Lloyd Axworthy’s “soft power” theory of international relations is taking a bit of a beating these days, with the positive signs of democratic change in the Mideast occurring during the watch of a U.S. administration that exercises “hard power”.
But that’s not enough to explain the venom that Lloyd used to write this “open letter” to Condoleezza Rice, in response to reports that she will postpone a planned trip to Canada.
Dear Condi,
I’m glad you’ve decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It’s a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.
I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.
But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can’t quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.
As David Frum comments, it is hard to believe that this man was once our foreign minister.
Lloyd continues…
Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such as missile defence can be made openly.
Apparently Ms. Rice is supposed to be shamed by the robustness of Canadian democracy, because although the decision wasn’t actually subject to debate in the House, some honourable members may, in the future, discuss whether or not we should have joined the BMD program, ex post facto. (And while we have many things to be proud of, the game of silly buggers called Question Period is not one of them.)
Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.
Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.
(Emphasis mine)
“Virtual one-party state.” If Lloyd wasn’t blushing when he wrote that, he has a seriously underdeveloped sense of irony.
(More discussion, including background on the International Criminal Court, from Bob Tarantino at Let It Bleed.)