The Montreal Gazette’s very good lead editorial has more serious questions and answers regarding the Liberal Prime Minister Paul (“we lead the world”) Martin’s inexplicable decision to NOT defend Canada by every possible means.
Judging by what I perceive as the unprecedented negative editorial take on this ridiculous and strange decision from even the most liberal media (even the left-wing Toronto Star questioned it), the Liberals are now in entirely new territory—they appear to be out of synch with even their own voiceboxes—not to mention even their own Ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna.
This Montreal Gazette editorial takes a similarly negative take which like me and others, leaves the impression that thinking people are sitting back in their chairs wondering what on earth these Liberals are thinking.
(And when will people—especially editors—learn how to spell Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s name properly?!)
Martin shows his cowardice
The Gazette
Saturday, February 26, 2005If there is deep Liberal moral conviction behind the Martin government’s decision this week not to participate in the U.S. continental missile-defence program, Canadians still haven’t seen it. Quite apart from the fact Canada is making a mistake by not participating, the failure of the government to lay out any coherent explanation at all for its decision reeks of arrogance, cynicism and cowardice.
Given what weapons experts know about the contemporary state of missile research in China and Russia, let alone Iran and North Korea, development of a defensive shield is not an unreasonable objective for the U.S. – or, as missiles tend to go astray from time to time, for Canada, too.
True, China has voiced opposition to a North American shield, as has Russia – though Russia tested a new SS-27 intercontinental ballistic missile before Christmas that was specifically designed to outmanoeuvre “interceptors”). Even so, the widely held international perception is any shield put up by the U.S. would be, broadly speaking, bad.
But it’s hard to see why, in terms of a principled opposition. Some people are opposed to a shield because they say it will never work; but that’s like saying in 1908 not to try to split the atom because the atom can never be split.
Others say they are opposed to the militarization of space. Well, somebody should have told the Wright Brothers that, or at least the engineers who put military satellites into space 40 years ago. Finally, there are those who are viscerally uncomfortable with the notion a shield might give the U.S. an element of strategic military superiority that might trigger a new arms race. But did the arms race, from the catapult to B-52 bombers, ever really end? And why, for that matter, would anyone living close to the border of the U.S. not want to see the U.S. enjoy an edge over its military rivals, real and potential?
As for Prime Minister Paul Martin, his leadership on the shield issue has been appallingly bad, even by his dithering standards. He never allowed for informed public debate on the subject. It was only after U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci said in January it looked like agreement on shield co-operation was imminent that Martin started massaging public opinion – in favour of shield co-operation! It was important to understand no rockets would be based on Canadian soil, he said. Canada needed a “seat at the table” on shield issues, he added. By signing on to shield participation, Martin said, Canada would never find itself on the hook financially.
Now, lo and behold, the Martin Liberals have reversed direction, but Martin didn’t have the stomach to inform Bush personally of Canada’s decision when they were together in Brussels last week. Instead, he had Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew tell U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza [sic] Rice on Tuesday. He also misled the House the following day, by saying no decision had been taken, leaving Pettigrew to spring the news Thursday to a virtually empty House – in the middle of a budget speech, of all things.
What weasels the PM has made Canadians out to be. Is the only reason for saying no an extra 100,000 or so Liberal votes in the event of a snap election? Whatever the reasons, Martin has some explaining to do.
? The Gazette (Montreal) 2005
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Wow what a shock: a Big Government project’s cost estimate has DOUBLED — in only a few months - Tuesday April 30, 2024 at 4:50 pm
- UPDATED: State-Funding of Sports Boondoggles Need To Be Sent To The Penalty Box - Wednesday March 13, 2024 at 4:44 pm
- I’m from the government and I’m here to help you become barely mediocre like us. - Tuesday March 5, 2024 at 11:53 am
