Topic: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) Of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a survey of Harper's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-harper-doctrine-conservative-foreign-policy-in-black-and-white/article2057886/

The Harper Doctrine: Conservative foreign policy in black and white

JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail
Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011

A few years ago at a conference in Washington, an American diplomat asked a Canadian journalist a blunt question.

“Why doesn’t Canada show up any more?” he wanted to know. “You’re just not at the table like you used to be.”

Canada under Stephen Harper is, emphatically, back at the table – pounding it, actually, while loudly brandishing what could be called the Harper Doctrine.

Tuesday, the House of Commons will debate and approve extending participation in the NATO mission in Libya. That mission is led by a Canadian general. Libya is one of two countries in the region to which Canadian forces are committed, though the mission in Afghanistan is winding down.

Not that long ago, the Canadian military had been starved to the brink of extinction, the federal government had been forced to cut back on peacekeeping commitments, foreign aid was all aspiration and little execution, and our diplomats trumpeted soft power because we had no other kind to offer.

Today, Canada has the political will and military muscle to back up a new and more militant foreign policy.

The Prime Minister reflected this new reality in his triumphalist speech to the Conservative party faithful on the weekend, where he articulated Canada’s approach to the world in a single, potent sentence.

“We know where our interests lie and who our friends are,” he declared, “and we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not.”

He didn’t call it the Harper Doctrine, but we can. It is startling both in its boldness and its utter lack of nuance.

Under the Harper Doctrine, Canada doesn’t just support the state of Israel. It supports Israel four-square, without reservation.

It doesn’t contribute to NATO and United Nations missions by sending a rusting destroyer or some other token measure. The army has been re-equipped, the air force is being re-equipped, the navy will be re-equipped, despite plans to rein in the dramatically enlarged defence budget. And this government doesn’t hesitate to send that military overseas in the service of Canadian and allied interests.

The Harper Doctrine permits real money to be spent on foreign aid, but that aid must mirror core Conservative values – so no funding for abortion or for aid groups seen as soft on Israel.

The Harper Doctrine aggressively asserts Canadian sovereignty in the far north, even as it seeks closer integration with the United States on security and trade.

And to execute the Harper Doctrine, Canada has for the first time in a decade a powerful new foreign minister who has the ear of the Prime Minister and who intimately shares his world view. John Baird could be in that job for a while, unlike the seven in ten years who came before.

Harper's detractors in the opposition parties, on university campuses and among some nongovernmental organizations abhor everything about his doctrine: Its slavish adherence to Israel, they say, renders Canada useless as an honest broker in Middle East conflicts.

For them, the billions spent on bringing the military up to grade could have been used to bring the deficit down more quickly, or to reduce inequalities within Canadian society; the interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are simply modern imperialism dressed up in humanitarian garb; Canadian assertions on Arctic sovereignty are unenforceable and wrong in international law, while negotiating a continental security perimeter with the United States will further compromise sovereignty.

For these critics, the empty-headed belligerence of the Harper Doctrine lay behind Canada’s humiliating defeat in its bid for a seat at the Security Council.

The Harper Doctrine is so categorical, and so starkly at odds with NDP and Liberal values, that foreign policy could increasingly become a polarizing element in Canadian politics.

But at least Canada has a foreign policy again. No one is asking where Canada has gone any more.

A couple of quibbles:

1. Ibbitson says, “Canada has the political will and military muscle to back up a new and more militant foreign policy.”

Neither is true, at least not as “true” as he suggests. The Government of Canada has the political will but it is not at all clear that it has convinced the country. It isn't so much that most Canadians are opposed – although many, many are – but rather that, unlike say their American, Australian and British counterparts they are somewhere between disinterested and isolationist.

The “military muscle” is stretched too far now, and will be even further stretched if this government does not improve, vastly, upon the financially inadequate Canada First Defence Strategy – which promises, by my calculations, to reduce the share of GDP which is devoted to national defence.

2. Ibbitson says, ”The Harper Doctrine aggressively asserts Canadian sovereignty in the far north ...” which is true, as far as it goes. But, he fails to mention that the Harper Government has not translated those assertions into actions, which require dollars.

Beyond those points, which are not minor, I agree with Ibbitson: ”Canada has a foreign policy again. No one is asking where Canada has gone any more.”

[recceguy]

Some other points that need to be put in perspective are:

'the empty-headed belligerence of the Harper Doctrine lay behind Canada’s humiliating defeat in its bid for a seat at the Security Council.'

When, in fact, there were too many other variables, including the EU to gain more control and the incessant meddling of Iggy and the Stooges, parroted by a biased media. No party in Canada could have bought us a seat during that round.

'The Harper Doctrine permits real money to be spent on foreign aid, but that aid must mirror core Conservative values'

This point can easily be compared to when the libs were in power. It's just the way politics works.

'Harper's detractors in the opposition parties, on university campuses and among some nongovernmental organizations abhor everything about his doctrine'

Of course they do. There's nothing in it for them and Opposition parties, for the last 7 years, have been 'opposing' no matter how much sense policies made because they come from the Conservatives. University campuses are a cesspool of radicalism and just plain empty headed sheep being herded by hippy era educators.

'The Harper Doctrine is so categorical, and so starkly at odds with NDP and Liberal values, that foreign policy could increasingly become a polarizing element in Canadian politics.'

And that is why, Canadians overwhelmingly elected such a strong Conservative government this time around, because they were tired of those same hollow, wishy washy NDP and Liberal values, that Trudeau, Chretien, et al have been snake oil selling to Canadians for so long.


