quote:

---

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent Canada's ambassador to South Korea to Pyongyang to help put pressure on North Korea to back down from its nuclear weapons program. [...]

"The message he is delivering is frank and clear: give up the nuclear missile tests and return to the six-party talks," an unidentified Canadian official told Reuters.

Ottawa is urging Pyongyang to abide by a 2005 UN resolution to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for security and aid.

---

This is lapdog Harper carrying messages for master Bush.

The next step will be sending Canadian ships to board vessels bound for North Korea - which I believe is an act of war.

It is past time for Canadians to bury this man and his government.

[ 18 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

U.S. president George W. Bush, trying to stiffen global resolve to confront North Korea, failed to win South Korea's support Saturday for a tough inspection program to intercept ships suspected of carrying supplies for Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and missiles.

Mr. Bush sought to persuade South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun to fully implement UN sanctions imposed on North Korea for testing nuclear weapons. He also sought South Korea's support in the Proliferation Security Initiative, a voluntary international program that calls for stopping ships suspected of trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

---

Bush fails to win key support for ship-inspections

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
[...] Harper's bizarre [...]

---

What is wrong with opposing NK's nuclear ambitions and sending this message through diplomatic channels? This is the position of virtually every country in the world.

How does supporting such a position make Harper Bush's lapdog?

quote:

---

Originally posted by moderatelib:

What position would you have Canada take?

---

I said nothing about Canada's position. I commented on the extraordinary spectacle of an irrelevant country visiting North Korea for one week to make threats. Canada would do better not to pass messages for Bush (which is the patently obvious reason for Grinius' visit) and instead to maintain some international credibility as an honest broker. But I fear Harper's actions of recent months will take long hard work to repair.

The article says:

quote:

---

"The message he is delivering is frank and clear: give up the nuclear missile tests and return to the six-party talks," an unidentified Canadian official told Reuters.

Ottawa is urging Pyongyang to abide by a 2005 UN resolution to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for security and aid.

---

I think this is reasonable (again, it is the position of the UN and the majority of its members) and I don't see how it can be construed as a threat.

It's unfortunate you view Canada as being 'irrelevant.' As you say, we have a role to play as an honest broker. Not being a superpower and having a historical reputation for even-handedness gives us an opportunity to play a more significant role on the international stage.

quote:

---

Not being a superpower and having a historical reputation for even-handedness gives us an opportunity to play a more significant role on the international stage

---

A few years ago I might have agreed with you, but since Martin and now even more with Harper we HAVE become Bush's lapdog (witness Israel, Lebanon, Haiti and Afghanistan). There is nothing independent about our Foreign Affairs since these two pro-American governments came to power.

As someone described it both are hawks looking for a war.

[ 19 November 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by moderatelib:
There is no indication that Harper 'made threats.'

---

Well, maybe not "threats", just "pressure". You use your words, I'll use mine.

quote:

---

As for it being an extraordinary spectacle, the message to Pyongyang was sent through diplomatic channels via the Ambassador to South Korea and it was South Korea that mentioned it to the press.

---

Well actually, I think a week-long visit to Pyongyang by a Canadian official, without consulting any of the U.N. players (except, no doubt, His Master's Voice), qualifies as "extraordinary" (same article as above):

quote:

---

Mr. Grinius is expected to stay in North Korea for at least a week to meet mostly with foreign affairs officials. [...] A federal official conceded that not all of the big players on the file knew that Canada was going to act.

---

quote:

---

Well actually, I think a week-long visit to Pyongyang by a Canadian official, without consulting any of the U.N. players (except, no doubt, His Master's Voice), qualifies as "extraordinary" (same article as above):

---

1. Canada is a free nation and doesn't need to consult anyone in order to engage another nation diplomatically.

2. If we were unilaterally engaging in a military mission against NK you might have a point, but we obviously are not, and neither is the U.S. South Korea pretty much has final say on anything because it's Seoul that lies within range of a massive missile build-up.

