Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Part I

Finding Canada's place in the world

LLOYD AXWORTHY

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 8:50 PM EDT 15/02/08

Part I: We need a new road map, Lloyd Axworthy argues. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Woldorf P. Flywheel from Canada writes: plus ca change
  2. Michael Sharp from Crocus-Daffodilville, Canada writes:

    Oh lord.

    An ex-LPC MP giving us the anti-American line.

    These guys need new writers.
    No wonder they're not in power.

    Liberal foreign policy: whatever the Americans do, we don't.

    Yawn.
  3. Cheap Skate from Vancouver, Canada writes: The first two comments on this article should learn to read. I didn't see much in the way of America bashing. I did see something different. A plea for Canada to make it's own road. A plea to create a path and a plan that does not owe allegiance to any other country. Why does not following the American plan automatically lead to America bashing? I am a Canadian working in the U. S. and even die hard Republicans here are crying for change. The general populace are fed up with the way things are and have been moving. It’s the same cry that is coming from many other countries. From Russia to Australia. We must create that same debate in Canada. Not with a reference to other countries, not even the U. S. We need to ask the question “What do we want for our country?”, and we need to ask it from our own selfish interests. What is in the interest of Canada and Canadians? Just in case you want to start the debate here’s a few to ponder: Should 80% of our commercial trade effort be focused on one market? Does Canada really have a moral leadership or are we considered naïve and unable to demonstrate leadership? What does the rest of the world really consider the Canadian perspective to be?
  4. Michael Crowell from Halifax, Canada writes: Lloyd if you are reading this I don't mean to be cruel but you are an outdated left over from the Trudeau era that is so out of touch with reality you will never see the light of day. Please spare us your anti American dogma you have been peaching for the last 30 years. Had we followed the Liberal line of you and Trudeau we would all be worshipping statues of Lenin, Marx and the rest of their ilk. I am always bewildered why they have you on different shows as a so called expert. You are nothing more than a closet Socialist who would destroy the only economic system that has proven successful in the histroy of the world, Capitalism. Little wonder why the Liberal Party will be gone from power for the next 20 years.
  5. E Z from Canada writes: Oh lord.

    Michael Sharp's commenting policy: whatever the article is about, cheer for Harper and bash the Liberals.

    If ever there was a need for new writers, it's you.
  6. Garry Sugden from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: All counties drift in their foreign policy from one administration to the next. Canada is no different.

    Axworthy was a central voice in keeping Canada out of Iraq; good call!

    By the time that Afghanistan was ramping up, Canada needed an aggressive effort to balance out the Iraq decision. Paul Martin initiated it, Harper is just following the administartion before him. Would Axworthy have had the judgement? Doubt it.
  7. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: Lloyd Axworthy was the head of OAS several years ago, flew to Peru, and averted a civil war financed by George Soros.

    Not being an expert on left or right wing politics, I can only assure you that Lloyd Axworthy is a scholar and gentleman, well worthy of the Order of Canada. Best Regards.
  8. E Z from Canada writes: Michael Sharp,

    By your sharp logic, because Lloyd Axworthy criticized the Bush administration, he's anti-American and Yank-bashing.

    So by your own sharp logic, you, who constantly criticize the Liberal governments, are anti-Canadian and Canada-bashing.

    Ya just don't get it, do you?
  9. Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: A tight essay with more than a few good ideas for the way forward. I'd love to see Axworthy re-enter politics. The country needs him and a few other talented, highly qualified Liberals waiting in the wings - presumably for the right moment. On with the right moment, already!
  10. The Bubble from Canada writes: Mr Axworthy is right about the debate and the map, it takes a real rotten person to say some of the things written above. The man has been one of the extremely few politicians who really are above reproach in Canada. We need someone with class on the right like Joe Clark to step forward to get the jackals to heal; it does you folks real damage to speak so disgracefully about this man.
    Half of America would speak less disrespectfully about Bush.
  11. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Simple Canada: stop lecturing the world. Just that would get you much more respect...
  12. The Bubble from Canada writes: Jean Malice you sound like you're not from here.
    Maybe if we just shut off all the energy to the states, they would listen. The USA is wholly dependant on Canada now, no if's and or butts, if we ever get some politicians with yarbles in Ottawa, American could be put on it's knees.
  13. wilfrid sabourin from Canada writes: Before Canada can hope to come up with a satisfactory approach to help on the international scene it must approach what is and has been happening in our own country for the past 5 or so decades. Is our country really united or is it devided. We have a large percentage of our population that refers themselves as ' Quebecois ' others as francophones and a large number of our immigrants wish to hold unto customs and approaches from where they come from instead of adapting to Canadian values whatever that means. We have regions within our country who are very opposed to the approach of the federal system as it now stands. Our situation in the far north is vunerable. Space does not allow to continue. Do you get the picture?
  14. Don't Shoot Until You're Shot from Mayberry, Canada writes:

    Let's begin by rejoining international efforts to rehabilitate UN peacekeeping efforts using the Responsibility to Protect principle endorsed by the world summit in 2005. This involves rewriting the rules of engagement for the protection of people, primarily by setting up international means of prevention to support fragile states before they fall into turmoil, equipping regional and UN peacekeepers with appropriate equipment to suffocate conflicts before they grow, and providing major aid quickly to post-conflict regions as recommended by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown just a few weeks ago.
    ----------------------------

    Sorry folks, but the day of peacekeeping in Mayberry are over.
  15. siren call from Canada writes: What a nice, lean essay.