Of course Ibbitson has never shied away from trying to make Harper the boogey man in the closet, even if he has to resort more spinning than a spider on crack.

edit - spelling

[Redeye]

I am interested to see how Harper's Israel stance shakes out, it's kind of embarrassing that we look like we're on the wrong side of things vis-a-vis our allies, and the common sense that suggests only a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations.  I don't know if that's in step with average Canadians, and the point about honest broker status is somewhat valid, although I don't think we've ever really had that so much as we've built a sort of cultural myth about it.

As for recceguy's claim about why Canadians elected the government they did - I suspect foreign policy had little to do with it.  I'm not even convinced there was much positive that attracted them to the Conservatives so much as the Liberals having a completely uninspired campaign (and hey, a couple years of ads smearing their leader couldn't have hurt, either).

I do have a feeling that "post-Afghanistan", a lot more interest will be paid to foreign policy.

[Old Sweat]

I would agree that foreign policy did not play a part in this election. The only time I recall where foreign and/or defence policy really mattered in my lifetime was in 1963, where the Liberals campaigned on accepting the nukes we had contracted for.

I think the pre-1967 border, while logical on paper and to the "no compromise is too great to achieve an agreement, especially if we don't have to sacrifice anything," crowd, ain't going to fly with the Israelis, especially given the advances in weapon systems since 1967. As a Canadian soldier serving in 4CIBG at the time, the major lesson learned was how easily the Israeli Centurions with bascially the same 105 mm main gun and armour we were using handled the Egyptian and Syrian Soviet tanks. That however has zip to do with today's foreign policy, and I suspect the government adopted this policy on principle, not pragmatism. This must have caused a mass attack of the vapours in the Pearson Building.

And I am with you on your third point, although the thrust may not be quite what you might wish.

[recceguy]

As for recceguy's claim about why Canadians elected the government they did - I suspect foreign policy had little to do with it.  I'm not even convinced there was much positive that attracted them to the Conservatives so much as the Liberals having a completely uninspired campaign (and hey, a couple years of ads smearing their leader couldn't have hurt, either).

Nonsense.

Suspect what you will. After all, we're all just speculating.

Perhaps I was seeming too specific, tying my statement to the foreign affairs topic, but the fact that Canadians found they liked the Conservative policies, as a whole, far and above the same old same old of the others, certainly had a huge and obvious bearing on the election outcome.

As for smear ads, that would connotate something sinister. All those ads did was tell the truth, harsh as it was. I saw them more as infomercials. The Conservative ones stood out simply because the attempts made by the NDP and liberals were so amateurish and they didn't have the supporter donations to sustain a long run. Certainly not the fault of the Conservatives that far more people donated dollars to them.

Now personally, I have no problem with it, but obviously, some people just can't seem to handle the truth. Abhorrent though it is to some But hey, it would be boring if we all went around in lock step. 

[Redeye]

As for smear ads, that would connotate something sinister. All those ads did was tell the truth, harsh as it was. I saw them more as infomercials. The Conservative ones stood out simply because the attempts made by the NDP and liberals were so amateurish and they didn't have the supporter donations to sustain a long run. Certainly not the fault of the Conservatives that far more people donated dollars to them.

Please.  They were quotemined smears.  Find something Ignatieff said, excise it from the context in which he said it, and then suggest something about him that was patently untrue.  It's hardly a new tactic.  And yes, everyone does it, sure, but that doesn't make it right.

[Redeye]

I think the pre-1967 border, while logical on paper and to the "no compromise is too great to achieve an agreement, especially if we don't have to sacrifice anything," crowd, ain't going to fly with the Israelis, especially given the advances in weapon systems since 1967. As a Canadian soldier serving in 4CIBG at the time, the major lesson learned was how easily the Israeli Centurions with bascially the same 105 mm main gun and armour we were using handled the Egyptian and Syrian Soviet tanks. That however has zip to do with today's foreign policy, and I suspect the government adopted this policy on principle, not pragmatism. This must have caused a mass attack of the vapours in the Pearson Building.

It certainly doesn't seem to resemble any sort of a pragmatic approach.  Certainly, from a strategic point of view, pre-67 borders without some horsetrading won't fly, but there's a fairly large subset of Israelis that seem to be quite alright with that as a starting point.  It seems obvious to me that the only viable solution is to allow a functioning Palestinian state to get on its own feet and that Israel will need to make concessions to do so.

[recceguy]

And yes, everyone does it, sure, but that doesn't make it right.

You keep saying that, however the Conservatives are the only ones that you ever try call on it when you drag out the old smear ad thingy. Always them, never the others. Hardly an unbiased approach.

[Redeye]

You keep saying that, however the Conservatives are the only ones that you ever try call on it when you drag out the old smear ad thingy. Always them, never the others. Hardly an unbiased approach.

The Libs did it with the asinine "soldiers ... on the streets ... with guns ..." ad a few years ago.  I didn't see a really good example from either other party during the campaign, but I also avoided seeing any of the ads as much as possible.

[Bird_Gunner45]

It certainly doesn't seem to resemble any sort of a pragmatic approach.  Certainly, from a strategic point of view, pre-67 borders without some horsetrading won't fly, but there's a fairly large subset of Israelis that seem to be quite alright with that as a starting point.  It seems obvious to me that the only viable solution is to allow a functioning Palestinian state to get on its own feet and that Israel will need to make concessions to do so.

