Australian Prime Minister John Howard cautioned Canadians yesterday that they really don't want to see an isolationist United States because that would mean a far more dangerous world.
Mr. Howard, who arrived in Ottawa directly from a triumphal Washington visit, told a joint session of Parliament that he's an unapologetic friend and ally of the U.S., which he described as a "remarkable and powerful force for good in the world."
Moreover, Canada, Australia and other nations should deeply appreciate "the decency and hope that the power and purpose of the United States represents to the world."
He referred directly to the previous Liberal government's opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a military operation that included Australian troops, and he later appeared to address the skepticism still found among opposition Canadian MPs about U.S. President George W. Bush's Middle East policy.
It really is quite laughable that a leader from the other side of globe feels it necessary to "educate" Canadians on our neighboring elephant. In a general sense, Canadians would agree with Howard's assessment of the United States role in world affairs. However, failure to support a radical President, doesn't equate to anti-Americanism. Most Americans don't support their President, why does Howard expect Canadians to react differently?
Howard's reference to Iraq, and the inherent criticism of Canada's position, is out of bounds for a foreign leader on our soil. Canadians overwhelming opposed the Iraq war, not because they don't take terrorism seriously, but because it had nothing to do with terrorism. When Mr. Howard speaks to the seriousness of terrorism, he destroys his argument by introducing Iraq into the equation. In other words, how would Australians react if Jean Chretein addressed their government and admonished them for supporting the war? My guess, Mr. Howard would be the first to tell the guest to mind his own business.
Howard contradicts himself, by lauding Canada's effort in Afghanistan. This conflict finds it root in terrorism, so our involvement denies any lecture on the importance of fighting terrorism. Canada is involved, probably disportionately at this point, and that effort was made by the Liberal government Howard criticizes. Supporting America doesn't necessitate blind loyalty, despite a dangerous agenda. Canada certainly doesn't need any pointers from Mr. Howard on how to deal with the Americans, nor does it need a Bush apologist spreading the propaganda during a state visit.
4 comments:
Harper thinks Canadians need some Aussie-rules scolding. Ouch.
On many levels, Howard disgraced Australians with a lot his message. Canadians are well aware of how we need to manage our relationship with the US...we've been doing it for 200 years. Mr. Howard has very little new to tell us, and I feel insulted that our PM thought we did.
Pretty lame it was I agree. I am totally unimpressed with Mr. Howard from the land of OZ. He's obviously living in Bush la la land.
Someone, somewhere in the Blogosphere, posted this article in an Ozzie paper. Interesting, though not surprising, that our MSM didn't talk at all about the protest around his visit. At least The Globe and Mail, printed comments by some Ozzies talking about how horrid life is under Howard.
That's the first I've heard of any protests.
Post a Comment