|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-09 15:46:04
Interview given by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos
I didn’t get to see the interview, but I took the time to read about it. I thought he used the opportunity on the American broad cast well.
For what my 2-cents is worth. ;)
Has anyone else seen it? If so what are your thoughts on his foreign policy interview?
Steve.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-09 17:23:49
I also read the interview.
I think Mr. Chretien did a good job representing the views of the majority of Canadians. I totally agree with his opinion, especially the 'regime change' aspect.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-09 18:53:23
Prime Minister Cretien did an excellent job of representing the Canadian point of view. I think his speech giving Bush and Blair credit for a job well done ensuring Iraq disarmed was a brilliant piece of diplomacy. It provides Bush/ Blair with a face saving excuse to back down from attacking Iraq. Probably futile but worth a chance.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-10 13:26:42
Fatmomma, but we have to keep an eye on the objective. We must collect the Chemical and Biological weapons. If Saddam's 30,000 goons are sitting on them and will not turn them over then like any criminal gang we may have to police them, this will likely result in some type of force bring used.
If you think Saddam doesn't have any of these weapons, here is an interesting link. I believe it is accurate because all last week regular Iraqi troops have been surrendering.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12265723,00.html
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-10 23:32:34
That is what the weapon inspectors are doing. While Saddam is cooperating there is no logical reason to attack. Send in more inspectors. If the USA would pay its backbill to the UN it would be very affordable. You do not "liberate" a people by killing them.
Many of the American/British "proofs of WMD" have proven fraudulent including the other day the claim that Iraq was shopping for uranium in Africa 2 years ago was declared fraudulent by the UN and independent experts. I hadn't heard of any Iraq troops surrendering but if they are it is because they know they will be killed in an attack as they are poorly armed.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-11 15:47:20
Fatmomma, I agree you don't liberate people by killing them.
Here is another link; I hope you read it. Just select it, then copy and paste it into your address window. Then click on go or press enter. It will take you to the news cast.
http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=89327
Snippet from story;
Land-war commanders have been devising procedures to make it possible for entire Iraqi units to signal the allies that they prefer to stay out of the fight. Units that indicate they intend to stay on the sidelines will be exempt from air and land attack and may not even be taken prisoner, allied officers say.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: AG
Date: 2003-03-17 22:09:51
It is a very sad day for human justice and democracy. Bush has dictated to the world that he and his entourage will continue to annhilate Iraq and its suffering people, paying no heed to world opinion, humanity or compassion. He claims Saddam is evil, but Iraq has not attacked the United States. It's the other way around. This war is about oil and we all know it. Saddam is not a threat to world peace. The United States is. They are the destabilizing force that will ultimately decimate any diplomatic efforts taken by any nation towards peace. I am glad that Canada has said no to the war. We must continue to step up as a humitarian nation and do what is right.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-18 16:28:15
Respectfully, I don't agree.
1) Oil is a major component of the war. IF we lift sanctions, and Saddam remains in power, then Saddam will use the ENORMOUS purchasing power that oil revenues generate for desctructive ends.
However, to pretend that the US will benefit grandly from "seizing control" of Iraq's oil is silly.
2) I don't think leaving Saddam to rape, torture and gas Iraqis is the "compassionate" thing to do.
3) The fact that Canada will act only if Syria, Guinea and Angola give us teh go ahead is nothing to make us proud.
4) Saddam is not a threat to world peace, but he is a threat to the US.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-20 00:27:31
1 The UN had lifted sanction so that Iraq could sell enough oil to buy food. Sanctions can be limited
2. Killing innocent Iraqis is not the answer either
3. Canada will only agree if the UN agrees; never mind the small countries those that disagree on attacking while peaceful means (weapons inspectors) are proceeding with Iraq"s cooperation include: China, Russia, and France; a majority of the permanent 5
4. Saddam is at present not threatening world peace; The USA/Britain "coalition" in acting without the UN is destabilizing World Peace
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-20 09:11:36
Fatmomma,
I respect your thinking and know your heart to be good. I think we all pray for peace.
I don't think China, Russia or France are honest brokers in the peace movement.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-09 20:39:47
I have only read the CBC account of it on the CBC News website. Does anyone know where the entire transcript can be found on the Internet?
Based on the CBC account alone I personally have some problems with the arguments presented. They seem incomplete. However, I would reserve judgement until I see the entire transcript.