    And great to see someone with political power speak so bluntly about the great Afghan adventure.

    Every other country in the world begins its debate on foreign policy with some version of -- what's in it for us?

    That's not a bad place to start (although a rotten place to end up) and it's more than time Canada started from a selfish place and expanded. As it is now, we seem to second guess what the Americans might want and go there.

    Also -- Axworthy is dead on regarding arctic sovereignty. Closet the flags and chest thumping, send the scientists to chart the area and politically, hold a summit for the northern nations involved ( the US).
  16. The Bubble from Canada writes: I don't think any country can claim to be clear on the homefront, especially America. What we need to do first is rid ourselves of the underhanded American presence designed to get the oil for free. Then we would have a little more harmony. Quebecois are a lot easier to deal with, at least they are not covert in their demands on our system.
    It's this American pressure designed principally for taking oil that is the big problem.
  17. siren call from Canada writes: wilfrid sabourin from Canada writes: Do you get the picture?
    ..............................

    Not really.

    Unless you mean to paint a picture of Canada in such utterly bleak terms as to have us all stick our heads in a nearby snowbank and hope for suffocation.

    Many countries are beset by regionalism. In a country as large as ours, it's a given. So? Is there nothing to unite us?

    As for immigrants, that's been difficult for Canadians and newcomers since Cook figured the people he was meeting were calling themselves Nootka.

    If you think we should solve questionable regional issues, many of which are simply used to play political games (I say that as an Albertan), how would you go about addressing the issues you have raised?
  18. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: There are some good points on this article. As right as he is about Afghanistan, it is a bit misleading to present this as an 'Afghanistan vs. insert 3rd world disaster zone here' debate.

    We probably could do more good for dollar spent providing mosquito nets to Chad, but we could then again just as easily do both mosquito nets and Afghanistan.

    More seriously though is the direction of Canada's foreign policy vis a vis America. Geography and economics dictate we are if not husband and wife, common law couple. Perfect example is the Iraq war. Chretien kept us out of it. The result? We were called surrender monkeys for awhile by the Americans, but did we make an alliance with North Korea or all of a sudden go communist? no.

    Examine France during the cold war. France pursued a foreign policy notably different from the United States. There was chaffing between the two, but was there ever any doubt that France would fight against the Soviets? There are degrees of foreign policy, Canada could elect the Marxist Leninist Party we would still be 98% in line with the USA.

    Mr. Axworthy isn't arguing that we should invade the U.S.A or start enriching uranium for Tehran. Rather, we should pursue a foreign policy agenda distinct from the United States. In what world is this Anti-American. Personally, I would like Canada to play a more involved role in Central America. That cannot possibly be taken as 'anti-american'
  19. Chris E. from vancouver, Canada writes: 'Recent surveys indicate that Canadians increasingly care about international matters and want our country to play a constructive role in world affairs.'

    Playing a role in the world takes substance, not just our one vote in the U.N.

    Our post-World War Two society has completely forgotten the Great Depression. We have become so comfortable with contemporary conveniences and lifestyles that we think the easy life will go on forever. We are oblivious to the fact that maintaining what we have will consume our present-day surpluses. We are delusional if we think that we have the material means to lift the world.
  20. siren call from Canada writes: BTW, the nattering nabobs of negativity on this thread just reinforces everything I despise about the current Harper government and especially its foreign policy 'direction'.

    Bitter, pinched, ridiculously partisan and angry commentary supporting a commitment to nothing more visionary than perpetual war.
  21. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: The bubble you made my point clear. Canada is the only small country that cannot be only statisfied to be itself, take care of itself for the benefit of its population. No, It has to lecture the US of course and the rest of the world. I resent that you would -as a typical canadian reaction- label me 'not from here'. Classic example of the Canadian condescendence... So in your Canada, no canadians can have a critical judgement on themselves, on the nation? What a sad state of affair! No surprise now that Canada is oozing Nobel Prize recipients... NOT!
  22. The Bubble from Canada writes: Jean if you're such a proud American, why do you hide behind the Calgary label. Typical American cowardice.
  23. John McCaffery from Australia writes: Yes Lloyd, I think I get it; it means supporting the idea of a 'one world government'.
  24. siren call from Canada writes: John McCaffery -- one world government is what we are currently experiencing under the auspices of the USA.

    It's a New World Order initially proclaimed, I believe, by Bush I.
  25. robert quinn from Japan writes: You know, Lloyd and his brother have been blowing this same smoke up our collective butts for decades, and profited handsomely from having done so. There's a lesson in this for everyone.
  26. nelson gabert from United States Outlying writes: Mr. Axworthy's ideas are in part sound but he is missing some basic requirements for Canada to become respected and paid attention to as it was long ago. Extreme liberalism, bringing in hundreds of thousands of 3rd world people who do not assimilate, but create the conditions of violence and malaise they are used to, the discarding of fought for traditions, the lack of a credible and adequate military and the complacency of Canadians toward their military, the meagre contribution to NATO and to world challenges do not create a country respected by the world. I read and hear much more about Australia, for example, which is generally respected. Canada appears to be a non entity in the news and is a place to go skiing.
  27. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: It is egocentric in the extreme for us to be consumed with discussions of who should provide how many troops for how long, as if Afghanistan were a sandbox in which cartoon Napoleons play with toy soldiers.

