LETTER TO PAMELA WALLIN
CANADIAN CONSUL GENERAL IN NEW YORK
BY FAX
Attention: Pamela
Wallin
Canadian Consul General to
New York
Tel: (212) 596-1778 Fax: (212) 596-1792
The Political/Economic Relations and Public Affairs Division (PERPA) explains and promotes Canadian policies and issues to local constituents, manages media relations and the Canada Program, and interprets local U.S. political and economic events and trends of interest to Canada.
.
Dear Ms Wallin
On reading the news today, I was aghast at reading your comments regarding Canada's
participation in the BMD
plan. Perhaps the press misquoted you and I certainly hope they did, here is the
quote: ‘Pamela Wallin,Canada's consul ceneral in New York, said she
believes most Canadians support signing on, despite polls suggesting otherwise.
"Being at the table is an important way of hearing what the Americans are
saying. It's a way of exercising our sovereignty." The timing of the gathering
was important, said Wallin, because Canada-U.S. relations have gone off course.‘
The polls in fact are right this time, most Canadians oppose this program and
justifiably so, the fact that this system does not work, has already cost
millions if not billions of dollars, has already started the new arms race are
only some of the reasons. Contrary to your comments and those of
some of your colleagues or the elites at this meeting, Canadians want a
sovereign nation and we need policy that reflects our values. Too
much emphasis has already been spent on placating the U.S.
administration’s wants and desires and not
enough on what the people of Canada desire. You have
represented this country over the years as a news reporter and spokesperson for
Canadians, but much of the news has not revealed the truth and it is time we had
truth in media. This article I quoted above also states that the
same ‘elites’ were responsible for pushing through the ‘concept of free trade’
and unfortunately it remained a concept, with very little to benefit Canadians,
as we have seen with BSE, softwood lumber and various other trade deals.
You would do Canadians and humanity in general a better service if you would become informed about what the Ballistic Missile Defence is really all about, rather than making it sound like a tea-party, where we should be delighted to sit at the table. That table you are referring to could very likely be the party to end all parties. If you were to read, Mel Hurtig’s latest book, ‘Rushing To Armageddon’ or refer to the U.S.’s own ‘Vision 2020’ which states boldly, that they intend to not only wage war through space, control space and prevent anyone else from doing so, among other things. It is both naïve and irresponsible to mislead the people, by using your influence to support a system, which will have catastrophic results for the people of this planet. I realize that you sit in a comfortable position in New York, perhaps even difficult as far as political issues, but as stated in your website, you are expected to ‘explain and promote Canadian policies and issues to local constituents’; I don’t get that sense from your statement. It sounds more like you are promoting the U.S. policies rather than Canadian.
Canadian and U.S. relations became difficult when the U.S. desired to wage a war, which we fundamentally abhor, a pre-emptive strike, for reasons, which by now have become obvious that the public was misled at best. But it was not the only problem with our relationship, as is well known through the various trade deals which have had major impacts on Canadians, which have to some degree threatened our sovereignty. The NAFTA and its predecessor have tied the hands of Canadian governments to protect it’s citizens. It is wrong for this country to deliberately attempt to ‘get back in their good books’ by adding insult to injury and furthering this war attitude. We stand for peace, we ought to be doing everything in our power to return to peace treaties, including the Space treaty, which reserves space for peaceful means, as our representative in the U.S.
Your statement, "Being at the table is an important way of hearing what the Americans are saying. It's a way of exercising our sovereignty." Is a clear indication that you have forgotten we are a sovereign nation, sitting at the table does not exercise our sovereignty, making our own decisions for what is right for Canadians is the way to exercise our sovereignty.
We were not the aggressors on these issues, but we have been the victim of unfair trade practices, the sell out of our natural resources to foreign investors, the ongoing threat to our lakes and rivers from the U.S.’s decisions to transport their polluted waters to Canada, (Hudson’s Bay, Lake Winnipeg to name two) see this link to CBC news: http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/indepth/20030217devilslake.html the article which states, ‘Belford now believes he and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may have found the solution: a 34-kilometre outlet to drain Devils Lake into the nearby Sheyenne River, which joins the Red River near Fargo and flows into Manitoba.’ This may be a solution for them, but it means polluting our water system, something which seems to be a minor detail in their plan. All of these factors (and many more too numerous to mention here), which threaten Canadians, are the reasons for the poor relations. We do not need to aspire to ‘get into their good books’.