One problem with having an outgoing PM represent Canada on these long term issues is that he knows he is "off the hook" come February 2004. For evidence of this sort of problems we only have look at the acrimony caused within the Liberal Party alone by the latest budget.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-09 21:22:30
I don't believe there is any problem with an "outgoing" Prime Minister of many years standing addressing an "urgent" matter. I am sure, he doesn't feel "off the hook"; he would like to finish his term as Prime Minister on a positive note. I feel more confident with a long term leader assessing a situation than I would by someone new to the job. No learning time here. I have never been a big Cretien fan; I had my doubts of his standing his ground; but I think, we can be very proud of him. I think Pierre Trudeau would be proud of him.We don't need another American apple polisher like Brian Mulroney.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 00:27:02
Well, "fatmomma", I suppose the honourable Mr. Paul Martin and his future cabinet may also strongly disagree with your views on so-called "positive (parting) notes" from "outgoing" PMs.
BTW, an interview with ABC TV at the honourable Prime Minister's residence does not strike me in any way as an "urgent matter".
As for the rest of your comments I hope you actually did read or viewed the entire interview as I have. I think your comments on other PMs would be off-topic here.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-10 23:41:36
Who cares what Mr Paul Martin may think; he is not elected as a leader of anything yet. The Canadian people have elected Mr Cretien as their Prime Minister NOW. Others should not count their chickens till they hatch.
My comments on other Prime ministers is not off topic due to someone criticizing The genuine Prime Minister
making a speech.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 16:12:23
No, its deadly important that we hear what Paul Martin thinks. He will be Prime Minister before the Canadian electorate decides which party forms the next government.
I understand you mean that he may not win the leadership race, but that only means that it is deadly important that all the potential Prime Ministers must speak up and not avoid this topic.
It will still be relevent in November.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-11 21:54:32
Every potential leader should let us know where they stand on the issue; agreed. It is not deadly important; much of this war problem may be decided before an election is called. It is only important to know what their priorities are and whether We would vote for them. I realize many Canadians and Canadian businesses would prefer our government side with the USA because we will suffer economically for making a strong independent stand. If we are to grow as a country; we must be willing to make our own decisions. Mr Bush is a very controlling and vindictive leader; but I have faith in the American people and that they will
elect a more fair minded president in the near future. The American people have always had a strong stand on promoting free speech.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 16:31:12
You are right that things are probably already decided. You are also right that the business community wants us to side with the US for economic reasons - which are legitimate.
You are right that we have to make our own decisions.
I have faith in the American people too.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 00:12:53
Okay, I found and read the transcript - the URL's text to it was too small to make out on my screen.
I think our PM's comments that the US "won" may have been a bad choice of words. IMO, it should not be a case of whether the US or Iraq wins. The issue should remain as enforcement of 1441. We should not allow this crisis to become an issue of whether the US "wins". This was one of the biggest concerns that Blair had. If this becomes a "US victory" then the US would have effectively acted alone and THAT is the dangerous precedent nobody wants. THAT and the fact that Saddam's non-compliance justified it was THE big reason why Blair supported the US from the outset. I must commend PM Blair for his intelligence and courage.
I also do not believe implementation of 1441 has been "won" as Iraq has still not satisfied 1441 and persists in delay tactics and evasion. It has also in effect, gained an advantage by splitting the UN, the EU and NATO. If anyone did win then that was a clear Saddam victory, even though the US may eventually still deny Saddam of "escape by dividing the enemy".
I also have a difference in opinion regarding "regime change". I understand Chrétien's argument but the issue was not well explored in the interview. For instance I think if enforcement of 1441 is left to military action there may be no viable consequence but regime change.
If the conquering force leaves after Iraq is defeated many of the Ba'ath/Saddam opponents would be encouraged to seize the opportunity to start uprisings. Chaos and bloodshed may result if there is no stabilizing force. This is what happened back in 1991. OTOH, if Saddam and his forces are left intact then history suggests that he will simply bide his time and work out some other dangerous scheme to secure his power. It is his nature. Iran, his arch enemy, may just have started their own nuclear program and Saddam has few friends in the area so great instability will remain if his regime stays in power. Should the US go back again and risk another perhaps deadlier round of acrimony with its UN partners and unilateral military action with Iraq?
And if the conquering force remains but does not interfere in local affairs, dangerous situations can still arise. That was what happened in Srebrenice in July 1995 when the Dutch UN force was completely unable to prevent the Bosnian Serbs from massacring the Bosnian Muslims refugees because it was not their mandate and they were repeatedly refused support from the French UN General Janvier. In August, 1995, NATO began a fierce air campaign against Serb forces around Sarajevo. By December 1995, the three Yugoslav ethnic groups are able to sign a peace treaty in Paris, UN turns over command to NATO and the Bosnian "war" is over.*
Finally, should the tables be turned and the Kurds or Shiites attack Saddam, what should an occupying force do if they choose to stay? IMO, the conquering force needs to finish the job, let the local people freely elect themselves a fresh government under UN supervision and then leave. Democratic elections would at least allow people to "own" their choice of government. If a government is not "owned" by its people it is always judged to be illegitimate and results in instability.