The main problem with getting a Palestinian state up and going and "on it's feet", is that neither side can play nice long enough to do so. 
The palestinians attack the Israeli's, Israeli's react, etc.  Hamas and the other groups currently running the Palestinian government, in my opinion, have no real interest in establishing peace.

[E.R. Campbell]

I agree with Old Sweat that the government's policy towards Israel rests on principle. The Conservative base agrees that:

1. Israel is the only democracy in the region - Turkey is a democracy so long as it toes the Army's line and that's about it for miles and  miles in all directions. From Morocco to Pakistan, from Syria to Zimbabwe, Israel stands alone and unique as a real, vibrant, liberal democracy.

2. Israel is surrounded by enemies, real enemies who have, want to now and likely will, in the future, resort to war in an effort to destroy it.

3. "We," the Christian West, owe the Jews something for centuries of expulsion, pogroms, inquisitions and holocausts. Israel isn't too much.

4. The Arabs and Persians and other assorted Afro-Asian Muslims are not our "friends."

5. The Israelis are our friends - they are "like" us.

Some of those reasons appeal to more than just the Conservative base. The Arab propaganda machine, designed and built, mainly, by Hill and Knowlton in and after the 1980s but now including many others like e.g. Qorvis, has done an excellent job of painting Israel as Nazi Germany and of leading Western public opinion back towards its comfortable, familiar, institutional anti-semitism. But most Americans and Canadians appear to understand that things are not as simple as the Arabs (or the Israelis) pretend.

But, principles are uncomfortable - especially for young people for who find it easier to deal with simple slogans.

[Redeye]

The main problem with getting a Palestinian state up and going and "on it's feet", is that neither side can play nice long enough to do so. 

That's the very difficult piece of the puzzle.  Both sides have every reason to be suspicuous of the other, there's not a lot of good history to build from.  The person/group who comes up with an effective way to deal with that will get quite famous I suspect.

The palestinians attack the Israeli's, Israeli's react, etc.  Hamas and the other groups currently running the Palestinian government, in my opinion, have no real interest in establishing peace.

They have no interest in rolling over to Israel's demands.  They have very real and not entirely unreasonable demands.  They were after all basically booted off their lands in the name of some sort of debt of honour owed to "the Jews" that was collected on entirely by the Zionist movement.  They call the creation of Israel "an Nakba", "the catastrophe" for a very understandable reason.

To Mr. Campbell's point, why did "our" paying "our" debt to them make it okay to trample on the Arabs whose land "we" gave "them"?  I frequently find it very irritating that any sort of attempt at a rational, critical discussion of Israel/Palestine can be branded as "anti-semitism", because it's not.  There's a big difference. 

[E.R. Campbell]

...
To Mr. Campbell's point, why did "our" paying "our" debt to them make it okay to trample on the Arabs whose land "we" gave "them"?  I frequently find it very irritating that any sort of attempt at a rational, critical discussion of Israel/Palestine can be branded as "anti-semitism", because it's not.  There's a big difference.

Sykes-Picot and all that. The 20^th century Arab leaders were universally and irredeemably corrupt and they sold their lands and peoples for a few trinkets. "We," in turn, finally paid a 100+ year old debt (to, inter alia the Rothschilds) by giving land we "stole, fair and square" (as Canadian born, US Senator Haykawa put it) to them. Of course "we" didn't actually "give" the Jews any land. They bought it - remember those corrupt Arabs? By 1947 they were ready for partition with enough land, in two "packages" to support a couple of million Jews. The Arabs, being stupid as well as corrupt, attacked and lost.


Edit: spelling 

[GAP]

This whole discussion is base on an article by Ibbitson........not a biased bone in his body.............really....honest....

[Bird_Gunner45]

That's the very difficult piece of the puzzle.  Both sides have every reason to be suspicuous of the other, there's not a lot of good history to build from.  The person/group who comes up with an effective way to deal with that will get quite famous I suspect.

They have no interest in rolling over to Israel's demands.  They have very real and not entirely unreasonable demands.  They were after all basically booted off their lands in the name of some sort of debt of honour owed to "the Jews" that was collected on entirely by the Zionist movement.  They call the creation of Israel "an Nakba", "the catastrophe" for a very understandable reason.

To Mr. Campbell's point, why did "our" paying "our" debt to them make it okay to trample on the Arabs whose land "we" gave "them"?  I frequently find it very irritating that any sort of attempt at a rational, critical discussion of Israel/Palestine can be branded as "anti-semitism", because it's not.  There's a big difference.

The partition of Palestine was a UN mandate, which strove to create two equal states- one jewish and one palestinian.  The Arabs rejected the plan, as their preferred option was to have the entire territory annexed by Transjordan, with a jewish autonomous region.  It was actually the arabs that rejected the plan, and attacked the jewish plan with such peaceful and thoughtful slogans as "Drive the Jews into the sea".  History would seem to indicate that the largest failure for the Palestinians in establishing a homeland is their lack of military success, which they've attempted to overthrow through other methods.

[Retired AF Guy]

The partition of Palestine was a UN mandate, which strove to create two equal states- one jewish and one palestinian. The Arabs rejected the plan, as their preferred option was to have the entire territory annexed by Transjordan, with a jewish autonomous region.  It was actually the arabs that rejected the plan, and attacked the jewish plan with such peaceful and thoughtful slogans as "Drive the Jews into the sea".

