Mush and madness from Lloyd Axworthy

The Softy recalls an earlier Canada:

...Louis St. Laurent, the external affairs minister in 1948...said: "No [Canadian] foreign policy is consistent or coherent over a period of years unless it is based upon some concept of human values," which he said are "continually influenced by concepts of good and evil which emerged from Greek and Roman civilizations, transformed and transmitted through Christian traditions. These are values which lay emphasis on the importance of the individual, on the place of moral principles in the conduct of human relations, on standards of judgment which transcend mere material well-being. We thus have a useful part to play in world affairs, useful to ourselves, through being useful to others."

Now, to my mind, that descibes a Canada of which one could be proud and which knew what it was.

Now the mush:

TO shape a coherent approach to our role in the world means finding a way to encompass and utilize the advantages that this 21st-century diverse cultural reality provides in the way of added perspectives, connections, and relationships while forging ways to reconcile the differences and meld the rich but complex mix into a coherent set of values that can replace St. Laurent's formulation without foregoing his basic intent that "we thus have a useful part to play in world affairs, useful to ourselves, through being useful to others."..

Just compare the language of M. St. Laurent and of the Softy to see what has gone wrong in Canada. And good luck "finding a way".

Now the madness:

...broaden the participation of Canadians from all backgrounds by giving Parliament, as the legitimate representative institution in our democracy, an enhanced role in setting the mandate of our international engagements. Add to that the need for ongoing parliamentary review of our international initiatives, a broader role in monitoring our intelligence and security activities, and a dedicated responsibility to involve the public in a continuous series of open hearings and educational exchange on the emerging global risks facing Canadians.

Isn't it exceedingly strange that on a matter seen as so vital by so many Canadians as the Middle East crisis that Parliament is on summer holidays?..

Anyone who watched the fiasco (read the last para) of the Commons' foreign affairs committee meeting August 1 on the Levant crisis (or the debate on Afghanistan May 17) knows that the last group of people to make a significant contribution to Canadian foreign policy are MPs, above all opposition MPs. The idea of Question Periods at this time fills my mind with "the horror...the horror". Hell, the CTV one is bad enough.

And to think that this vapourising mass was actually once Canada's foreign minister. Stuff (in the taxidermic sense) Uncle Louis and bring him back.

Mark C.

Update: Don Martin outlines why involvment by MPs in making practical foreign policy is futile:

...this much was clear -- if this foot-dragging committee was charged with deciding Canada's role in the conflict, it would still be debating which cruise ship had the right-sized swimming pool for the first Lebanon evacuation attempt and Stephen Harper's plane would still be waiting in Cyprus for his ship to come in.

MPs droned on for hour after hour with a laughable seriousness that suggested they believed they actually were choosing the path for a nation with the clout to ease a crisis that defies resolution...

Mr Martin has it right about "clout".

Posted by markc at August 3, 2006 01:27 PM