Recently, I happened across a new blog to which I've subscribed -- The Diplomad, a blog written anonymously by career U.S. Foreign Service Officers, lest stating the obvious in an undiplomatic manner prove to be a CLM.¹
They are Republican (most of the time) in an institution (State Department) in which being a Republican can be bad for your career -- even with a Republican President!Today, they brought something to my attention that had slipped under my radar in the midst of a busy week -- a movement even sillier than the nonsense below about boycotting U.S. products, namely, gee, why don't we, the Great White North, indict George W. Bush under our Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act? One such moonbat making such a suggestion would easily be dismissed, but when it begins to gain currency, you've got my attention:
Turning on the cable news, the Diplomad ran across some Canadian law professor being interviewed on FOX by John Kasich's "Heartland" show. This professor, too, was making the case for Bush's indictment.Yes, by all means, let's sign on with the International Criminal Court, shall we? Because we all know that we can count on the "international community" to act with all the jurisprudential aplomb and clear-headed sense of justice of, oh, the United Nations, right?Coincidentally, Diplomad HQS received a report from one of our Diplomads on a Sunday (today) brunch conversation with a Canadian diplomat who seemed absolutely smitten with the idea. This Canadian relished the thought of having Bush "served" a bill of indictment or arrest warrant during the President's visit to Ottawa o/a November 30. He thought this an incredibly clever idea, and spit out the reasons for indicting Bush for "crimes against humanity" -- basically the ones contained in the Walkom column and the Kasich interview, e.g., aggressive war, no UNSC approval, mistreatment of POWs and civilian populations, etc. Fortunately our Diplomad had the presence of mind -- which neither Kasich nor Walkom showed -- of asking, "What do you think the US reaction would be?" Our northern "friend" seemed taken aback by the thought, and confused, said that, well perhaps, we would protest and file something or another in Canadian court, or invoke Bush's sovereign immunity, but that in the end we would have to deal with the issue in court, presumably in a Canadian court. Oh, really?
How sad, and frankly, pathetic.
Canada was once a great country, a proud member of the Defense of the West League. On a per capita basis Canada, along with New Zealand, had among the highest casualties of any ally in WWI and WWII. It played key roles in NORAD and NATO, and in the shadowy intel battles of the Cold War. It was, in word and deed, a true ally. That said, we would be hard put to describe the Canada of today or of the past 10 or so years as an ally. Its government has become among the most politically correct and feminized in the world, turning Canada into a haven for global terrorists and criminals, and for some of the most irresponsible and "out there" politicians, academics and journalists found anywhere on the planet. It has dismantled its once proud military establishment, turning it into a second-rate Keystone Cops police force at the beck-and-call of Kofi "Oil-for-Money" Annan. It is now a country with no sense of national interest or purpose, no appreciation for its true friends or for its own history. Canadian politicians and academics have become -- at best -- mischievous little school boys, trying to play pranks on the aloof but kindly school headmaster, secure in the knowledge that at most they'll get an avuncular lecture, that never will they have to pay any serious consequences, and that the headmaster will always in the end protect them from the school bullies and street toughs.A couple of months ago, the Diplomad shared a story concerning a July 1 Canadian National Day reception he attended:
At this reception, our Diplomad got cornered by a slightly tipsy Canadian aid worker (CIDA) who proceeded to give a weird version of US-Canadian relations which involved an apparently widely held Canadian view that Canada has defeated the United States in war, "We are the only the country to have defeated the United States in two declared (sic) wars." Our Diplomad, being a diplomat, held his tongue and didn't get into the details of these wars, such as noting that, yes, the Americans and British on several occasions fought battles in what is now Canada, and, yes, Americans lost some but won others, and in the end the Americans gained their independence (The Revolutionary War) and then successfully kept it (War of 1812.) Our noble Diplomad didn't launch into a description of Perry's victory on the Great Lakes over a "Canadian" invasion fleet or Old Hickory's victory over the "Canadian" army at New Orleans. Our Diplomad -- gracious, as are all our Diplomads -- limited his riposte to the ever polite, "Any time you want a rematch, let us know."Although I think it could provide a long term solution for that nasty tundra problem of theirs, such a rematch is not in order here. Nonetheless, one has to wonder what is going through the minds of our supposed allies. Have I missed something, or are not our fates inextricably linked? Posted by Mike at November 21, 2004 04:15 PM | TrackBack
This morning I read of the US delivering an ultimatum to Nth Korea to disarm and then I read this post talking (in part) of the fact that the US should not join the ICC because the international community can't be trusted to make good decisions.
Is it possible that some of the idiocy sprouted by people such as these Canadian professors is borne out of a reaction to a United States which talks of its 'duty' to intervene in a range of international situations but has no responsibility or accountability for how it chooses to exercise that intervention?
Some in our country are fond of saying that our affairs are inextricably linked with those of the US, unfortunately that is bollocks. Sure, if the US ceased to be one of OUR allies, it would knock us for a six, but it would make very little difference to the US if they lost us (apart from a convenient spot in the pacific to park military installations).