If the Arabs had gone along with the original partition plan history might have been a lot different, but they didn't, and have been paying for it ever since. As Abba Eban said many years later, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

[Kirkhill]

From the American Interest article posted by Thucydides in “Conservatism Need Work”

The democratic revolution in Egypt is looking less democratic by the day; it looks more and more as if the Army used public unrest to block the Mubarak family’s attempt to turn Egypt into a family possession. The Army has ruled Egypt since the overthrow of King Farouk, playing liberals and religious conservatives off against each other

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/12/the-conservative-revolutionary/

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,37454.msg1052819.html#msg1052819

From ER Campbell

Turkey is a democracy so long as it toes the Army's line and that's about it for miles and miles in all directions

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,68433.msg1052792.html#msg1052792

Baghdad and the Mamelukes: 9th century AD

The Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad unwittingly create a group of considerable power in the Middle East. To strengthen their armies, they acquire slaves from the nomadic Turks of central Asia. These slaves, who become known as Mamelukes (from the Arabic mamluk, 'owned'), distinguish themselves in the service of the caliphate and are often given positions of military responsibility. Well placed to advance their own interests, they frequently take the opportunity.

The first Mameluke to seize extensive power is Ahmad ibn Tulun. In the early 870s he takes control of Egypt. By 877 he has conquered the Mediterranean coast through Palestine and up into Syria.

This first Mameluke dynasty lasts only a few decades, until 905. But the Mamelukes retain their importance and power throughout the Middle East. They have the natural strength of a small, self-aware military elite. They speak their own Turkish language in addition to the Arabic of their official masters (the weak caliphs in Baghdad, whose rule technically extends throughout the Muslim Middle East). And they constantly replenish their numbers with new recruits from the fierce tribes of central Asia and the Caucasus.

The height of Mameluke power begins in 1250, when they again seize control of Egypt. Ten years later they confront the Mongols.

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac85#ixzz1PDUrSrud

Muhammad Ali was an Albanian commander of the Ottoman army that was sent to drive Napoleon's forces out of Egypt, but upon the French withdrawal, seized power himself and forced the Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II to recognize him as Wāli, or Governor of Egypt in 1805.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Dynasty

The Arabs are not the issue except insofar as they can’t stand their Aristocrats, the Mamelukes.

They, the Arabs, pulled a Vortigern back in 870 when they brought in a bunch of Turks to do their fighting for them.  Ever since the Turks (Mamelukes and Ottomans) have been keeping the Arabs in line and the Arabs have been resenting it. Witness all those Wahabis that rebelled against the Ottomans (1811-1816) and the rising coordinated by Lawrence of Arabia – against the Ottomans.

And the Turks have survived in Egypt (and Turkey) by playing “the Grey Man”.  Their warrior caste remains true to itself – even when they let Caliphs, Sultans, Kings and Presidents come to the fore.

And for those that need reminding Vortigern was that weak-kneed Romano-Celt from south of Hadrian’s wall that invited Hengest and Horsa, with all their nice Anglo-Saxon friends, in to Britain to keep the Picts north of the wall.  Strangely enough, like the Mamelukes, they never left.

[E.R. Campbell]

Here is a column by Lawrence Martin, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, that perpetuates old myths about Canadian foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/now-that-canadas-tory-blue-stephen-harpers-rekindling-old-alliances/article2059116/

Now that Canada's Tory blue, Stephen Harper's rekindling old alliances

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jun. 14, 2011

With the William and Kate show soon to begin, an Associated Press reporter was asking about Stephen Harper’s evident affinity for the monarchy. He wondered if the Prime Minister sees the monarchy as a cornerstone of the Canadian identity.

Mr. Harper comes across as the biggest supporter of our sovereigns since John George Diefenbaker. He glowed during the Queen’s visit last summer. Under his stewardship, there has been no controversy over the monarchy’s future, no talk of one day breaking the final bonds with Britain. Jean Chrétien enjoyed a warm relationship with the Queen, but was ambivalent about the royal ties, a view which represented a wide swath of public opinion. Liberals like John Manley and Ken Dryden wanted to wave the monarchy goodbye as a final act in Canada’s growing up.

For Mr. Harper, the monarchy fits nicely with his old-fashioned sense of Canada. He is a prime minister who accentuates traditional symbols such as the North, the sport of hockey, the military. He is big on family values, the church, and straight, clean living. Full of conservative touchstones, it’s a portrait that harkens back to the 1950s, one that has a good deal of appeal, especially to the older demographic.

With the sparkling newlyweds, the monarchy could well be undergoing a repopularization in Canada and elsewhere. This will play well to the sentiments of the Prime Minister, who will undoubtedly be giving the Duke and Duchess a resplendent welcome on their eight-city tour, which will be watched by the international media.

Mr. Harper cherishes both our historic big-power allies, Britain and the United States, and with his majority will work to enhance ties with them. For growing the American relationship, he has been met, until now, with bad timing. Widespread disdain for the presidency of George W. Bush made progress difficult. The PM had to keep his distance, especially having supported the Iraq war. Mr. Chrétien’s bold and popular decision to stay out of that conflict required that the Liberal leader go up against both Britain and the U.S.

Under Barack Obama, who inherited the Bush recession, Ottawa has been seeking – though the Conservatives were slow off the mark in doing it – other markets. Our relationship with the U.S. has taken on a unique look. Foreign policy under Mr. Harper has shifted so much that it is now to the right of Washington’s. It’s hard to recall another period in our history where this has happened. Traditionally, Ottawa has favoured a nuanced approach, one that has won wide respect in foreign councils. In the past five years, it has given way to the arrogance of ideological certitude.