    You will note that there was not one word in the Manley Report devoted to the politics of the situation. Not one word about the identity of the players, their history, their allegiances, the prospects for (gasp) peace. The Manley Report was a screed. And lest we forget, this is all in the name of 'freedom'n'democracy'.

    Would it not therefore be appropriate to examine what 'the democratically elected government of Afghanistan' has been up to the past three or four months? Not one word has been mentioned of the general amnesty passed in Lower House covering everyone everywhere, and all the Taliban, who possibly committed 'war crimes', which is American slang for killing US troops, or the Senate Resolution which was passed demanding an immediate end to all ISAF operations. So much for democracy.

    It is time for Canada to demand, and indeed, it would be in far better keeping with our traditions, that Peace Talks for the establishment of a coalition government begin now. It would put Canada ahead of the curve, for once, requiring political bravery, and allow it to contribute what it has always been historically recognized for worldwide.

    So let us leave off our silly preoccupation with our pathetic little puffs of gunpowder in Khandahar, in sad mimicry of all things American. Our strengths lie not with our military, but our diplomatic skills. This will require intellectual honesty, subtlety, and deft management, things sorely missed in Canada's foreign policy to date.
  28. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: What are the advantages for Canada in pursuing so enlightened a foreign policy as to demand Peace Talks?

    1. It anticipates the coming election of Barack Obama, who himself has proposed to stage a worldwide conference of all the players in the Muslim world to discuss, arbitrate and come to terms for peace;

    2.It would be an effective and constructive repudiation of the doomed Bush Doctrine, in which by a wide wide margin, the American public, and more importantly, members of the coming Democratic Administration, would be pleased to hear and be politically useful, thus advancing Canada's cause south of the border;

    3.. It would reestablish an 'independent' foreign policy in the eyes of the world, and we would regain some legitimacy and integrity with our friends in Europe;

    4. We would regain a modicum of respect in the Muslim world, thus distinguishing ourselves from the Americans with their murderous airstrikes, which may translate in reduced threats to our soldiers in Afghanistan;

    5. It would make good politics domestically, especially in the GTA with significant Muslim and Third World electorates;

    6. No down side insofar if it fails, better a failed Peace Conference than a successful airstrike;

    7. It anticipates the inevitable, a coalition government in Kabul; and

    8. Its cheaper than more fighting, and in talking rather than shooting, it saves lives, of both our troops and Aghans.

    Agitating NOW for Peace is a win win proposition. Lester Pearson would have at least tried. Do we have anyone brave enough, smart enough, to take up the challenge?
  29. E. Biggs from Canada writes: I think what Axworthy and a bunch of other have not determined yet is that this is an entirely different world than 20 years ago. With the advent of China as a world leader, India rising in prominence and Putin determined to bring Russia back not to mention the OPEC bunch, it seems obvious with the power plays these outfits have been making Canada has marginal impact.

    The politics of Lester B worked at a time when we were one of the player on the world scene as a moderating force.

    The new players have little respect for anything but power, whether economic or military. With only 2% of the world economy and no effective military they will explain where we can go in no uncertain terms.

    For there to be peacekeepers there has to be peace and that is a rare commodity
  30. Scott Stanley from Langley, BC, Canada writes: I think Mr. Axworthly just doesn't like Americans.

    Consider, he calls for the responsibility to protect, and to ease poverty and help failed and failing states. Well what the heck are we doing in afghanistan? Wouldn't we be doing the same things in Sudan or any one of his other boutique causes?

    As for multilateralism, the afghan mission is UN and NATO approved. Fighting there is our RESPONSIBILITY.

    I won't even bother to mention that it was the liberals that sent us to afghanistan in the first place. Nor the dire consequences to our economy should terrorists attack the US from Canada.

    Mr. Axworthly argues like a second year university student. Sad.
  31. Hmmmer ? from Recovery, Canada writes: Scott Stanley from Langley, BC, Canada writes: I think Mr. Axworthly just doesn't like Americans.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well, I'm not that enchanted with the Yanks these past six or seven years either, so he's not alone.
    They (the people) mostly didn't pay any attention or ask any hard questions at all!

    Although, I do blame bush and his crew for almost all of the mess they/we are in right now. Some of it may have been inevitable.

    To answer some of your questions; We went to Afghanistan to help smash Al-Qaeda but got side tracked when the Yanks took off to Iraq, for no good reason.

    I actually think we should help out in the Sudan and Darfur so, yes we would do some of the same things, but not alone in combat.

    >As for multilateralism, the afghan mission is UN and NATO approved. Fighting there is our RESPONSIBILITY. <

    OK, but not forever without any UN/NATO back up, eh!

    As for the Liberals sending us there I think it was an appropriate response to 9/11.
    I don't think Yanks can blame us if they are attacked from here, they were attacked from the US don't forget. It is their border to protect but we should interdict terror wherever we can.

    I'm really happy we aren't in Iraq in any big way.

    I'm really really happy that, Steve W Harper is not my president!

