reed writes

Dear Prime Minister,

Further to my snail mail on the Palestinians:

The democratic election of Hamas has stirred strong emotions in the hearts of Israelis and their reaction of fear and concern is understandable. However, it is precisely at this time, when passion has invaded, that coolness and reason are most needed.

In my earlier letter, I made reference to former President Carter’s advice of restraint and cautious support for the democratically elected Palestinian government…in order to preserve the Palestinian people themselves from further decline.

The Hamas history of violence and terrorist acts against Israelis notwithstanding, there remains a central principle, which we as Canadians have long upheld. That is, we have traditionally given the legitimate government of a nation, the benefit of the doubt. If ever there was a crucial moment in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict this is it. And if ever there was an opportunity for peace, however ironic it may seem, this is it.

We must remember that although Hamas received a majority of seats, the party did not receive a majority of the popular vote. It is therefore incumbent on us as lovers of democracy, to think carefully before taking rash action.

Palestinians elected Hamas, not because of its terrorist history, but primarily because of its history of social responsibility and its criticism of the previous regime’s corrupt practices…a situation we in Canada are familiar with.

Now Mr. James D. Wolfensohn, former President of The World Bank, has added his voice to those urging at least interim support.

Mr. Wolfensohn has pointed out (correctly), that the financial collapse of the Palestinian Authority would have “wide-ranging consequences for the security and stability of both Palestinians and Israelis”.

The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unrest in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region have made a tinderbox of the entire Middle East and rendered the prospect of widespread regional violence more likely. So there are reasons for caution, which go well beyond the obvious humanitarian ones.

What is required now, as I’ve said before, is strong leadership on this specific issue. It needs to be made clear that we understand what is happening on the ground there. Even as we in the west look on- and as you read this- a power vacuum is being created. That vacuum will be filled by something or someone, perhaps far more dangerous than Hamas. The Quartet- with the exception of the United States- appears to be in agreement.

The New York Times reports this morning that,\:

The Quartet and Israel agree that relief aid to the Palestinians should continue, including money spent by United Nations organizations. The amount of money channeled through such organizations is likely to increase, but that will not pay the 135,000 or so Palestinians dependent on salaries from the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. Wolfensohn hopes to get the Palestinian Authority through to June, when the Group of 8 industrial nations are to meet. But the United States and Israel fear that such a long period would allow Hamas to establish itself. Canada can counsel patience.

Canada could lead the way, as we have in the past, toward finding a pathway out of this maze- at least on a temporary basis, until we can determine just how Hamas will respond to the demands of governance.

This is one of the most difficult and intractable problems of our time and represents a wonderful opportunity for Canada to exercise its traditional skill at quiet diplomacy.

Sincerely, James Reed.

The New York Times followed up today on a report that Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq but secretly helped the Americans.

The United States invasion of Iraq was based on a tissue of lies and layer upon layer of deceit and deception. Obviously the Americans dragged other nations into the dirty mess, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Germany and God only knows who else. Germany was listed in the classified American report as “non-coalition but co-operating”. Egypt and Saudi Arabia were listed as “silent partners”. Britain went in with eyes open, as did Italy, Denmark and other opportunistic governments.

The question before Canadians is this- how are we listed in the U.S. government reports? Are we “non-coalition but supporting”, “silent partners” or “non-co-operating assholes”? The latter would be preferred.

It is incumbent on the Canadian government t to clarify this and other issues relating both to Iraq and Afghanistan so that Canadians can make informed decisions about what direction our country is taking.

We need a full and comprehensive debate on our role in Afghanistan and we need to know the truth about the extent of our co-operation with the Americans- if any – in Iraq. We also need our government to tell us the truth about the extent of our co-operation with the Americans in terms of CIA flights through Canada, carrying prisoners from one country to another.

Mr. Harper ought to go to Kandahar with one purpose in mind. He ought to thank the troops there for their willingness to serve; and then he ought to tell them that they will be returning home as soon as it is logistically possible.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
Prime Minister’s Office,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, On.,
Canada.

Dear Prime Minister,

Looking back over several decades of Canadian foreign policy, it’s clear that Canada has followed a path independent from the United States. This independence with respect to foreign policy has spanned political ideologies and parties. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have- at different times- supported the uniquely Canadian approach to external affairs matters, enunciated over the years, by various Prime Ministers and Ministers of External/Foreign Affairs.

In recent times, I can think of our decision- almost immediately- to enter World War Two on the side of freedom and democracy, at a time when America was pursuing a quasi-isolationist policy.

Canada did not participate in the Vietnam War, primarily because our government believed it had been expanded on the basis of a flawed Congressional resolution, commonly known as The Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It was the Canadian belief that the expanded war was not being fought on a lawful basis and as a result we gave safe haven to young Americans who did not wish to participate. In fact Prime Minister Pearson made a strong anti-Vietnam War speech in Texas at a time when American bombing of the North was being stepped up.

The Canadian government supported the right of Cubans to overthrow a brutal dictator. Although Canadian assets were nationalized, we continued to maintain diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba, despite the urging of American authorities that we break off those relations and join in an embargo against that country.

