Chretien questions U.S. stand

[HSK]

Chretien is at it again. Long live Chretien

While in Chicago, Jean Chretien (Prime Minister of Canada) spoke out openly about American policy------------

see:
Friday, February 14, 2003
Chretien questions U.S. stand

By ROBERT RUSSO, CP

CHICAGO -- Much of the world doubts the U.S.'s motives as it barrels toward war with Iraq -- a war that could lead Washington to fatally undermine the United Nations, Prime Minister Jean Chretien said yesterday in a speech prepared for foreign policy experts.

"The price of being the world's only superpower is that its motives are sometimes questioned by others," Chretien said to the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Great strength is not always perceived by others as benign. Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith."

It marked the first time Canada expressed suspicion of the Bush administration's motives for resorting to war to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Chretien couched his skepticism in praise for U.S. leadership in facing down the danger posed by Saddam. But his criticism of Bush's eagerness to bring down the Iraqi regime was unusually explicit.

He also suggested it is the U.S., rather than Iraq, that will determine what kind of future the UN will have or whether it will have any future

[Dil he Pakistani]

'Prime Minister Jean Chrétien tells the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday that the United States is not always trusted.'

Graham remains confident with UN Globe and Mail

Canada remains confident that a solution to the current conflict in Iraq can be worked out at the UN, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said after Friday's report by the chief UN weapons inspectors."I'm confident that we still have time to work it out," Mr. Graham told reporters in Montreal.

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix told the United Nations Security Council that while co-operation with Iraq has improved, the country has still not accounted for all of its prohibited weapons.He also said that while amounts of several chemical or biological agents remain unaccounted for including large amounts of anthrax and VX nerve gas his inspectors have found no new evidence of any such weapons in Iraq.

[Malik73]

It seems that world opposition to America's war mongering seems to be INCREASING not decreasing. Most people have no doubt seen through the outright lies (now confirmed by the UN) that Powell told in his speech, and are now even more emboldended to oppose American policies.

[ThePriest]

Originally posted by Malik73:
It seems that world opposition to America's war mongering seems to be INCREASING not decreasing. Most people have no doubt seen through the outright lies (now confirmed by the UN) that Powell told in his speech, and are now even more emboldended to oppose American policies.

Now I just hope that Bush and Co. start listening to the world. Which is what they should have done in the first place. Maybe the US could have been more convincing to the world if it had consulted the world before making such speechs like The Axis of Evil speech. I think that was the first step the Bush Admn. took on the road to the worlds disapproval.

[Malik73]

Originally posted by ThePriest:




Now I just hope that Bush and Co. start listening to the world. Which is what they should have done in the first place. Maybe the US could have been more convincing to the world if it had consulted the world before making such speechs like The Axis of Evil speech. I think that was the first step the Bush Admn. took on the road to the worlds disapproval.

It's encouraging to see more and more American's on this board opposing Bush's war.

The "Axis of Evil" speech was one of the worst policy disasters the Bush regime ever committed, and it has alienated it from the rest of world opinion, and made it difficult for even those countries are pro-USA e.g. Great Britain. For they have continued to conduct business and usual with Iran, one of the members of this "axis", while another member (North Korea) has made a mockery of the US by deliberately speeding up its nuclear amibitions.

[Nadia_H]

Long live Chretien indeed...

"If you start changing the regime, where do you stop, who is next?"

Chrétien says regime change not part of UN objective in Iraq, 28 February 2003, CBC

Jean Chrétien says invading Iraq with the intention of replacing Saddam Hussein is a dangerous idea. The prime minister was speaking in Mexico City Friday at the end of a three-day summit with President Vicente Fox.

"If you start changing the regime, where do you stop, who is next?" Chrétien said to reporters. "It is disarmament we are talking about." Chrétien was responding to a report that Washington wants to use a possible war with Iraq as a way of replacing Saddam, rather than just disarming him. Chrétien said the current United Nations resolution on Iraq says nothing about replacing the Iraqi leader.

"[Resolution] 1441 does not talk about regime change," he said, "so I'm surprised." Chrétien said he and Fox discussed a Canadian proposal to give United Nations weapons inspectors more time, but to set a deadline of March 28 for Iraq to disarm. "Our idea was to be useful, although I don't know what will happen," he said, adding: "When somebody is working toward peace, it's never useless."

The two leaders also discussed trade and immigration issues. In response to other questions, Chrétien said Thursday's crash of a Sea King helicopter was an unfortunate accident, but he said Canada is now in the process of buying replacement helicopters.

He also dismissed a controversy about Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish, who was forced to apologize early in the week after reporters overheard her calling Americans "*******s." "We should have some right to a personal opinion," Chrétien said. She apologized, he said, and "that's the end of the matter."

[Malik73]

"If you start changing the regime, where do you stop, who is next?" Chrétien said to reporters.