    Hmmmer. Things that make ya go, hmmm?
  32. Woldorf P. Flywheel from Canada writes: Here are few things to research and ponder: 1)) pulpit diplomacy and Kim Nossal's trenchant critique of it 2) Zaire 1996 - Canada's aborted mission 3) Medac pocket and the use of force by CDN troops in Bosnia - 4) Deployment of civilian white helmets to Kosovo and their rapid withdrawl under escalating conflict 5) Aborted deployment to E. Timor in the absence of lift capability 6) The misuse and understanding of the idea of soft power and subsequent correction by Dean of Kennedy School who developed the term 7) The 180 degree reversal on the use of force in Kosovo after realisng soft diplomacy would not work 8) lowest common denominator politics - finding public support for policies declared bold and innovative when they have large public support is hardly bold (eg the land mines treaty) 9) Andrew Cohen's devastating analysis of how we lost our way in the world. 10) survey after survey showing declining job satsifaction among FSOs at DFAIT (including at least one strike in the 1990s) Of these the two most significant were: The continuous efforts to hide the fact that CDN forces were involved in sporadic and intense fire fights in Bosnia. How many of you have heard of Medac Pocket? The full story about that did not come out until well after. The other is Zaire 1996. Chretien on the advice of his nephew decides to deploy CDN forces to 'save' the 200,000 refugees caught on the border between Zaire and Rwanda - we lack the intel, the lift capability and consent to mount a proper mission - the Mission is aborted and Canada is disgraced. The decision was the PMOs despite opposition from the PCO.
  33. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: I wholeheartedly agree with Lloyd. New map, new map makers.

    We need someone sophisticated and worldly in government that we could see leaving the PMO's office and our country to sit at a round table with a vision never tried before and to present it in a way that would inspire change and a way towards peace.

    I disagree with Lloyd in that we need a peacekeeping military. We need no military at all. Real peacekeeping can be done at that round table, by a visionary that knows how to inspire peaceful trade negotiations with a respect for all humans rights. We will never have that visionary person represent us until we deserve one. Afterall, we get the government we deserve and right now it's evident we deserve very little here or abroad.
  34. Woldorf P. Flywheel from Canada writes: in response to your point about the need for a visionary

    dangerous, very dangerous - see my above points summarising what happens when you give a visionary responsibility for mapping canada's place in the world

    there's a good reason you don't know about the Medac pocket or our failed mission to Zaire in 96. The government of the day didn't want you to know that their goals and values were often at odds with our capabilities, actions and interests
  35. John Percy from Nowhere in particular, Canada writes: robert quinn from Japan writes: You know, Lloyd and his brother have been blowing this same smoke up our collective butts for decades, and profited handsomely from having done so.

    Robert, you can't drop a bomb like that and just walk away. Please elucidate. In what way did Lloyd and Tom Axworthy 'profit handsomely'?

    I'm just curious, and would also like to hear your comparison to todays group of selfless, compassionate and highly intelligent public servants that currently reside in Ottawa.
  36. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Waldorf, peace is only dangerous to those that can't imagine not fighting for it.
  37. Woldorf P. Flywheel from Canada writes: exactly - you must fight for it!

    It cannot just be obtained through soft words of persuasion and actions that are in defiance of capabilities

    there is only one thing more dangerous than making claims that you are going to save the world and that is making promises to save the world without the capability to match those promises

    see Zaire 1996. A devastating blow to Canada's understanding of what it takes to make a REAL difference in the world.
  38. Dan Green from Palm Beach Gardens Florida, United States writes: We Yanks make mistakes, no doubt about it. I would however ask Mr. Axworthy, if he has some mystical solutions to the middle east. Can Canada keep Israel free. Can Canada be the worlds policeman. Can Canada keep a strong North American economy. If the Arabs strike us again, will a piece keeping mission appease them. I would agree with many other Canadians, Llyod just dislikes Americans, always has always will. Canada and its people, are a great country, the Brits arranged it however, that you live next door to the US. Your on one side , the Mexicans are on the other, get over it, or do whatever is in your best interest. On the world stage you are seen as North American, aligned with Americans, Brits, and Aussies, we all have the same values.
  39. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: Axworthy no doubt wishes that Canada could join the so-called Non-aligned Nations/Movement.In general a collection of countries with a way of life that would be anathema to most Canadians.

    I wonder if Axworthy still has his Che Guevara poster in his bedroom.
  40. Don Cafferty from Canada writes: Re 'the changing world landscape', Mr. Axworthy is consistent with the Jan 27 article in the NYTimes magazine, 'Waving Goodbye to Hegemony'. For our political and economic future, Canadians need to be aware that the landscape is changing and how it is changing. The NYTimes article refers more broadly to the 'geopolitical marketplace'. This means for me that when choosing our future direction, we should not overlook that politics and economics are intertwinned. The 'economics' probably responds to the 'what is it that we want', which some commentators have noted. Our military has required reinvestment. Our diplomatic service does as well. The future will be more determined by diplomatic action.
  41. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: Thanks Mr Axworthy.--- This is my take on what the US plan for Afganistan was.
    Now that we have a sympatric western installed Afghanistan president (did he not work for Union Oil of California?) in place.

    'Karzai was a member of the Mujahideen and took active part in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s. The Mujahideen were secretly supplied and funded by the United States, and Karzai was a top contact for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the time. He had close personal contact with CIA Director William Casey and George H. W. Bush, who was Vice President of the United States Karzai and his brothers later immigrated to the U.S. under CIA protection, where Karzai continued to work with the US government and to prepare for further developments in Afghanistan.'