But as he sets course with his increased political capital, the PM can deepen the bonds with the U.S. The proposed perimeter accord could well be a deal of lasting significance, building on the commercial partnership of the free trade agreements and the defence partnership of NORAD.

Canada could certainly benefit from a pact that eases the post-9/11 barricading of the border, which has rightly been criticized by the Harper team. What is not needed is an umbrella agreement that would allow the Americans, still paranoid about security 10 years after 9/11, to extend draconian restrictions on liberties to this country in the wake of, say, another terrorist hit. We don’t know if such fears are justified because the perimeter negotiations are proceeding with customary Harperian secrecy, the latest example being the duplicity, as reported by the Auditor-General, in the G8 summit spending.

There is little doubt a perimeter agreement will be reached. Opponents will raise a storm about sovereignty being breached, but the nationalist community in this country is one whose clout has significantly diminished. Overcoming his old reputation as a regionalist, Mr. Harper has played the patriot card, which serves him well in countering such fears. His rhetoric is filled with stand-up-for-Canada bravado and salutes to the country’s greatness.

While nurturing the ancestral alliances, he’s trying to give the country a strong conservative sense of itself. A big blue Canadian id.

My big problem with Martin's analysis is this: ”Traditionally, Ottawa has favoured a nuanced approach, one that has won wide respect in foreign councils.” That is absolute, arrant nonsense. Canada's foreign policy was never nuanced. From the 1930s until today our foreign policy has been unabashedly pro-American in all things. John Diefenbaker did, indeed, yearn for a 'special relationship' with a British Empire which had only ever existed in his imagination and he did disdain John F Kennedy (for good reason, in my opinion) but while his politics were anti-American and pro—British his policy was consistent with Laurier, King and St Laurent. Pierre Trudeau was, personally, anti-Western – especially anti what he saw as the Anglo-American West - and his politics were visibly anti-American but, like Diefenbaker, he was required, by practicalities and by the pressures maintained by Canadian business and the bureaucracy, to maintain a pro-American policy, despite his own, personal views.

The nuances to which Martin refers are, mainly, Pearsonian and they reflect diplomatic rather than policy issues. Canada did, indeed, shepherd the solution to the Anglo-American discord over the 1957 Suez crisis through the UN. He did so because we were America's closest ally and we, and the US, had a vested interest in preventing a UK/US split. Ditto the ICC in Viet Nam; Canada, like several US allies, had serious, well founded, reservations about direct intervention in a civil war on the Asian mainland. But we were determined to do something to help the West: the ICC was not a nuanced thing – it provided an essential, desired by the US, channel to Russia and China and Canada was the US' proxy there. Our policy was 100% consistent with King and St Laurent; the nuances were for diplomatic 'cover.'

Harper may be giving us a 1950s 'replay.' But he is not changing the main thrust of our foreign policy.
   

[E.R. Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a little bit off topic, but I am putting it here rather than in Have we become a conservative country? or starting a new thread:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ex-tory-message-maven-tailors-his-spin-to-oil-sands/article2112313/

Ex-Tory message maven tailors his spin to oil sands

COLIN FREEZE

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Jul. 28, 2011

Alykhan Velshi, a 27-year-old who established himself in Ottawa as a master of messaging and a crucial cog in the Conservative machine, has a new job – he’s out to polish the image of Canada’s oil sands in the minds of freedom-loving people everywhere.

“When petroleum reserves were deposited around the world, it is unfortunate that they were all given to the world’s bastards,” he said. “With the exception of Canada, most of them are with the world’s bastards. You need to recognize that when you are buying oil.”

Never known for subtlety, Mr. Velshi now runs EthicalOil.org, a blog set to relaunch on Thursday.

A few months ago, he was the communications director for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. He was also an important part of the Tory war room that steamrolled the Liberal Party en route to victory.

During his years as a lawyer-turned-political-aide on the Hill, Mr. Velshi had a knack for generating publicity – and controversy. These days, he is very busy on his iPad, working to create provocative, even outrageous, Internet ads.

The message? The cruellest crude is “conflict oil” flowing from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran – this is the stuff that greases the wheels of “dictatorship,” fuels “terrorism” and even results in “women stoned to death.”

Is there an alternative? You bet. The ads argue that Canada’s oil generates taxable revenues that are used to help fund “democracy,” “peacekeeping” and even Pride Day parades for gays and lesbians.

The choice couldn’t be presented more starkly. “When people buy coffee, they want to buy fair-trade coffee. This is a similar sort of idea,” Mr. Velshi said.

Ethical oil is not a new concept. The pundit Ezra Levant first popularized it a couple of years ago in a hardcover book. When Mr. Levant moved on to Sun TV this spring, he handed over the reins to his friend, Mr. Velshi.

Now that he’s inherited the EthicalOil.org blog, he wants to drive home the messaging with short, sharp bursts of social media. “We don’t have an office,” he said. “It’s just words and pictures and YouTube videos. And I’m trying to keep it that way.”

Mr. Velshi says he is not paying himself a salary. A PayPal button on the website is being used to gather small donations for media projects.

Asked whether he is getting corporate donations, he said, “I won’t take money from any foreign corporations, any governments.” Pressed about Canadian corporate donations, he said he wouldn’t refuse any.

