Voice of reason urged for Canadians.
The debates and dialogue swirling around the U.S. presidential election are of strategic interest to Canadians and Canadian businesses.
Both George W. Bush and John Kerry support protectionist trade policies. This is troubling given that 85 percent of Canada’s exports go to the U.S.
The growing clash of cultures (Islamic and Western liberalized democracies) in the Middle East resulting from globalization grows more worrisome daily. The infringement of personal rights stemming from Canadian anti-terrorism legislation and the U.S. Patriot Act is alarming.
As Canadians, we will be affected by the actions of the successful presidential candidate; nevertheless, we have no input into who is elected.
Or do we? General Lee Butler, U.S. Air Force (retired), submitted a report to Canada’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade back in December 1998. “As you examine the vital question of how Canada, this extraordinary nation of diverse peoples and great friend of the United States, should align itself on the continuing role of nuclear weapons, I encourage you to ponder the opportunity and the stakes at hand deeply,” he said.
“My country is badly in need of a new moral compass on this issue . . . we have learned to live with a weapon that numbs our conscience and diminishes our humanity. We need to hear voices of reason, urging us to a higher standard of morality and global leadership. We await your call.”
I respond to Butler’s call – not on the nuclear issue, but the growing war in Iraq – with what I believe is an innovative solution.
Bush has stated on many occasions that the war on terrorism is not about oil but rather about bringing western democracy to the Middle East. It is about regime change, attacking terrorists on their home ground, and doing the right thing.
I propose that we divide the Gordian knot in Iraq into two issues – political and economic. France, Germany and other United Nations’ countries are hesitant to lend their military support to resolve the situation. However, if the oil infrastructure and its cash flow were segregated from the political issue of regime change, a solution might be possible.
Oil assets should be passed to non-western “Trustees in Bankruptcy,” directed and controlled by the United Nations. This would silence the concern that the conflict is an oil grab by the U.S.
United Nations peacekeeping forces might be willing to secure and protect the oil assets under the direction of the trustees who would only pay legitimate claims.
The political issue should then be easier to resolve by the current U.S.-led coalition, as it pursues its stated quest of doing the right thing and establishing the democratic hallmarks required to support peace and regime change.
I believe the U.S. would then use its best efforts to put the political infrastructure in place and leave the country. Once the economic component has been removed, the Islamic leadership currently jockeying for position will have less interest, resulting in decisions based solely on political considerations.
This proposal would seem to be a win-win situation. The presumed result:
* The new U.S. president should be able to solicit the support of the European Union and United Nations for the limited participation needed to protect the assets.
* The trustees would be the face of representatives from developing, non-western countries and not the face of the West.
* The trustee activities would be monitored by the United Nations.
* The U.S. could bring its 125,000 soldiers home. To date, the U.S. Defense Department reports almost 1,100 U.S. military killed, 25,000 wounded and 125,000 Iraqi citizens killed or wounded. This has to stop.
I believe this is a framework for discussion for those seriously pursuing a solution. Unfortunately, it won’t happen. The reason can be found in a September 2000 report produced by the Washington, D.C.-based Project for the New American Century, which describes itself as a non-profit educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
A report within this document details how, in 1997, before Bush became president, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and others associated with the current Bush Administration helped craft what I believe to be the plan for world domination that is unfolding in the Middle East.
Winston Churchill once said the problem with allies is that sometimes they have opinions.
I hope our U.S. readers will accept the recommendation offered by this “ally” who is troubled by the U.S. coalition troops bogged down in Iraq and who, as a former soldier, wants to see my comrades-in-arms extricated.
Bill C-36, Canada’s version of the U.S. Patriot Act, was introduced on Oct. 15, 2001, without public consultation and passed quickly by the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada.
The infringement of Canadian human rights by this bill is frightening. The tragic story of Canadian Maher Arar, a 34-year-old engineer, detained during a stopover in New York in 2002 and subsequently interrogated by U.S. officials, deported and allegedly tortured for a whole year in Syria, is a direct result of this legislation.
This fall Canada’s House of Commons will attempt to renew Bill C-36. This is not in the best interest of Canadians.
As Gen. Butler once told us, we need to hear voices of reason, urging us to a higher standard of rectitude and global leadership.
Speak up, Canada!
Web watch:
www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Note: This article was originally published in 2005.