We need to hold our heads high, to make decisions, which promote peace around the world, to help stop the gun trades, the drug trades and the child labour issues around the world. We need to lead by example, to raise the bar on political decisions, to raise the bar on world expectations. We need our elected officials, and appointed representatives around the world to speak as a Canadian, no matter what country they are working in, reflecting true Canadian aspirations and not washed down versions that are politically correct or more palatable for the host country. I would expect you to promote our Canadian values, since you are holding an appointment paid for by Canadian taxpayers. We do not want our money invested in war machines, earthly or space directed. So when you say, ‘most’ Canadians, I object, as you do not speak for me, nor most of the people I have heard from on this issue. The Canadian people know what is right for this country, it would be a vast improvement if our politicians and appointed representatives would express those views. I look forward to your response and hopefully a retraction or clarification of your statement in the news.
Yours truly
Catherine Whelan Costen
Cc: Prime Minister Martin, Jack Layton MP, S.Harper MP, Guilles Duceppe MP
|
Waffling on missile defence plan hurts Canada, experts say | |
| By BETH GORHAM Canadian Press | |
| UPDATED AT 6:46 PM EST | Sunday, Feb 6, 2005 |
Harriman, N.Y. — It's time for Canada to stop dithering and join the U.S. missile defence plan so it can move on to issues like co-ordinating maritime defence and transborder emergencies, a major conference on Canada-U.S. relations concluded Sunday. A majority of government officials, academics, diplomats and others from both sides of the border said the missile project has been wrongly linked to “science fiction scenarios” of weapons in space and that there would be ample opportunity for Canada to get out if the U.S. ever moves in that direction. “A positive Canadian decision would get the issue off the table and end the debate which has unfortunately obscured more than it has enlightened,” said an initial draft report from the American Assembly at Columbia University. “Even though Canada does not share the U.S. assessments of external threats to the same degree, it has no alternative but to adjust to U.S. perceptions of what menaces North America,” said the draft, which will see a number of revisions. The assembly's report wasn't unanimous. A handful of high-profile Canadians, including former prime minister Joe Clark, expressed reservations about the missile defence plan at the sessions. But a wide spectrum endorsed it after debate sessions during the four-day gathering, where there were few top-level U.S. officials and more Canadians than Americans. The elite assembly on cross-border issues last met two decades ago, when it played a major role in pushing the concept of free trade. This time, the gathering rejected the notion that one “big idea” can heal rifts in what has become a troubled relationship exacerbated by Canada's decision to stay out of the Iraq war and the unpopularity of U.S. President George W. Bush north of the border. “It is by now evident that Canada has lost influence in Washington,” said the group, which recommended several smaller initiatives. Among them: — A general increase in Canada's defence budget, in part to improve its ability to get to world hotspots quickly. — More money for an overwhelmed border with too few lanes, bridges and tunnels. — A public airing of little-known U.S. plans to require biometric identification for all cross-border travellers on Jan. 1, 2008. — Closer co-operation on product regulations and a mechanism for resolving trade disputes. Those issues are expected to be addressed this spring in a so-called three amigos summit between Canada, the United States and Mexico. — More direct contact between Canadian officials and the U.S. Congress. The assembly rejected the notion that values are widely diverging between the U.S. and Canada, a notion reinforced with the re-election of Mr. Bush and an outcry from people in liberal Democratic states who pronounced their similarities with Canadians. “There are more differences within the two countries than between them,” said the assembly, but the idea of a values chasm is hurting relations and making it harder to resolve bilateral disputes. “We are witnessing something new in the relationship — the emergence on the American right of a troubling anti-Canadianism, albeit confined to strident voices in the media,” said the draft report. “Nonetheless, this misguided impulse pales beside the disturbing and persistent currents of anti-Americanism in Canada,” it said. The missile defence issue could crush the minority government of Prime Minister Paul Martin, who faces opposition within his party and among New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois. Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of the Dominion Institute research group in Toronto, said in an interview outside the conference sessions that he had “become a little more comfortable with the idea.” “It's not part of a hidden agenda to tie us into Fortress America. But it was the wrong messenger at the wrong time with the right message. Americans need to understand that opposition to this has to do with U.S. foreign policy.” Robert Greenhill, a visiting executive at the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa, said Canadians have been too focused on missile defence as Mr. Bush's big project without considering that there is little risk in joining. “If you're in a marriage and your partner thinks it's important, why not?” Pamela Wallin, Canada's consul general in New York, said she believes most Canadians support signing on, despite polls suggesting otherwise. “Being at the table is an important way of hearing what the Americans are saying. It's a way of exercising our sovereignty.” The timing of the gathering was important, said Ms. Wallin, because Canada-U.S. relations have gone off course. “For the Americans, it's all about security and we use sovereignty as our lens on the relationship. Each side doesn't understand why the other side is so obsessed.” The American Assembly: 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 456 New York, NY 10115 212-870-3500 FAX: 212-870-3555 [email protected] | |||
| |||
 | |||
|
=========
Parrish exposes Emperor Bush's Nakedness.