    1/ The first thing is to get an army that is trained by our instructors.
    2/ Next get a domestic police force that will be able to enforce the laws.
    3/ Then set up a legal system around the western model.
    4/ Next is a banking system (not Islamic) that will be compatible with the western banking system.
    5/ Make sure that property rights are enforced
    6/ Invest to obtain financial control where necessary.
    Is this the US long term plan for Afghanistan?

    Ask your MP what our end game is.

    Is this why our young men are there, what do you think?
    Will the people of Afghanistan approve of a plan of this type?

    Who stands to win in the above plan? (Big Oil and Pipelines?).

    The US corporate interests have used the type of plan for years in a many countrys around the world and with the internet not corporate media the chickens are coming home to roast.

    Have a good day everyone.
  42. pants 7 from Japan writes: Society's infatuation with celebrity.
    You don't have to be a celebrity to have a good life and neither does Canada. Its enough that Canada offers freedom and a top quality of life to its residents.
    I think a lot of Canadian 'leaders' push for Canada to try to get on the stage because they are envious of the celebrity status granted to their peers from other countries.
  43. Ken Woodwords from ottawa, Canada writes: If putting Canada's interests first and charting our own foreign policy will be perceived as anti Americanism, let it be.
  44. where's your messiah Now? from Canada writes: Waldorf P. Writes: Its one thing to have multiple and contending foreign policies in a party - no surprises there - its another thing to have a leader capable of bridging, uniting and presenting that policy to the electorate.

    If you think about the 1990s under Chrietien - there was a lot of feel good policy but also a lot of self righteous sanctimonious fluff (see adjoining piece by Axworthy).

    Canada had reached the zenith of hypocrisy with its grandiose claims of being a big player in the world while actually putting little on the table (think Zaire 1996 or E Timor when we lacked the lift capability to deploy forces that our PM committed to these conflicts).

    Now Canada antes up under Harper and he gets dinged.

    Maybe Canadians prefer being sanctimonious and self righteous even though its mostly delusional over paying the price to be at the table.

    I had no idea that one of the key weaknesses of foreign policy under the Chretien liberals was big talk followed by little action. What is Medac pocket and what happened in Zaire 1996?
  45. Jim **** from Canada writes: Dan Green: When did the 'Arabs' strike you? I only recall a few militant suicide bombers from various ethnicities attacking you.

    Of course, since then US retaliation, which was seen as grossly unfair around the Arab and Islamic worlds, has created tens of thousands of militant enemies for America.

    The US public has been preoccupied by the need for respect, reputation and revenge. Most of their foreign policy for the last few years seems to have been driven by these factors. Fortunately the present conflict seems to be bringing about a surge in critical thinking south of the border and some newfound maturity.

    But until the US has decided to abandon its neocolonial aspirations, and returned to the path of libertarian democracy, I think that we need to keep whatever distance we can from them.
  46. Edmond Dusablon from United States writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: Jean you certainly live up to your name.
    I don't lecture, I don't care what you think I am, I call a spade a spade, Americans are a rot on the world. We would be better off if they were shut down and kicked out of our country. And you are not from Canada, you and the people you represent deliberately infect other countries like a violent disease sickened by a mindset that you think you know better because god told you so. All you have to do is stay home I promise never to bother you. A country with so much fat on it's population you could feed most of Africa for a century if you lipo sucked it out of them. America is the last country that has any ability to criticize any other. Murder for oil, torture justified by greed. A country whose culture is so retarded they think American Idols have talent. Whose population wouldn't know when to applaud if there wasn't a sign. The only good thing about America is I get to enjoy watching it go down the toilet. Lloyd is a kind man compared to how I think.

    The Bubble - Still can't get laid, huh? Pathetic. I shudder to think of what kind of foreign policy Canada could adopt to please the likes of you.
  47. David Pankratz from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Just a quick response to the suggestion above that the rest of the world sees us as the same as the Brits and Americans. The truth in the statement is that as we shift more and more to a military role in the world, that is the case. However, in my work in over 40 countries in the last 15 years, it is abundantly clear that Canada is regarded as distinct from both Britain and America, and this is viewed very positively by the citizens of the rest of the world. A little exploration of this reveals that we are considered to be more interested in the welfare of everyone, not just ourselves; that we tend to find ways of solving differences that don't involve the military; and that we collaborate with others to do the right thing in the world, rather than going our own way. Canada's current foreign and military policies are squandering that heritage and threatening to remove Canada from that short list of countries that the citizens of the world regard as 'one of the good guys' - not an ineffectual 'good guy', but a 'good guy' who actively works to make the world a better place. We'll NEVER gain that level of respect militarily, both because we don't have the resources to do significant work on our own; and because that isn't what gains respect from citizens in today's world.
  48. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: The Americans are not liked by most people on this planet which is a real shame-- I have not had a problem visiting the US, in fact we were treated real well --- Is the problem with the US media not telling the people how they are precieved around the world? Have the corporations got control of their government?

    I have sympathy for the common man in the US who is trying to figure out what is going on. I must be a real problem.
  49. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Perhaps we should be realistic. America is our neighbour, and has been a good and peaceful neighbour for Canada-and if Canada would ever encounter problems, I would bet the US would be first in line to help.

    That said, we should come to the understanding that we are a very small population with limited resources. 'Saving the world'and pretending to be some type of world heavyweight on the international scene is NOT what Canada is all about, nor will we ever have the clout of the big boys. So why pretend?