3. I don't get this whole Bush lapdog thing on this issue. You could just as easily say Harper is Kofi Annan's lapdog or Moo-Hyun's lapdog, since they also support a diplomatic approach to NK, and support efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons as we do.

quote:

---

So what do you think - should we be boarding vessels headed for North Korea - in our capacity as "honest broker"?

---

Thanks for your comment. You said:

quote:

---

A few years ago I might have agreed with you, but since Martin and now even more with Harper we HAVE become Bush's lapdog (witness Israel, Lebanon, Haiti and Afghanistan). There is nothing independent about our Foreign Affairs since these two pro-American governments came to power.

---

Here's a question: What if America didn't exist and we still supported Israel vs Hezbollah, worked for stability in Haiti and participated in the NATO mission in Afghanistan?

Would we still be someone's lapdog for taking these positions?

Do you allow that it's possible for one nation to take a position that is the same as another and not be their lapdog?

Or should our foreign policy be dictated by boolean logic that goes 'Whatever Bush does we must do the opposite'?

quote:

---

What if America didn't exist and we still supported Israel vs Hezbollah, worked for stability in Haiti and participated in the NATO mission in Afghanistan?

---

Then we would become one of the world's leading rogue nations:

1 - no other nation but the US is as blindly pro-Israel to the point of never criticising Israel even when they are clearly in the wrong.

2 - we were part of the invasion and overthrow of the democratically elected government in Haiti. France, being the only other country besides us and the US involved in this has a history of imperialism. We criticised France's similar moves in Algeria, Egypt and Vietnam. Under any hypothetical circumstance, I do not see us ever changing our views on this type of imperialism.

3 - Without the US there would be no 9-11 which would then mean there was no need for an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We criticised Russia's unilateral occupation of Afghanistan as it violated our core opposition to imperialism whatever the stripe.

All three areas have a very strong history of US interference. The fact that we are in there with bells on with the Americans (in opposition to our previous positions on similar events - like the US occupation of Haiti from 1915 - 1934) is an indication of how both the liberals and tories have surrendered our moral high ground.

quote:

---

Would we still be someone's lapdog for taking these positions?

---

As stated, we wouldn't be a lapdog, we would be the world's main exporter of imperialism as these actions would put us in a league of our own.

Back to reality, the reason so many of us feel that both the neo-libs and neo-cons are US lapdogs is because Ottawa's position on any international issue is increasingly in goosestep with Washington. Iraq and Cuba are the last two remaining visible bastions of an independant view. Behind the scenes steps are being taken to even wipe these two differences out.

On Afghanistan you wrote:

quote:

---

3 - Without the US there would be no 9-11 which would then mean there was no need for an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We criticised Russia's unilateral occupation of Afghanistan as it violated our core opposition to imperialism whatever the stripe.

---

Apologies: My point wasn't really about what it would be literally like without America. I wanted to say that there is a burden of proof upon us if we're to demonstrate that one nation is working in lockstep with another instead of acting independently for its own benefit in a way that coincides with another nation's benefit. It's similar to the difference between correlation and causation.

Can you clarify what you mean when you say that Iraq and Cuba are 'the last two remaining visible bastions of an independant view.' Are you referring to pre-2003 Iraq and Saddam Hussein or to the current government? What do you mean by independent view?

Cheers,

[ 19 November 2006: Message edited by: moderatelib ]

1 - Haiti was not UN madated until AFTER we brought about the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Aristide. The UN Security Council (not the General Assembly which would have condemned this act of imperialism) then gave cover to the occupation after the coup was complete.

You really should read up on Haiti as it shows everything wrong with the New Feudal Order. Aristide's biggest sin was to refuse massive privatisations and allowing Haiti's rice market to be flooded with cheap US imports. This had everything to do with overthrowing a weak nation's government for a new "market" for big business to exploit. The "humanitarian" thing to have done was to stand up to this corporate greed and allow the Haitians to develope their own economy. Our media and government turned it into a charity event (like the US did when they ran it as a colony for much of the 20th century). There is no charity in imperialism.