The Canadian government did not support the coup d’etat in Chile, in which Canadians suspected (rightly as it turned out), that the United States had a hand in the anti-democratic action of General Augusto Pinochet and his fellow junta members. Canadian authorities gave refuge to supporters of the democratically elected government of that country, when they were being pursued by the junta police.

At a time when the United States was conducting covert, subversive operations against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney took the position that it was not this country’s place to undermine a democratic regime. Mr. Mulroney cited Canada’s traditional position that we make every effort to work constructively with the legitimate authority in any given country.


When the United States and Britain decided to act against the apparent will of the international community and invade Iraq, Canada took the position (correctly), that the weapons inspection process should continue. The Canadians decided not to support the invasion on the grounds that the existing government of Iraq was recognized in international law and a military invasion would be of dubious legality.

Canada’s history of involvement in the Middle East has always been to support the peace process there, to engage in internationally-supported peacekeeping operations and to encourage the development of democratic institutions amongst both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now that the Palestinians have elected a new government through a legitimate, democratic process, Canada has another opportunity to demonstrate its rational, centrist approach to international relations.

A good response to the Palestinian decision to elect Hamas- would be to take a so-called “tiered” approach to the problem. That is to say…we would advocate a short-term period in which we encourage the continuation of aid to the Palestinian people; during that time we would assess the willingness of the new Palestinian government to reject violence and engage in talks with Israel. That short-term period of say, 60-90 days, would be followed by an ongoing, daily assessment of the situation and we would advocate either a continuation of the aid policy or a change of course.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who led a team of election observers for the Palestinian voting, said in a recent interview that the United States and Europe should redirect their relief aid to United Nations organizations and nongovernmental organizations to skirt legal restrictions.
”The donor community can deal with it successfully,” Mr. Carter said. ”I would hope the world community can collectively tide the Palestinians over. It may well be that Hamas can change,” Mr. Carter said.  
”It’s a mistake to abandon optimism completely.”
Carter urged Israel and the world: ”Don’t drive the Palestinians away from rationality. Don’t force them into assuming arms as the only way to achieve their legitimate goals. Give them some encouragement and the benefit of the doubt.”
In my view, this is an issue where you as Canadian Prime Minister have an opportunity to lead, by taking a careful and measured view of how to proceed from here.
I know what a thorny issue this is…from several points of view- moral, political and strategic. I know too, that it is not an issue to be addressed in long-winded speeches, or partisan rhetoric. This is a time for calm, cool-headed leadership.

Finally, we should keep in mind that Hamas has a reputation for wanting to clean up corruption. In large part, Hamas owes its success to a general agreement with that goal, on the part of the Palestinian voting public . We should also keep in mind that although Hamas has a majority of seats, the party was not elected by a majority of the popular vote. The vast majority of Palestinians want Hamas to govern in a clean, non-violent way.
The vast majority of Palestinians…like the vast majority of Israelis….want peace.
I hope that you will be guided in this matter by Canada’s history as a peacemaker…as a diplomatic force in world affairs…and as a reasonable voice in times of crisis.

Sincerely,


James Reed,
1 Erie Street,
Stratford Ontario,
N5A 2M3
519-276-8384

I’m not a big baseball fan but the World Classic, which starts March 3rd is a short series and fun in political as well as sports terms.

The U.S. initially withheld permission for Cuba to play because of financial concerns.

But officials from Major League Baseball and the Players Association reapplied in late December and assured the Treasury Department that Cuba would donate any profits it receives to victims of Hurricane Katrina — a guarantee that the communist country would receive no financial profit from the event.

The American government is so cheesy.

You make some good points, very good ones and I’m glad that you’re in agreement with me about the negative impact of “bellicose rhetoric”.

You write, “Yes, Iran must be taken seriously, and even respected to a certain extent, but the US (and Europe and China) must recognize that it is not equality that the Iranians want, it is the top spot”.

Iran occupies the top spot now (at least in the region). The American invasion of Iraq handed that country to the Iranians insofar as Iran is closely allied with Iraq’s Shiite majority…and is friendly with the Iraqi Kurds.

Just to let you know where I’m coming from philosophically- I consider myself a pragmatist in the manner of Brent Scowcroft. Certainly I don’t pretend to have the General’s political acumen but I do hope I have his political sensibilities.

The piece you are quoting, “Iran is now a leading player along with the United States, China and Europe,” and that in response the West must “work harder at trying to understand what Iran is all about, to refrain from bellicose rhetoric, and to listen to, and perhaps even heed, what the Iranian leadership has to say.” is one of a trio of pieces on the subject.

The Opening of a dialogue through back diplomatic channels, as Nixon/Kissinger did with China, could be the first step on a road to peace.

We can’t afford any longer to miss an opportunity.

As for your reference to a Pakistan-Iran “competition”…I’m afraid that Pakistan’s intelligence service is in league with elements of al Qaeda, which may be why bin Laden has been able to evade detection for so long.

Iran has no interest in assisting al Qaeda, any more than Saddam did. It’s just not in the interest of the leadership.

Finally, we mustn’t confuse Ahmadinejad with the real policy-makers in Teheran. He’s useful to them as a popular distraction but remember, he’s a figurehead, not the real power.
Cheers