by Joan Russow (PhD)
Global Compliance Research Project
In
declaring that Canada should join the "Coalition of the Wise not the
Coalition of the Idiots", Carolyn Parrish was highlighting the
fundamental insanity inherent in the actions and proposals of the
Bush's Administration.
An important aspect of the Coalition of
the Idiots is adherence to the irrational set of beliefs held by
"premillennial dispensationalists" .
Peter Montaguieu,, in the publication Rachel outlines tenants of their belief system:
This
dispensationalist "end times" scenario is an abstract idea with real
consequences. For example, leading members of the U.S. Congress work
hard to derail peace negotiations between Arabs and Israelis because
they believe Israel must expand its territorial control to fulfill
God's plan for the Second Coming
of Christ. In this
dispensationalist reading of Genesis 15:18, God made a "covenant"
giving land to the children of Abraham, and Jews must occupy those
"covenant lands" before Christ can return to Earth. So, for example,
Senator James Inhof (R-Ok.)
says, "I believe very strongly that we
ought to support Israel -- because God said so. Look it up in the Book
of Genesis. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over
whether the word of God is true."[2] If you think an uncompromising
Biblical interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict can't have real consequences, read the 9/11 Commission Report.
Leaders
of the conservative Likud Party in Israel and U.S. fundamentalist
Christian leaders have different reasons for wanting to drive Muslims
from the "covenant lands" but they work effectively together toward
that goal.
It is worth noting that fundamentalist Christian
support for Israel's territorial expansion is not quite the same thing
as support for the Jewish people. According to Biblical prophecy, as
interpreted by fundamentalist leaders like Hal Lindsey, when
the
"end times" scenario unfolds, at least two-thirds of all Jews will be
killed and will be resurrected into an eternal agony of fire. In his
best-selling book, The Late Great Planet Earth, Mr. Lindsey describes
this holy pogrom in a section titled, "A bright spot in the gloom."[6,
pg. 167, citing Zechariah 13:8,9.]
Before he was President, Mr. Bush himself told a newspaper reporter
that no Jews can enter heaven.[] And in fundamentalist theology there
is only one other place to
spend eternity - in a lake of fire. (excerpts from article by Peter Montaguieu, from Rachel) see full text below in annex:
It
is difficult to understand why the global community has been so slow to
recognize the inherent dangers in having the US controlled by a
president who is beholding to rapture theology and "premillennial
dispensationalism." Under the threat that the 20 million premillennial
dispenstationalists might form a separate political party, the
Republicans are being held ransom to these fundamentalists that not
only are waiting for rapture and the return of Christ but also may have
even been embarking on, or will be further advocating irrational
actions that might contribute to what they describe as the "end times"
I
remember being first concerned about militarization/weaponization and
this streak of fundamentalism when in 1983, in an interview on US
public radio, Ed Mcateer, from the Religious Round Table stated;
"nuclear weapons are part of God's design".
Rather than
criticizing Parrish for speaking truth to power, and opposing the
"Coalition of the Idiots" , the members of Parliament should seriously
consider speaking out in support of her concerns about Canada's
embarking upon deeper integration with the US, and with supporting the
US's continued contribution to global common insecurity. .
When, in Hans Christian Anderson's tale. the young boy revealed the nakedness of the Emperor, the eyes of the crowd were opened.
WHY HAVE THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BEEN SO BLIND!.
Recent Comments