2 - With all due respect the burden of proof is on you to prove that we aren't Washington's lapdog in international affairs because you're the one who's making this claim since every example that's been given has been deflected with a "pretend the US didn't exist" type argument.

The reason I specified Iraq and Cuba is because these are the only two countries where that I can think of where we officially have a different position then the US.

In Iraq, we aren't officially with the "coalition of the schilling" but our navy is patrolling the Persian Gulf and Iraq is the largest recepient of our aid (a lot of good it does, meanwhile the neo-cons and neo-libs won't help true nations in need).

We still have relations with Cuba but unofficially Ottawa is beginning to tow Washington's line even here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by moderatelib:

Unless it is U.N. mandated or demanded by SK & Japan, no. Since our government hasn't volunteered for such a mission (nor am I aware of us advocating it) I'm not sure what your concern is.

---

Gee, you missed the story about Canada sending a diplomat to North Korea, now you don't understand my concern about Canada searching ships on U.S. request?

Read the newspapers:

quote:

---

The government would have to be certain it could keep warships at sea for extended periods if it joins U.S. naval patrols to intercept North Korean nuclear material, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday.

The cabinet has not yet formally received a U.S. request, but Mr. O'Connor said Canada would have to consider the issue of sustainability. A ship's crew usually is not expected to serve more than six months at sea, so replacement ships and crews have to be available.[...]

Senior U.S. and Canadian officials this week discussed how they might co-operate in the effort to halt shipments of nuclear material and ballistic missile components to and from North Korea.

---

South Korea opposes any effort to halt shipping. The U.N. has mandated nothing of the sort (and it will not do so - it would be vetoed in the Security Council). So why are the U.S. and Canada talking about it?

Thanks. I'll read up on Haiti. Was Canada involved in the coup?

Regarding the burden of proof, I don't see how the burden of proof is on me. To say that our government is beholden to external interests is a claim that requires evidence. Merely showing instances in which our interests align with the U.S. does not prove anything.

However, having said that, I don't expect you to uncover recordings of Harper asking permission from his Master (as unionist puts it) so I have a feeling we'll not be able to resolve this disagreement.

Thanks for pointing out that story. I missed it. You snipped right before this part:

quote:

---

North Korea exploded an atomic warhead last month, raising fears the cash-starved regime might try to sell nuclear material to terrorist groups.

[bold]The UN Security Council has authorized the interception of ships to or from North Korea to look for material that can be used in nuclear weapons[/bold]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moderatelib:
unionist,

Thanks for pointing out that story. I missed it. You snipped right before this part:

The UN Security Council has authorized the interception of ships to or from North Korea to look for material that can be used in nuclear weapons

---

Yes, the UN Security Council authorized such interception on a country's own territory - i.e. Canada may stop foreign ships in Canadian waters or ports and look for such material. Not on the high seas!

Read the U.N. resolution.

quote:

---

all Member States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK, through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories [...]

---

and then it lists the prohibited materials.

From
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-13-korea-sanctions_x.htm

China is opting out of inspections in the hopes of more diplomacy. Others similarly support diplomacy as the primary tool, but even the normally reticent are taking a more active stance.

Japan:

quote:

---

Foreign Minister Taro Aso added that Japan could support U.S. forces inspecting cargo going in and out of the North, Kyodo News agency reported, the most recent sign of the new leader's pledge to give his country a more assertive role on the world stage.

---

South Korea:

quote:

---

South Korea — which has taken a conciliatory approach to the North, including supplying massive amounts of aid — said it will honor the U.N. resolution but did not elaborate on its plans for inspections.

South Korea's Unification Ministry, which handles inter-Korean affairs, also issued a statement pledging to take "necessary steps" to implement the U.N. resolution.

---