The ironic thing is that we (Canada) have troops in Iraq despite not officially being at war against Iraq, and we have already thrown what military resources we have fully into the war against terror in Afganistan and the Gulf, as even Ambassador Cellucci admitts:
**
**
So what does the USA want from us? Moral validation. And they’re willing to sling shit at us until they get it.
Too bad the USA did not support the majority of its allies who wanted to spend more time working toward a negotiated solution. It is a pity that the USA has failed to support its allies, including its closest neighbour and greatest trading partner.
Excellent points, InTheField, though you are not the only one feeling worried about this type of thing.
A couple of months ago the American ambassador to Australia , Tom Schieffer, had words to say about our federal opposition’s stance on Australia’s involvement in the war-
This blatant interference in our domestic politics caused anger at the time and is apparently still, justifiably, the subject of angry discussion.
So you are not alone in being on the end of US ambassadorial admonishments, reading your post just made me feel very, very, nervous.
In Cellucci’s defense, I will never criticize a man for being honest. He is the ambassador of the United States and it is his job to communicate to Canada on behalf of the government of the United States of America. The United States is officially upset that Canada is not part of the war effort, and Cellucci said so.
I don’t understand what he did wrong. You can certainly be angry at the United States government’s POSITION on this matter, but Cellucci’s honesty is both respectful and refreshing. Would you rather he bullshit us with mealy-mouthed platitudes and not tell us the truth? I wouldn’t. I prefer a forthright and honest approach, and that’s what we got.
Take your pick:
the USA is pissed at Canada, and Paul Cellucci tells us so.
the USA is pissed at Canada, and Paul Cellucci just bullshits us.
So if you’re going to Pit anyone, pit the executive branch of the United States federal government.
Well this administration has been pretty effective at alienating world opinion. In argentina we still remember late secretary of treasure’s mother mrs. O´neill.
If an ambassador significantly disagrees with the policies of the administration he represents, it’s his duty to resign rather than implement them. But he made the speech anyway, didn’t he?
Argeo Paul Cellucci dropped his first name to avoid appearing too Italian to the largely Irish voting populace in Massachusetts, got to be LG because Bill Weld thought he needed to reach out to the ethnic working-class demographic with his choice of running mate, got to be Governor when Weld got sick of the job (not as powerful as the Legislature leaderships, in fact), and did nothing of significance in the job himself except to rubber-stamp Big Dig cost overruns, while simultaneously avoiding explaining a huge personal debt and his regular visits to the racetrack.
Many of us in Mass. were not unhappy to see his next job be in a smaller, even colder city than Boston.
Unless I am being seriously wooshed here, I don’t see what Cellucci did that was offensive. The US is disappointed with Canada for not supporting the war and he told them so. That’s his job, is it not?
The United States didn’t nuke Saskatoon or send the Marines into Labrador. They’re expressing disappointment - relatively mild disappointment at that, far less overtly threatening than Bush expressed towards Mexico or Jacques Chirac experssed towards various Eastern European countries. Cellucci’s comments barely even qualify as a policy, much less a policy worth resigning over.
If we asked every ambassador to resign anytime they differed in ANY WAY from the government’s policy, you couldn’t keep any ambassadors in the job longer than a day.
Bush’s war could hardly be a more central issue in his foreign policy, Rick. Nations being “with us or against us” seems to be the* only* diplomatic topic this Administration places any value on, really. If that policy isn’t worth resigning over in case of disagreement, then what is? Note also that it isn’t necessary to use the same words to Canadians as to some other nationalities, from the US’s position, to be “threatening”, whether “overtly” or otherwise. No other nation nearly Canada’s size depends on good relations with the US to nearly the same extent. I do not understand your brushoff at all.
Read this, the text of the resignation letter by John Kiesling, political counselor at the US embassy to Greece, for a clearer perspective.
Well, Cellucci probably does support the war. But, I agree with RickJay. All he basically said was, “We’re disappointed Canada isn’t supporting us in this war.” What should he have said? “We’re glad Canada isn’t supporting us in this war”? That probably would be more insulting…
If all he had said was that he was disappointed, no one would be angry. Read the flipping OP, for chrissakes. He threatened trade sanctions against us, and implied that we are failing to live up to familial obligations by not coming to the aid of the US here, where the US would never fail in the opposite situation (in spite of the fact that it has done just that twice in this century, and Canada is actually being damn supportive on all issues other than this pre-emptive invasion). Being disappointed is fine. Threatening, lying, and hypocrisy are not.