Posted by: dan at November 21, 2004 07:22 PMIf something like the UN or the ICC represented honest, reasonable accountability, there would be no problem with this from the broad middle of the U.S. However, between UNSCAM, the indisputable, corrupt financial ties between other Security Council members and Saddam Hussein, and the presence of nations like Libya and Sudan on the UN Human Rights Commission, added to the overwhelmingly -- and let's call it as it is -- sinful and corrupt desire among many to stick it to the U.S. for no better reason than to shove a thumb in our eye via the ICC, I defy anyone outside the U.S. to suggest with a straight face that we should entrust our President or any U.S. citizen to the "international community's" notion of justice.
And the notion that we could waltz merrily along without Australia as an ally, given the implications for your security and ours, just doesn't hold water. No, we don't "need" you economically, but one can only go just so far successfully in the world with absolutely no friends at all. Could we swing it? I suppose, but talk about your pyrrhic victory.
Posted by: Rev. Mike at November 21, 2004 09:40 PMMike, I didn't mean to offend. I am not at all suggesting that the US is the big bad. I am merely suggesting that the US has enormous power over other countries and has demonstrated that it is not afraid to use it.
At the same time there is a strain of argument from the US about the ICC and other forms of international scrutiny and even domestic scrutiny (eg the whole Gitmo brouhaha). I think that even in western, democratic "rest of the world" countries there is a rustling of concern as to what will or could happen.
Not because the US is a bad place (although some might think so) but because it makes no difference. The US government could become the nation/state equivalent of the boogy man and there is nothing that the rest of the world could do about it. Whether or not the US is benevolent and friendly with the rest of the world is entirely up to the US. And the rules and boundaries of the relationship have changed from what they once were.
So you get a bunch of countries who have less control than ever in their relationship with the world's only superpower. I just think that it is inevitable that people will react negatively.
Sorry for long comment, wouldn't mind continuing the conversation if you are willing.
Posted by: dan at November 21, 2004 11:31 PMMike:
I think maybe you are being a little bit sensitive what some people in another country think about your country. My post about boycotting America wasn't "mischief", I think the idea of boycotting America is just about as bright as the blogger who wants to boycott Canada.
To all the Americans who are offended by the articles in the Toronto Star...of all papers...or Carolyn Parrish take a freakin chill pill. Why does it bother you so much when people disagree with you? Especially nut jobs like Parrish or the Star.
Are we not our own nation? You rightly mention that America can't trust other nations, and Canada can't trust everything it hears out of the US. We are only "true friends" when we accept and follow all the BS that comes out of Washington. What a load of crap.
I keep hearing from some American bloggers about how Canada are such lousy allies because we didn't go in to Iraq. Saddam was a really bad guy, but it was mostly Saudis that flew those planes in to the towers. It was mostly Saudis that funded the organization. The Saudis are one of the most repressive corrupt regimes in the world with little regard for human rights. However the Saudis are sold arms by the US and considered allies. The Arab world sees the double standard, and so do many Canadians. We see the inconsistency and we are not going to accept everything we hear out of the US. We have to be convinced that going to war is actually consistent with our principles.
The easy thing to do would have been to agree to the war. Canada could have sent a token force like almost every other member of the coalition of the willing and there would have been no diplomatic or economic backlash against us. Staying out of the war was the right thing to do, we had every right to do it, and we stood by our principles by doing so.
We live by some of the founding principles of western civilization like inalienable human rights of everyone. Naturally we are a little dismayed when our strongest ally decides that some people have less rights than others, and decide to go against treaties that they have signed. What good is the word of the US in any international agreement if they decide to break those agreements when they feel it is in their best interests? What kind of people would we be if we just stood by and accepted all this? That would make us sad and pathetic.
Posted by: Leighton Tebay at November 21, 2004 11:51 PMSo, LT, I think we should plan a little Christmas visit to Tehran, sometime shortly after the smoke clears from the other FedEx packages we would send them. As long as we're in the neighborhood, I suppose we could use this as a stepping off point to Riyadh. You guys in? ;)
Posted by: Rev. Mike at November 22, 2004 04:55 PMWhen the US sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold. I wonder if that will be the case by the end of the 21st century?
The US is currently a hyper-power, Canada, the UK, Australia et al are not, nor do they wish to be. Relationship between our countries is at another critical point, and not just because of military policy.
So Canada said a strong no to Iraq. What short memories people have. US allies went into Afghanistan and remain there.
I have to ask what LT asked. Why do US citizens get so upset when other countries exercise their sovereignty? And why do US citizens get fired up over the Carolyn Parrish's? We don't take rogue MP's seriously, and remain puzzled that our neighbours do.
Canadians are far more concerned about trade issues and the powerful lobby groups that cripple both our economies.
Your President accepted his invitation to visit Canada. And he is doing so on his terms. God bless his soul, his proposed thankyou is a few years late. Whatever the president choses to say will play well to his domestic audience. Stop by, say howdy and move on sir. We have our lives to live.
(That sounds very American doesn't it?)
The tenor has been set. Any nation or international body saying no to the US is villified. Quelle surprise. We remain allies, but not as yes men the US government expected once again.