peacekeeping missions and the erosion of the ICC that the council decision entails.

    In fact, there’s now an opportunity to institute even further reform. The time has come to begin working toward the democratization of the Security Council by insisting that all members be elected. The UN cannot be credible when its decisions are so dominated by a small, unaccountable elite of states that do not represent the full interests of the world — especially when the Security Council’s permanent members use their privileged position to eviscerate the Charter of the United Nations.

    While that monumental task is under way the role of the General Assembly needs to be asserted and enhanced.

    A good place to start is by building a capacity for peacekeeping that doesn’t rely on the Americans. One irony of their indignant stand against the ICC having jurisdiction over peacekeepers is that, of the 45,000 peacekeepers serving in UN missions, only 745 are supplied by the United States. Where the Americans do have an edge is in transport, logistics and intelligence-gathering. Canada should co-operate with the Europeans to develop those capacities, so that the next time the Americans want to play hardball, the rest of the world can tell them to take their ball and go home.

    The International Criminal Court needs careful stewardship, attention, resources and support during this critical start-up period. We know it faces an implacable foe in the present U.S. administration. This is all the more reason to redouble efforts to assure its effective launch and to continue campaigning to bring more members on board.

    Establishing the first new international institution of this new century dedicated to protecting people against violation of their basic rights is a remarkable achievement in the progress of humankind. Canada has played an important role from the time of the ICC’s inception. We were there last week to defend it against unwarranted attack. We now have the continuing task of helping to give it a firm foundation. Thank goodness for the wake-up call.
    *Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s foreign affairs minister from 1996 to 2000, is director and CEO of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at the University of British Columbia.

    THE GLOBE AND MAIL
    Wednesday, July 17, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A13

  • Canadians Are Ready to Fight, But Want Some Answers

    Orginally Published in the Globe and Mail Metro**

    Thanksgiving weekend brought Canadians face to face with the harsh reality of living in a post-Sept. 11 world. At a time traditionally set aside to join family and friends in quiet celebration of our blessings, we found ourselves as a charter member of a military operation against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the terrorist network of Osama bin Laden.

    There is no more difficult decision for a government to make and people to accept than the commitment to fight. It calls for a clear declaration of support for our military personnel who are asked to do the fighting. That’s why it is strange that Parliament will not meet until next week.

    The House of Commons should be convened immediately, not only as the forum through which Canadians can express their solidarity, but as a place where tough questions can be asked about the conduct and objectives of this military operation.

    We all knew this battle was coming, but little clue was given as to the nature of Canadian involvement. Now that it is upon us, and promises to be a long-term engagement of a particularly tricky and complex kind, it is vital that there be a much better understanding of how this use of force will reduce the terrorist threat, what the consequences will be for the broader goal of instituting an international legal order, and whether Canada will do more than offer troops.

    Both Prime Minister Jean Chretien and President George W. Bush spoke of a grand strategy involving diplomatic, humanitarian and financial efforts. But little is known about what this means and who will call the shots. The “coalition” members — including Canada — have yet to meet, other than through a series of bilateral telephone calls and visits to the White House. This strikes me as a hub-and-spoke arrangement, where direction comes from the centre with little input from the outside members. This is not a foundation for building an international partnership based on collective responsibility and contribution, nor one in which Canada can play an active creative role.

    To use one example: This country has been at the forefront of establishing an international legal system to hold accountable those who commit crimes against humanity, including acts of terrorism. The construction of such a criminal system should be one of the prime goals of an anti-terrorist coalition. But the Bush administration has just endorsed a bill submitted by Senator Jesse Helms that would deny U.S. aid to any country that ratified the statute setting up the international criminal court. Hardly a position Canada should be supporting.

    Then there is the problem of the humanitarian consequences of an attack against Afghanistan, where there is already a refugee disaster in the making. It is shrewdly recognized by the Bush administration that the military action will exacerbate the situation, so it is dropping food and medicine and trying to persuade the people to stay put. While an important gesture, it is not an effective response. The refugee needs go far beyond airlifted supplies. These people, reeling from two decades of civil war, need sanitation, water, medical treatment, shelter and security, just for starters.

    The matter of Afghan refugees is a priority, requiring an international effort preferably through the United Nations, as suggested by Kofi Annan. Will Canada take the lead in mobilizing this kind of multilateral exercise? Can we take the lead in this kind of initiative now that we have been singled out by the U.S. President as a prime member of the military team attacking the Taliban? Or has our value as an independent player been compromised? Closer to home is the question of Canadians’ own security now that we are identified as front-line participants. Most analysts expect a retaliation to this attack. Osama bin Laden has promised a holy war. The probability of our being in the front line of that retaliation has increased commensurate with our role in the coalition. That means added responsibility to provide protection for Canadians here and abroad. This is especially crucial in enhancing security for our embassies and other visible overseas organizations such as cultural centres, aid projects and large Canadian business operations. We are about to learn the hard price to pay in fighting the war against a hidden, dedicated, merciless, covert enemy.

    The aftershock of the Sept. 11 attacks is now being felt. How Canadians will muster their resources to help restore a sense of security for people around the world is the issue of our day. We have just begun to ask the pertinent questions.

    * Lloyd Axworthy, foreign affairs minister from 1996 to 2000, is director and CEO of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at UBC.