I think the case against regime change is never an absolute. It may be necessary depending on the circumstances and options. This is not a popular idea but IMO popular ideas are not always applicable and the decisions of leadership are often unpopular.
On the whole, I do think Chrétien kept the discussion fairly non-committal and I think that's where it belonged given his position, the interview's forum and the fact that there are still days and other possible issues down the road - he needed to keep Canada's options open and he basically did that.
Vox Canadiana
* If you are curious you may wish to read a 1996 French news program critic of General Janvier and the French government's handling of that particular UN fiasco. The account is quite disconcerting. Were the unfortunate French attitudes actually institutional or were they just the mistakes or flaws of individual(s)? Are the claims of the French journalist Julliard still valid today?
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/janvier.html
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-10 13:26:32
I'm truly sorry, but i do not agree at all with statements that Saddam is not cooperating. The chief inspectors have truly indicated that Iraq is cooperating, how can you even say the contrary? The inspectors are neutral in their approach. Saddam is stalling, and that is wrong, but the resolution which will be presented by the US is also wrong.
As for regime change, yes it may be necessary in some cases, and i understand that, but when Mr. Bush's priority is regime change (welll actually his priority changes from day to day as stated in the New York Times) then it is against all known international laws.
We already know that the US has bought the UN vote of the three african countries. So the US will probably have the majority vote, but it WILL BE VETOED by Russia and France, and i think they are doing the only moral thing they can do, and i will be forever in debt to them. Yes, the US will atacck nonetheless, and yes there will be a worldwide fracture (at least now i have much much less respect for the US then before this crisis, and i think the majority of people of the world think like me, i don't know for others, but i will remember this for a very long time)... But in face of morality, there is currently no solution but to oppose the veto.
On another point, i am aware of the fiasco of Srebrenica, and General Javier is as much as to blame as the civil person overseeing the whole operation (A Japanese national who had top authority - and refused all requests for air support - don't remember his name). General Javier could have done something, especially during one meeting of the military (without the civil people), and he hesitated for a long time, and finally refused, but i don't think he was acting on behalf of the French Government, i think he was simply scared (Don't ask me of what since i don't know!)...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-10 13:41:32
Hi Vox,
I think the example you are looking for is Serbia.
Slobodan Milosevic was a regime change and Canada was part of that action. Canadian military action help stop the killing of Muslims in Kosovo, even though the resolution was rejected by the United Nations.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-10 17:09:12
Yes, and that was decided with NATO, and that was probably legal if you consider the recommendations of the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.
If you check point by point (I haven't done so myself though), I think that invadling iraq on the premises of humans right abuses would not stick if you regard only the recommendations of the commission... It would strickly be illegal.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 16:13:55
NATO is a military alliance. So, it does not have the same "authority" as the UN security council.
If the Warsaw Pact countries decided to bomb Greece, would you be nodding your head and saying, "its perfectly legal, they are the Warsaw Pact?"
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-12 20:46:21
"A sad day for democracy. We lost a good fellow."
Djindjic, the man pivotal in the deposition and arrest of Slobodan Milosevic, was gunned down and killed Wednesday in what appears to have been a deliberate assassination by a Belgrade-based organized crime group.
I know this is off topic, but since we were discussing it here I thought it was worth mention.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1047472640130_5///?hub=TopStories
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-10 14:18:09
My last statement was probably a bit strong . The only resolution at the UN currently that i accept, is the one proposed by Canada :
1. step by step points of disarmement
2. limited timeframe
3. meeting of the security council to report if each step is ok or not (vote on each of these steps)
4. If one of the steps is not ok within the end date, then automatic use of force (this would probably lead to regime change, even though it might not, the goal here is disarmement, and not regime change)...
The only problem with Canada's proposed resolution is the time frame, it should be limited in time, but the inspectors should be given enough time (So I'm not sure if the 28th of Marcho would be enough for the inspectors - the inspectors would have to decide)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-10 18:54:26
#300,000 troops ( 99% US, correct?)some are bombing more than before, cutting fences, and watching "Rambo Does Iraq".
Bribery and threats are American diplomatic stratagies. Will Iraq set up its Guntanoma Bay? Interogation includes just minor torture?
The Americans set the Iraqi Kurds up last time. They did the same with the Hungarians in 1956.
Arrogant Ari represents his people.
The US sets up Democratic Dictatorships> Ask the Afghistan population, Ask the Pakistans--on and on--The kid in Gr. 8 is going to take the Gr.1 kids slongshot but why?
To create democracy? Like in Turkey, Afghanistan, Palestine?