An excellent question, and one I'm sure the American's will be hard pushed to answer,

[Dil he Pakistani]

Canada's proposal for an Iraq solution CBC News

Text of the Canadian plan titled "Ideas on Bridging the Divide":
Purpose: The following draws upon existing ideas in order to establish a defined process for a specific period of time to address the Iraq situation.

Rationale: Council division on such a crucial issue could have serious long-term implications for the UN and for international peace and stability.

Both sides have a point:
An open-ended inspection process would relieve the pressure on the Iraqis to disarm. A truncated inspection process would leave doubt that war was a last resort. The focus should be put back on disarmament, on substance not on process, e.g. the disposition of the VX gas and precursors, etc. Iraq should be left in no doubt exactly what is demanded of it on substance, not just on process, leaving no "wiggle room."

Hence, the need for a deadline for substantial co-operation, for example March 28, which would: be near-term enough to keep the pressure on the Iraqis to disarm; nonetheless, afford sufficient time for judgments to be made whether the Iraqis were co-operating on substance and disarming and/or providing persuasive and credible evidence that weapons had already been destroyed as claimed.

If Iraq persists in evasion, the Council retains the right to act at any point.If the March 28 inspection report indicates that the Iraqis have not complied, all necessary means could be used to force them to do so.If Iraq co-operates, an enhanced inspection, verification and monitoring system would be implemented.

Timetable and Disarmament Requirements
February 28: Inspectors bring forward their “clusters” report early and present it to the Council setting out the key remaining disarmament issues/questions.Inspectors present a prioritization with timeframes for the Council of the key substantive tasks for Iraq to accomplish, including those involving missiles/delivery systems, chemical weapons/precursors, biological weapons/material and nuclear weapons.

March 7: Inspectors update the Council on Iraqi co-operation on substance.

March 14: Further update.

March 21: Further update.

March 28: Final report to the Council by inspectors.

March 31: Meeting of the Council at ministerial level:

If the inspectors have reported substantial Iraqi compliance, a robust ongoing verification and monitoring system, including increased numbers of inspectors/monitors, investigations, etc., would be implemented. If the inspectors have reported continued Iraqi evasion, all necessary means to force them to comply could be used.

[Dil he Pakistani]

Canada's Iraq compromise still being studied at UN CBC 03 Mar 03

OTTAWA - Ten of the 15 countries on the UN Security Council want to look more closely at a Canadian proposal to try to bridge a rift over what to do about Iraq, federal sources say.

[Awam ki Awaz]

More on reaction to US regimes' bully tactics. As pointed out here it is the US that needs restricting.

"Published on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 by the Toronto Star
Tide Turns Against Bush
by Thomas Walkom

The Iraq crisis is no longer about stopping Iraq. It is about stopping the United States.
...
Most countries outside the U.S. are no longer worried about rogue Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. They are worried about rogue American President George W. Bush.
...
But the second, and more important, development since last fall has been a worldwide reappraisal of U.S. motives.

Initially, some argued that Bush's bellicosity was a skilful tactic designed to pressure Iraq. But now, it's clear that simple disarmament is not his aim.

Rather, Bush wants to occupy Iraq for an indeterminate period of time and eventually replace Saddam's government with one more to his liking.

As Chrétien noted on Sunday, this makes the rest of the world nervous.

For now it is not Iraq, a minor Middle Eastern power, that is in potential defiance of the U.N. system, but the mighty U.S. In effect, Bush has served notice that the painstaking logic of collective security, which the U.S. itself did so much to create 58 years ago, is to be junked.

War is to be no longer a last resort but an active part of superpower foreign policy. Decisions on the international order are to be made not at the U.N. but in Washington alone. The sovereignty of other nations is now to be wholly contingent upon U.S. geopolitical interests.
..."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0311-03.htm

[Mr Fraudia]

okay so france and russia are opposed to it due to their vested interests in contracts etc.

what is canada's vested interest in Iraq? can someone tell me

[HSK]

Originally posted by Fraudz:
what is canada's vested interest in Iraq? can someone tell me

Canada is a small country, we dont have many contracts around the world. Yet, this war is very important for us. Our morals tell us that we shouldnt side with America, but our economy tells us that if we rebel against America we will get our asses kicked. Why you say? Well because Canada's main trading partner is America. If we get on their bad side, they'll cut ties with us - wrecking our economy (which is actually doing good right now).

Jean Chretein might be saying "No War", but deep inside he knows that he has to stick up for America.

[Malik73]

Another country that won't have anything to do with the outlaw trio waging an illegal war against Iraq.

Canadian Forces to Play No Role in Iraq War - PM

[Nadia_H]

i have so much respect for Chretien right now.

Canada will not participate in Iraq war without UN backing, 17 March 2003