    Parhaps our role in the world is offering a safe country to almost all who wish to join us where rights and opportunities to live in peace and safety is almost unique-where work opportunities are endless along with a strong social and safety network.

    Guns, war, occupation, and foreign nation building is NOT what Canada is all about. Diplomacy and being a neutral power bringing people and nations together should be our world role..........yet that would take vision and political intellegence to figure out......a monster void since the days of Pearson.

    .
  50. Super Troll from Canada writes: I long for the days of Canada being the world's chief diplomats and mediators between Britain and the US. And the world's second largest armed forces.

    It's like Canada's been asleep for the last 40 years.
  51. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: There is something sick afoot in the land if Canadians think our participation in the Afghanistan Colonial War 'raises' our reputation. We see it here often with the war's cheerleaders bemoaning whether Canadians want to be 'players' or mere 'bystanders' upon the world stage.

    It appears to be the mainspring which motivates our policy in Afghanistan. So, before considerations of the plight of the people of Afghanistan, we hear always first, and first always from these apologists for war, of the sanctity of image, the need for meaning for 'Canadians'.

    To ground the first justification for killing and bombing upon considerations of 'image' is an abominable, despicable confession of personal egotism writ large. Beyond the confines of our political careerists who find only humiliation in Canada as a minor actor upon the world's stage, most Canadians do not feel the need to be 'players', and especially do not care for a 'meaningful' role in the world if that meaning is defined by murderous airstrikes, collaboration in torture, and complicity in unlawful, immoral warfare.

    Thus, Canadians are now known to be collaborators in torture, who aid and abet American war crimes. Canadians are now known to cravenly look the other way when one of their own innocent citizen children is tortured and imprisoned. Some repute. Some disgrace.

    If you allow abuse of people, as a matter of principle, it leads to torture. Torture, as a matter of practice, will lead to murder. Murder, as a matter of economy, leads to mass murder. Mass murder, to genocide. You can almost hear it beneath all of the postings here hysterically promoting our pathetic little puff of gunpowder in Afghanistan: the deep desire and lust for flat out, unlimited and eternal war.

    If anyone deserves to be fought, its is not the Taliban, it is these fake Canadian 'patriots' with their deep, misanthropic need for 'meaning'.
  52. The Bubble from Canada writes: Edmund, I hope you shudder. Most Canadians think like I do unless they are businessmen tied to American economics. Word on the street is that Canadians hate what Americans have done in the mideast. Canadians are not fooled by the propoganda barrage of the Bush administration. Most of us are fed up with the fact that a minority has taken over and is using every fascist trick in the book to maintain power for the elite money class of Big Oil. We know what's going on. Most of the American people know they've been duped also. The only people who won't do anything are the spineless politicians the Americans have puched into power here in Canada. I'm glad to see, however, you've taken the mask off Edmund so we know where you're from. So many Americans come on here and use Canadian handles to confuse people who aren't watching close enough.
    Americans have wrecked the NHL too.
  53. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: The bubble can you read or are you blinded by your anti US hate? I am Canadian but I can have a critical vision about my country, something you can't, obviously.
  54. The NeoCynic from Cayman Islands writes: The last thing Afghanistan needs is more military force. The last thing Canada needs is more dead soldiers. But that is precisely what Mr. Manley and the Conservative Government want Canadians to buy into when this issue is put before Parliament. It is those who support this American adventure who stand far more credibly accused of being cowards and anti-Canadian, than we, who see no compelling national interest in this fiasco, of being merely anti-American.
  55. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: The Bubble

    Your style reminds me of the idiot Ricky for a centrist Canada.or maybe Lenny Jones from Bangkok.
  56. The Bubble from Canada writes: Jean Malice, you don't have near the critical view you think. You agree with the government and you agree with the violent aspects of what is going on. You speak like you are not from Canada, your posts are in the third person like many American posters. The only person who would say things like 'maybe when a few canadians get blown up' is an extreme point of view that gives nothing to diplomacy. You are critical of mainstream Canada, your point of view is the minority for a reason and is easy to shoot full of holes because the logic is based on evil.
  57. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: What is your definition of democracy--- Tyler Williams from Seattle? Is it telling another country how to run it's affairs?
  58. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    The Bubble appears to be having difficulty debating. And reading.

    In this news article, Lloyd Axworthy's entire argument is that Canada ought to be undertaking novel initiatives born in Canada rather than following the tune of Americans.

    And yet, amusingly enough, Axworthy's OWN RECORD as FOREIGN MINISTER is a record of following the tune of Americans: On Iraq, On Yugoslavia, on Kosovo, and on land mines - on that last item he was following and supporting American Jodi Williams and her group (that American woman won the Nobel Prize for that effort).

    So no, to the contrary, Axworthy is not resaonably described as a 'Canadian with Canadian aspirations'. Instead, he is merely a politician whose few accomplishments in high office resulted from FOLLOWING actions proposed and initiated by AMERICANS.