One does not seem to see a great deal of uncoerced support!
When Uncle Sam wants Canada, will Canada be able to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-10 20:08:27
critictrue1 asks, "When Uncle Sam wants Canada, will Canada be able to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction?"
Yes we could and would, you see we do keep records on what and were our deadly virus are. It is called a paper trail. :)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-10 23:50:59
OH but would a G W Bush believe a paper trail; We all know about the fraudulent papers the US / Britain revealed. Many were proven to be fraudulent or old and plagurized. How quickly some forget. Mr Bush doesn't want to believe weapon inspectors; why would he believe our proof
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-11 15:40:25
Well it worked for South Africa and the country of Ukraine, both countries had WMD. No invasion there they turned everything over and had it destroyed.
Saddam says he cares so much about his people, don't you think he should just leave the country for a year or two?
One such as you must believe that he would be welcome back to Iraq after two years? Correct?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-11 18:45:16
It seems that all the US and UK feel obliged to produce in regards to 'contrary evidence' is to call someone a liar.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-13 07:41:45
By GRAEME SMITH
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail (March 12)
— After decades of denying that anthrax was used on Canadian soil, the Defence Department has asked a university professor to re-examine its history of experimenting with the deadly spores.-
It seems that paper trails get are not like Roman Aquaducts.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 11:29:34
Generally good. But one thing confuses me:
Chretien says he thinks regime change is a dangerous concept which he cannot support.
But, wasn't the mission in Afghanistan twofold:
(1) Chase terrorists.
(2) Topple the Taliban.
So, isn't toppling the Taliban "regime change".
Why wasn't the PM worried about regime change then? Why now?
Anyway, I'm sure its a nuance that eludes me. If anyone can offer some explanation, please do.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-12 14:49:46
For me, when Afghanistan was invaded it was to get the terrorists, no? I'm not really sure but i think it was the taliban who actually decided to defend the terrorists, no? (I'm not really sure, can someone please confirm?)
Furthermore, and more importantly, the taliban regime was never actually recognized internationally. It was actually the Northern Alliance (with Massoud) which was recognized as the official government of afghanistan at the UN. So legally there was no 'regime change', since the taliban were not recognized by the UN. If i recall the only countries which recognized the taliban as the official government were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (and maybe Yemen or Qatar?)...
So Chretien was actually right when he was saying he is scared of any regime change...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-12 20:57:45
Sometimes people are "scared" because they simply do not know what to do.
Vox Canadiana
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-13 15:16:12
I get your point, but it does seem a little bit of hair splitting. I mean, if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, then it seems like there's no set rules for when the international community officially recognizes a government.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-13 20:26:43
In Sept, 2000 only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as legitimate. The exiled government of President Burhanuddin Rabbani, whose alliance controlled only 10% of Afghanistan at the time was still in possession of the UN seat allotted to Afghanistan and was recognized by the rest of the world. On Sept 22,2001 the Saudis and the UAE withdrew their recognition and Pakistan not too long after.
I don't think "rules" is the way to consider the issue of recognition really. There are a number of reasons why one country might or might not want to "recognize" the government of another country.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-14 04:35:45
I guess it entirely depends on the country. I myself, and i assume most governments of the world base themselves on the UN to decide what is the real representative government.
I also think the UN General assembly, as well as the security council are allowed to decide by vote who represents a government, as was the case for China and Taiwan.
It all depends on the eye of the beholder.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-13 22:06:31
I believe; the war lords of Afghanistan affected the regime change anyhow; with a little help from their friends. Anyhow, that war was sanctioned by the UN
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-14 14:24:43
It doesn't matter who sanctions it. If the UN sanctions war on Newfoundland, that doesn't mean we send troops there.
the point is, if the PM is entirely uncomfortable with regime change then what were we doing in Afghanistan. UN or no UN, if you think regime change is a bad thing, then you should ALWAYS think regime change is a bad thing.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-14 17:11:52
We could argue a very long time i think on this topic, because it also depends what is the definition of 'regime'. The PM's attitude is consistent in my eyes, if you consider 'regime' as 'internationally recognized through the UN'.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-14 22:56:41
I think we are all getting a little confused. When a country is legally invaded; it is normal to make changes in the leadership. They are guilty of war crimes etc.: the county"s people must have a hand it picking the new leaders. The regime change Cretien was refering to was regime change without an invasion sanctioned. It was Bush's demand that even if Iraq disarmed completely; he wanted a regime change; this is unprecedented. I agree; unless the people of the country affect this change; it will be resented and not effective unless it is another dictatorship. I don't think I explained it well
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-03-15 16:12:54
Exactly, I think the US will have a heck of a time keeping control over the different Iraqi factions...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