The job of an ambassador, as I understand it, is to give a two way flow of information. Cellucci has a duty to understand the political and social situation in the country that he is in. If certain members of the administration give him “orders” to give a certain speech, it is his duty, I’d say, to tell them “well golly, if you want to foster relations with Canada, it might not be a good idea to give them shit and then threaten them not-so-subltly with trade sanctions. They’ll get really pissed at you”. He might have gone on to say “As I understood the Canadian people, I think you might try extending a hand of freindship - perhaps you could start by ending the softwood lumber dispute, since every international tribunal has found us to be in the wrong”.
But Cellucci did not do this. He parroted his masters voice. He did not give Washington the information about Canada that it sadly lacks.
He’s an asshole.
Well, that’s totally different from your first post; it’s a completely separate argument. If you wanted to argue this point to start with, why didn’t you?
But as to that… ummm, unless you’ve bugged his office, how do you know he didn’t have this conversation? How do you know he didn’t tell Washington “we need to lighten up on this subject here”? Answer; you don’t.
My point is not to defend the war or American foreign policy. I support neither. But flaming Paul Cellucci for George Bush’s war and botched diplomacy is akin to flaming the doctor who tells you you have cancer. Cellucci’s a DIPLOMAT; part of his job is, as you point out, to pass information. And if the U.S. government is pissed off and wants him to tell us so, it’s his job to say so. For all we know his comments might have been one tenth as threatening as the State Department had originally wanted. If you want him to be a two-way conduit of information don’t bitch and complain when he passes frank and honest information on to us.
Non-sequitur. Keislin’s letter, a non-sequitur. Cellucci’s record as a politician, a non-sequitur. His using his middle name, a non-sequitur. Why are you bothering?
I also think those defending Mr Cellucci’s comments don’t realize he made them in front of a meeting of heads of business and not to the folks in Ottawa. He used a well covered event to make this speach to stir up fear in those people in the business comunity who are already worried about a US backlash and at the same time going out of his way to Out the governements involvment in the war despite its claims to the contrary.
Excuse me if this doesn’t smack of a big stick bing threatened upon those who do not tow the line completely.
Unfortunately it seems to be working…
At first I was ok with the breech in protocol but the more I think of it and the fact it has been admitted that th ego ahead was given by Ms. Rice and her office… the more pissed I am getting about it.
I supported our troops going in to help but fuck the strong arm… I’ll be more pissed if any of our people end up dying there for Bush’s war.
A meeting to business leaders was not the appropriate forum for an ambassador to make this point. (ie We’re very disappointed in your government, and here’s a thinly veiled threat that we’re going to hurt your businesses economically")
Yes, yes, “Don’t shoot the messenger.” sez Rickjay
OTOH, Sometimes it is possible for both the messenger and the originator of the message to BOTH be assholes.
RickJay, perhaps you forgot the thread title. This is about the assholishness of Argeo Paul Cellucci. The fact that he’s acting as a messenger for higher-ranking (and possibly smellier) assholes does not detract from the evidence of his being one himself. In fact, his willingness to do so is evidence of the OP assertion. Evidence of how a non-asshole would have acted instead has been presented to you, despite your dismissal of it and your irrelevant presentation of lame excuses for his statements.
Would it make the point to you more effectively to call it the Bush Administration’s War instead of Bush’s War, and to point out Cellucci’s proud inclusion as part of the Bush Administration?
Don’t worry. Canadian scientists are now working on cross breeding 1st generation Dion offspring with first generation Twain offspring. And, I think there are some Murray genes being added for good measure.
If you are wondering what the American reaction to the music will be like - think Martians and Whitman.
Add me to the list of Americans who finds both the execution of this statmenet and the diplomatic strategy behind it deeply embarrassing and deeply troubling.
Any apology I offer would be empty, since I am but a small voice from well outside the beltway. I’m still sorry.