    Indeed, Lloyd Axworthy better described as the consummate Liberal blowhard: He complains and complains from the bleachers, but while on the field does sweet piss all of novel substance!
  59. Festina Lente from Tampa Bay, United States writes: The article has stirred up a lot of confusion in the responsibility of Canadian citizens to elect governments that serve and please them. Blaming America for Canada's government is just plain stupid. And as for cutting off trade with the USA, that is another area where ignorant Canadians are not well informed. The majority of Canadians are intelligent and know what is good for Canada. They know that food importations from the US are most helpful to the welfare of Canada as well as refined gasoline inported mostly from the west of the USA. Canada, herself is dependent on oil importations regardless of the extent of the LeDuc and oil sands reserves. Oil from the middle east is vital for the economy of Canada but of course not to the extent of the USA which, incidentally, has enormous oil and gas reserves in her own right. The G&M is famous for selecting malcontented lecturers, both American and Canadian, to engage the discontented. This is though, the best source of information for me as I do not like Murdock papers and views on Canada. I have long said Canada does not take its place in world affairs according to the important stature it consistently maintains. That is her affair but one should not blame the USA for things gone awry, in domestic and foreign policies. I really don't know about all the trolls so mentioned but it is a fact that many posters with American locations are Canadians or former Canadians or just have an interest in Canada. As to Americans ruining the NHL, I would suggest the complainer is just pi$$ed off at the long stay of the cup south of the border. Although Canada invented hockey, the cup was meant to stay in the USA for a long time. Canadians and Americans both know these boards are not a good example of views held in both countries. No matter what America or Canada does and whom is elected to high office, there will always be people like 'us' on these boards, mostly rambling not debating. Malcolm McCallum in Florida.
  60. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Perhaps the irony is missed by 'Still Leaning at 77'.

    That is just the thing: When a man such as Lloyd Axworthy is the head of Foreign Affairs in Canada, it does not matter what some typist in Seattle thinks...

    ... because on issue after issue, from Iraq to Kosovo to Land mines, Ottawa will be spending millions to support the policy initiatives hatched by Americans!
  61. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Perhaps the irony is missed by 'Still Leaning at 77'.---Explain---
  62. The Bubble from Canada writes: Ronald Reagan had his election team come to Ottawa to help Brian Mulroney get elected. George W Bush had his election team come to Canada to help Stephen Harper get elected. All the oil from the oil sands go to the USA while Quebec has to import all of it's oil. Even though the media mainly filters it's reported stories, this is the first time in history a schlub like me has been able to state his point of view like this. I know Canadians, I know what they say in private is not what they say in public, hence the Duddly Doright image many Americans hold of them. In private, Canadians never agree with most of what Americans do with their politics, entertainment (except for jazz and Frank Zappa) their self centeredness or much of their history. Bottom line is the reality, Americans take Canadian oil and anything else they want (softwood lumber) and what Canadians think is irrelevant. Free Trade (an oxymoron if there ever was) was a quasi legal body set up by Muldoon and Reagan because Muldoon was a sellout and the Americans wanted it simply to beat Canada over the head with lawyers if we complained about any unfairness. The NHL was ruined because stupid American governments and business loaded tons of money into hockey rinks, jacked up the price of players at the expense of their own people. It's still our Canadians vs. our Canadians. It's a joke that the right wing posters come on here and say the G&M debates is useless, but they are here every day.
  63. Norm Albert from Canada writes: My hat is off to Mr. Axworthy. His comments are right on the money!
    After reading some of the criticism directed at him I wonder if we will ever agree on anything. If we can't at least learn from the past mistake we ARE doomed to repeat it.
    Why is it politicians have to leave office/politics in order to grow a brain and a backbone?
  64. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: In answer to the question from still learning at 77...

    ... it is ironic that, under this article by none other than Lloyd Axworthy himself, the poster 'still learning' is strangely targeting a typist outside of Canada with his concern about telling 'other countries how to run their affairs'.

    Under Lloyd Axworthy, hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars went into the activity of telling other countries how to run their affairs (see Iraq, Kosovo, etc. above).

    So the obvious and appropriate target for the concern in question would be Lloyd Axworthy and/or the Americans whose own initiatives he followed and supported.

    Indeed, given Axworthy's own record in high office, perhaps a typist outside of Canada should actually be the one to ask Axworthy himself that question about 'telling other countries how to run their affairs'...

  65. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: But in any event, setting aside the proximate topic of Axworthy's article and record, should it be that the poster 'still learning at 77' does care what some typist in Seattle's view is on the 'definition of democracy' aspects of 'telling other countries how to run their affairs', yes, their are at times obvious roles for activities along those lines, with obvious examples being where liberal democracies aim to replace or modify regimes that widely violate human rights (South African apartheid and German Naziism, for example).
  66. earl morris from Vancouver, Canada writes: Bravo to Lloyd Axworthy who has eloquently stated what is my and my best friends point of view exactly. Stop fighting a misguided 'war on terror' which is only enraging Muslims and creating innumerable terrorists. Return our attention to building a good planet. Just like we eradicated Smallpox from the earth (America being a major contributor to that project) we could accomplish Mr. Axworthy's wish list. The Globe poll seems to indicate that an overwhelming percent of weekend Globe readers agree with the Hon. Mr. Axworthy.
  67. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    The Bubble from Canada has written two posts now involving his stated desire to penetrate with objects my oral and ano-rectal anatomy.

    Well, as stated previously by me, the Bubble appears to be having difficulty debating.

    Or maybe what he is doing is trying to pick me up?
  68. Festina Lente from Tampa Bay, United States writes: The Bubble from Canada: You are really hyped-up today but there is no way you can blame Canada's shortcomings, as you see them, on the United States. You should learn to take a little criticism if you write on the boards and you should also take responsibility for what you write. Using any form of logic, deductive, inductive, or just common reasoning, you are way off base without any merit to what you write.,,and that goes for hockey too.

