the daily snivel

In one of the most childish and immature US foreign policy decisions recently, ("freedom fries" was the winner in that category prior to this), Condoleezza Rice has reportedly delayed her scheduled April trip to Canada due to this country's decision last week not to participate in the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program.


The ripple effect created when Canada said 'no' to signing on to U.S. missile defence seems to have penetrated deeper south of the border than first believed.

CTV News has learned that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was so displeased by Canada's decision to opt out of the program that she's postponed a planned visit to Ottawa in mid-April.

A senior U.S. State Department official, who was on board a London-bound flight with Rice, confirmed to CTV News that the cancellation of the Canadian visit was a direct consequence of Martin's decision.

Washington State Department spokesman Adam Ereli took a softer line, saying there's still discussion going on about the timing of the meeting, and that "it'll happen when the stars are all aligned in the right way."


They're now consulting astrologists? Well, that sounds quite familiar, doesn't it?

Apparently, the US administration doesn't appreciate the fact that Canada actually has leaders who think things over and occassionally even listen to the electorate which does not support participation in BMD either:

That could take a very long time, reports Clark. He adds that it wasn't just that Martin opted out of the American plan but the way in which he did it.

Martin has sent signals in the past that he was in favour of Washington's missile defence program.

"I think our sovereignty depends on our being at the table when discussions are taking place about the defence of North America," he said about a year-and-a-half ago.

And last fall, Defence Minister Bill Graham made statements indicating it would be a serious mistake for the government not to be at the table with the Americans on the issue of missile defence.

But on Thursday, Martin announced: "BMD is not where we will concentrate our efforts. Instead, we will act both alone and with our neighbours on defence priorities outlined in (the) budget."

Further proof that thinking about things is not allowed:

Chris Sands of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies says that the result of Martin's backtracking on the issue could have negative consequences for Canada-U.S. relations.

"The one thing with Bush, the one thing you don't do with him is double-talk him. You tell him what you think," he tells CTV News.

Canada has now told him exactly what we think, so what is the US administration complaining about now? Oh. That's right. Because Canada does not agree with Bushco about BMD, our thinking must then necessarily be wrong.

Remember Paul Cellucci? US ambassador to Canada who told us last week that Canada has given up its sovereignty because we stuck up for our sovereignty? He weighs in now with this:

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, says American anger and astonishment at Canada's decision runs deep.

Prove it Cellucci. Is that some kind of threat? And is delaying Rice's trip to Canada some kind of retribution? Frankly, was see that as a bonus. If she's so miffed about visiting us now because we made a decision to protect our sovereignty and independence, we'd rather she stayed home.

Meanwhile, back in fantasy land:

"Bush is very frustrated with Canada and the way Canadians are making their decisions, about everything from Iraq to missile defence," says Clark, adding that consequences of Martin's decision could impact trade areas such as softwood lumber.

Ummm, hello United States of America? The softwood lumber dispute has been going on for decades and guess what? Canada won at the WTO. What are you going to do? Invade and cut down all of our trees?

Dwight Mason, former chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense, said one impact will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal.

"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes.

Please. I'm asking nicely now. Can someone please explain to me how choosing to stand up for our country's policy decisions equals giving up our sovereignty? I've misplaced my copy of 1984.

What was it Rice had said during her confirmation hearings? Wasn't there something in there about practicing more diplomacy? Maybe that meant practicing diplomacy only with countries that agree with absolutely everything you believe in...or else. Yes, that must have been it. I guess I misunderestimated what US diplomacy this time around was supposed to be about.

It's like living with an abusive spouse: "I promise I'll change! I promise it will never happen again! I promise to do things differently next time!"

Smack.