Mr. Velshi says he’s not violating the federal law that forbids former aides from lobbying for five years after leaving government. He stresses that he’s not lobbying former Conservative colleagues about the oil sands. He hardly needs to – Environment Minister Peter Kent has already taken it upon himself to use “ethical oil” parlance.

Burnishing the image of the oil sands globally is a much taller order. Environmentalists have spent years telling the world that the oil sands are a calamity that will contribute vastly to global warming. The European Union has threatened to do what it can to brand the oil sands as a “dirty” fuel source. Ottawa is sending lobbyists abroad in hopes of battling bad press and securing export markets.

“Climate change is one of the biggest challenges mankind faces,” Mr. Velshi conceded, before offering a litany of arguments suggesting the oil sands’ carbon footprint isn’t as bad as many fear. And it’s the “hands down” ethical choice, he said.

History has shown Mr. Velshi can go to great lengths to neutralize those whom he considers adversaries. For example, a Federal Court judge last year probed certain behind-the-scenes dealings that resulted in Canada’s bureaucracy barring maverick British MP George Galloway from entering the country by branding him inadmissible as a supposed terrorist threat.

“One might hope that a ministerial aide would exercise greater restraint,” Judge Richard Mosley wrote in a passage critical of Mr. Velshi’s manoeuvrings.

No longer restrained by any role in government, the former political aide is training his crosshairs elsewhere.

“I’m not shying away from picking a fight with Saudi Arabia,” said Mr. Velshi, who spoke contemptuously of Saudi princes. “When you’re filling up the tank, I think you’re indirectly funding them and their pet projects – and their pet projects are less likely to be peacekeeping than funding terrorist organizations.”

The real story isn't about either Mr. Velshi or oil, it is all about how "we," Canadians, are shifting our world view.

I would argue that 15 years ago, circa 1996, no one - not even an oil sands consortium facing a backlash from American environmentalists - would have dared to fund such a campaign. In the 1990s our national 'world view' was firmly in a neutralist, even isolationist position. Now, for a whole hot of reasons - not all of which have anything to do with Conservatives, Liberals, the NDP or even the Greens - we have a different view and Velshi and his paymasters feel comfortable with this:


The EthicalOil.org site suggests consumers must choose between oil produced by dictatorships or
oil produced by democracies. Shown are the flags of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Canada.
All captions from the Globe and Mail at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ethical-oil-ad-campaign/article2112295/?from=2112313


The EthicalOil.org site posits that consumers must choose between oil produced by countries that
repress women or oil produced by countries that celebrate them. Shown on the left is a women being
stoned in Iran in the late 1970s. Shown on the right is the current Mayor of Fort McMurray, Melissa Blake.


The EthicalOil.org site suggests consumers must choose between oil resulting from "good jobs" in
Canada or "forced labour" in repressive countries. This ad nods to Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, where
the United Nations has condemned certain mining operations for using forced labour, according
to EthicalOil.org spokesman Alykhan Velshi.


The EthicalOil.org site claims consumers should choose between oil producers who ravage their
environments and oil producers who clean up their messes. Pictured here is an oil field in the Niger Delta
and also a reclaimed, reforested Syncrude site in Western Canada.


The EthicalOil.org site argues that consumers must choose between oil produced by countries that
fund terrorism or oil produced by countries that bankroll peacekeeping operations. Shown on the left
is a derrick in Saudi Arabia, and on the right is a “Reconciliation,” a peacekeeping monument in Ottawa.


The EthicalOil.org site proffers that consumers must choose between oil that comes from countries
that repress gays and lesbians or oil produced by countries that celebrate gays and lesbians.
Creator Alykhan Velshi says the image on the left shows gays being hanged in Iran. The image on
the right is from Toronto’s annual Pride parade.


The EthicalOil.org site suggests repressive states like Sudan, now separating into two after protracted
ethnic civil war, use oil revenues to kill indigenous peoples. Meantime, certain aboriginal Canadian
bands living near Fort McMurray are said to have close to zero unemployment thanks to the jobs the
drilling projects bring.


See, also, the Ethical Oil web site and this Wikipedia bio of Alykhan Velshi.

[E.R. Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, would, almost certainly, not have been whispered in the newsroom much less put on the editorial page of the Good Grey Globe fifteen years ago:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-oil-diamond-analogy/article2115888/

The oil-diamond analogy

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Its rhetoric is crude, and its visuals derivative (of the artist Barbara Kruger), but EthicalOil.org's campaign is an effective and overdue response to the grossly distorted slurs used by some environmental groups to attack the oil-sands industry in Alberta.

Former federal Conservative political staffer Alykhan Velshi is driving the campaign, which characterizes oil flowing from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran as “conflict oil” – a riff on conflict diamonds – that is used to prop up dictatorship, funds terrorism and results in persecution. In contrast, Canada's “ethical oil” fuels democracy, funds peacekeeping and is an economic underpinning of a society that embraces tolerance, such as gay pride. As Mr. Velshi explains, “When people buy coffee, they want to buy fair-trade coffee. This is a similar sort of idea.”

It's a necessary and direct response to the salvos of some environmental groups, epitomized by the recent “Rethink Alberta” campaign, an alarmist attack that implies Alberta is awash in toxic sludge and populated by poisoned aboriginals and dead ducks. It is grossly distorted, and while its target is ostensibly the oil-sands industry, it seeks to cripple the province's tourism industry, an industry, ironically, with an enormous stake in the preservation of Alberta's environment. “Rethink Alberta” has done untold damage to Alberta's reputation.