    Having disagreements between soverigns is most commonplace the world over. That why we have ambassadors, etc. To think that everything between our two contries is 'our way' is simply ridiculous. I note that Canadian traders, governmental and private, are very shrewd indeed. Your arguement sounds as if the Canadians just caved in and acted not in the interest of Canadians. Now that is just plain rubbish!

    One thing you can be sure of and that the day will never come when two large countries like USA and Canada get down like lambs and not have some contentious issue. I wish you well Bubble but with a moniker like that, I would be wary of posters with sharp pins. Malcolm McCallum in Florida.
  69. The Bubble from Canada writes: Having differences are commonplace when dealing with the Americans, and even in legal rulings, the Americans won't abide by the law, they take and they take and they refuse to play fair. They start illegal wars, assasinate, torture, treat Canada like a back yard, help put in politicians who are so egocentric they would rather sell out their own rather than stand up for the country.
    Americans should fix their own messes and stop ruining other countries so they can drive around in their big cars and pretend everyone is jealous of them.
    No need for me to be angry here guys, your way of life is just about over, short of nuking Iran, you're spent, bankrupt morally and financially.
    America did ruin hockey.
    A thousand points of light.
  70. The Bubble from Canada writes: The best thing about Lloyd is how angry the right gets, this means they fear him.
  71. where's your messiah Now? from Canada writes: you go Tyler!

    That bubble needs bursting!

    so dudes what is medac pocket and why should canada be ashamed of our mission to Zaire 1996- I'll take silence as ignorance
  72. The Bubble from Canada writes: Actually when you think about it, he'd be a really good Prime Minister.
  73. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Contrary to The Bubble's latest rant, I have posted no homophobic insult of any kind.

    I have no way of knowing if the Bubble is a female or a male, and the bubble has no way of knowing if I am a male or a female. And so it is unclear why she or he presumes to know whether an act beween she or he and me would be gay or straight.

    Regarding my oral and ano-rectal anatomy, he Bubble had expressed his or her desire to have things shoved in my anatomy in that regard (...'roll into a ball and stuff into your...').

    And so my (orientation-neutral) comments were quite reasonable, given The Bubble's apparent fascination with having my orifices penetrated.

    Incidentally, I never once voted for Bush, and your comment 'No American has any right anymore to discuss anything about human rights' sounds like nothing more than a xenophobic, bigoted tantrum.
  74. The Bubble from Canada writes: A country that santions torture and suspends habeas corpus knows nothing of human rights.
    How can someone white and Irish be bigoted against Americans? anti-Americanism is not like Anti Semitism. Anti Americanism is not by nature racially motivated, it it politically motivated, hence 'bigotry' is an erroneous use of the word..
    The American rights need to try to twist language around to try to frame criticism by the left is a pathetic Orwellian attempt at best.
  75. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Incidentally, even if it IS the case that The Bubble and I are both females or are both males, my original comment was not homophobic: There is nothing homophobic about openly mentioning the concept of a person romantically picking up another person for the purpose of sex!
  76. Festina Lente from Tampa Bay, United States writes: Bubble, the pain and suffering, we understand and feel for you! But the shame is all yours.
  77. T S from Canada writes: You two Americans are really bringing down the level of discourse here. I guess that's your aim.
  78. The Bubble from Canada writes: That's fine TS, it's part of the plan to flesh out what we're really dealing with here. It's easy to get greedy egocentrics on the hook.
  79. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    The Bubble smears all Americans with same brush, saying that 'no American' has any right to 'discuss anything about human rights', and then he amusingly pretends that his smear of all Americans cannot be considered to sound 'bigoted'.

    Well, it is kind of funny that he then says 'anti-Americanism is not like Anti Semitism'...

    ... given that what logically follows from his analysis would be the idea (similarly crazy to his idea about Americans) that, in the 1930s, no Germans (even those with last names such as Rabinowicz and Lebovitz and Davidowicz) had any right to discuss anything about human rights.

    The Bubble is off the rails. In his biggoted-sounding screed he is yelling that even Americans today with names such as Abdul and Hussain and Mohamed have 'no right' to talk about human rights, for the sole reason that they are American citizens.

    And so the Bubble's derailed babblings have thus reached a domain of bizarre degeneration that is so far removed from rational analysis that his commentary is probably best considered the product of a troll.

    And trolls are best left unfed.

  80. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    T S, it is hilarious that you read posts here from The Bubble from Canada and then you complain that somehow Americans are the ones who are 'bringing down the level of discourse'!

    To the contrary, a few posts simply confronted The Bubble, and thus merely revealed how low his own troll screed is!
  81. The Bubble from Canada writes: Tyler your problem is you don't speak for human rights, your posts were specifically aimed at criticizing a man who speaks very eloquently for human rights. Your posting were deliberately aimed at reducing Lloyd Axworthy's credibility. You are so incredibly backwards in your attempt to smear anything good while crying about my lack of gentlemanliness in debating with you.
    You are a paid shill, or an oil executive, you are on these postings for propoganda purposes with your little cheerleaders and your ego makes you say the most heinous things and try to line yourself up with Jews in Germany, you are a propogandist and not a very good one because your logic is based on evil.
    • Posted 16/02/08 at 2:10 PM EDT |