Politicians both provincial and federal, and the oil-sands industry itself, have made the oil sands vulnerable to such attacks. They have not done enough to improve the industry's environmental record, and no amount of effort on Mr. Velshi's part can alter that fact. Nor have they been particularly effective in educating people in Canada and abroad about its enormous benefits. That's where EthicalOil.org can help. There has been strong response to Mr. Velshi's use of what one critic calls the “dark arts of spin and misdirection” on behalf of the oil sands, but EthicalOil.org's ads should be viewed for what they are: a welcome effort to level the field.

Rabid anti-Albertan Jeffrey Simpson must be there, in the corner, holding his breath and stamping his feet, wondering why his 'wisdom' isn't impressing the editorial board or, for that matter, most Canadians.

If the Globe and Mail is onside then watch for a more aggressive stance on "right and wrong," especially regarding some formerly sacred cows (like never criticizing black African governments).

[ArmyNerd]

Double standards with a slight blue tinge because the Tories are in power. There is no such thing as ethical oil. Its a cute marketing ploy nothing more. Canada will get its lead filled toothpaste and slave made iPad from China but we are squeamish on where we get our oil from? I'm not bashing Alberta and the oil industry, it has bailed out the welfare system more times than it should have to. However with alternatives becoming more sustainable, thought not completely, to run and ad like this is disingenuous.
In regards to Israel, I'm not surprised about the stance, religion makes for bountiful campain donations and they control the holy land and traffic in and out. As for being a democracy, if calling that makes you feel better about the relationship then fine. But between the illegal settlements and the new law the ruling parties are passing making democratic rule subservient to the state's definition as 'the national home for the Jewish people'. Which is code for if your not Jewish and don't want to become Jewish get out. Hardly democratic.
And in regards to Mr Cambell's comment on how "they are like us", they are not. They have been driven to paranoia and religious extremism brought on by a holocaust, failure to assimilate into other cultures; (winston churchill even wrote about it), and somehow their nukes are special in that they don't need UN oversight, so they are not accountable to anyone.
Our relationship will them is purely political and purely religiously motivated and is embarrassing foreign policy.

ArmyNerd's 

[Brad Sallows]

I found some medications on the street here...is anyone missing his?

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is an interesting reflection on Canada's “response” to 9/11:

My emphasis added.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Canada+flunked+test/5368263/story.html

Canada flunked its 9/11 test

By Paul H. Chapin, Ottawa Citizen

September 8, 2011

Canadians watching television on 9/11 knew instinctively the world had changed in some profound way. Out of a clear blue sky, someone had destroyed downtown Manhattan killing thousands, and attacked the military headquarters of the greatest military power the world had ever known. It wasn't the Empire of Japan or the Strategic Rocket Forces of the USSR or the lunatic regime of North Korea. As we would soon learn, those responsible had come from one of the poorest and most remote regions on Earth, armed with box cutters to slit the throats of pilots and flight attendants.

Canada's response was a study in contrasts. The population was stunned and horrified, but also angry and determined - determined to stand with an afflicted nation, to help in any way possible, and to support going after the perpetrators. The heroes of the day were the minister of transport, David Collenette, who arranged the safe landing in Canada of hundreds of transoceanic flights, the families and communities who took in the thousands of stranded passengers, and the Canadian Forces and security services who instantly readied the country's defences.

But the leading lights of Canada were just confused. Their familiar and comfortable world had disappeared in a morning, and they had neither a moral compass nor an historical map to guide them. The prime minister hunkered down: he said almost nothing, convened no cabinet meetings, did not recall Parliament, and never phoned U.S. president George W. Bush. If Tony Blair wanted to do these kinds of things to ingratiate himself with the Americans, he wrote in his memoirs, "that was his call." On the first anniversary, Chrétien would suggest to the CBC the Americans had had it coming: "I said that in New York one day, you know talking, it was Wall Street, and it was a crowd of capitalists. ... When you're powerful like you are, you guys, is the time to be nice. ... You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others."

Canada's leaders in the media and the universities also failed the people. In the National Post, Robert Fulford would express the hope that "The frontal attack on Western civilization by Islamic radicals" would encourage Canadians to reassess "the habit of banality and euphemism" which had "crippled public discussion and made us less able to understand what has happened to us - and that, in turn has limited our ability to defend ourselves." But attitudes hardened over decades would take time to soften - and smart opinion in Canada still flunks the five most important lessons of 9/11:

1) The essential ideas that govern how we conduct world politics must change. As Philip Bobbitt wrote in The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History. "For five centuries it has taken the resources of a state to destroy another state: only states could muster the huge revenues, conscript the vast armies, and equip the divisions required to threaten the survival of other states. ... We are entering a period, however, when very small numbers of persons operating with the enormous power of modern computers, biogenetics, air transport, and even nuclear weapons can deal lethal blows to any society." We need doctrines, laws and institutions designed for our times - not the hoary and increasingly pitiful ones we have to work with from yesterday.

2) Democratic states had better defend themselves, whatever the cost and however else they might prefer to spend their money. Open societies are highly vulnerable to terrorist attack regardless of their military forces. On 9/11, the devastation would have been far greater had the attackers been armed with chemical, biological or nuclear devices.

3) Democratic states cannot stay on the defensive; the enemy has to be rooted out and destroyed. Otherwise, we will have to resign ourselves to living in constant fear of another attack, spending vast sums on barriers that could never be fully impenetrable, and suspending civil liberties to protect the population.

4) Identifying who the enemies are and devising suitable strategies to deal with them will take imagination and ingenuity - as well as patience and fortitude few democratic states have shown recently. We know the threat is almost entirely from Islamist jihadists; what we don't fully understand is who and where they are, what their agenda is, and what their weaknesses may be. Without a good fix on the problem, every solution is a guess.

5) The problem is not just an American one, all democratic states share in it, and all need to put real effort into dealing with it. Trying to be agreeable is not going to spare anyone. So it's time we all got over our juvenile anti-Americanism and began contributing commensurate with our means, including Canadians. Two generations ago, secretary of state Dean Acheson pointed out that Canadians often lectured others on their faults without themselves taking responsibility for the problems of the world. This meant Canadian leaders could "acquire reputations and honours, while blame for failure goes to those possessed of power and means." Not much in our response to 9/11 would argue for Canadians being morally superior to Americans.

A sign of our times: Following her visit to Canada last summer, Queen Elizabeth II went to New York to dedicate the British garden at Hanover Square commemorating the 67 British citizens who died on 9/11. There is no memorial to the 24 Canadians killed that same day.

Paul Chapin is a former Canadian diplomat and currently director of research at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute in Ottawa.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Food for thought from someone with a considered opinion.


______________
PAUL H. CHAPIN is widely recognized in international diplomatic and defense circles as an action-oriented executive with strong leadership abilities and a record for delivering results. He combines extensive knowledge of international security affairs with experience in government decision-making and in the deliberative processes of the United Nations, NATO and other international organizations. Mr. Chapin has led interdisciplinary teams with the highest professional standards, has successfully conducted international negotiations on behalf of the Government of Canada, and enjoys an excellent rapport with political leaders, government officials, military and police officers, non-governmental organizations, and the academic and business communities.

Mr. Chapin recently left government service after more than 25 years in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. During his diplomatic career, he served in    Washington as Minister-Counsellor in charge of the political section of the Canadian embassy, as Canada’s representative on the NATO Political Advisors Committee in Brussels, and as a political affairs officer at the Canadian embassies in Moscow and Tel Aviv. He was also head of political and strategic analysis at Foreign Affairs and responsible for oversight of Canada’s security and intelligence agencies in the Office of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Between 2003 and 2006, Mr. Chapin was Director General for International Security at Foreign Affairs in which capacity he advised the government on international security issues, served as Canada’s principal arms control authority, and managed the operations of Canada’s missions to NATO (Brussels), the International Atomic Energy Agency (Vienna), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (Vienna), and the UN Conference on Disarmament (Geneva).  Mr. Chapin co-chaired meetings of the Canada-US Permanent Joint Board on Defense that helped develop the new architecture for North American security after 9/11, and was Canada’s lead negotiator in securing renewal of the NORAD aerospace defence agreement with the United States in 2005. He also headed up the negotiations with Washington on terms for Canadian participation in the US Ballistic Missile Defense program, an option the government later chose not to exercise. With colleagues at National Defence, RCMP and CIDA, Mr. Chapin developed the strategy to shift the centre of gravity of Canada’s peace operations in Afghanistan from Kabul to Kandahar, to deploy Canadian Forces and RCMP police contingents to Haiti after the collapse of the Aristide regime, to provide the African Union with support for peacekeeping in Darfur, and to organize Canadian humanitarian relief supplies to Sri Lanka and Indonesia following the Asian tsunami.

Between 2006 and 2008, Mr. Chapin was Vice President (Programs) at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. As a member of its Executive Committee, he was actively engaged in managing the Centre’s world renowned international training programs and exercise services to prepare military, police and civilians worldwide for deployment to UN and other peace missions. Responsible for business development, during his two-year term the Centre’s annual revenues more than doubled to close to $20 million.     

Mr. Chapin now does consulting work for government, as he did during the 1990s through a firm he co-founded and managed. In addition, he is an adjunct professor and research associate in the Defence Management Studies program at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, where he teaches an MPA course on foreign policy decision-making and is writing a book on Canadian foreign policy. Mr. Chapin has lectured in Canada, the United States, Japan, and Europe, including teaching an MBA-level course on rebuilding war-torn societies at EUROMED Management in Marseille. In 2008, Mr. Chapin was invited to join the board of the Conference of Defence Associations institute.    

[milnews.ca]

I don't think Quebec will be entirely off the radar in government political decision making, but I'll agree that this argument from Jack Granatstein could mean Quebec could be a smaller presence on the radar screen.....

.... for the Harper government, the new reality is that Alberta attitudes drive defence policy, not Quebec opinions. Virtually every opinion poll over recent decades has shown attitudes in Alberta consistently more hawkish than quasi-pacifist opinion in French Canada. The Tories have little support in Quebec, and the last election confirmed that they don’t need Quebec M.P.s to create a parliamentary majority. The coming addition of some thirty more seats in the House of Commons for Ontario and the West will entrench this new reality. In the circumstances, the Conservatives have a free hand to build the defence and foreign policy that suits their view of the world. And they will ....

National Post column, 17 Sept 11

[E.R. Campbell]

I cannot think of anything less likely to change Prime Minister Harper's mind that a bunch of celebrity, foreign busybodies telling him what to oppose (or support) in Canada, as eight Nobel laureates have done, according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nobel-laureates-press-harper-to-oppose-alberta-oil-sands-expansion/article2183726/

Nobel laureates press Harper to oppose Alberta oil-sands expansion

BOB WEBER
The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2011

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one of eight Nobel Peace Prize winners who have signed a letter asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do what he can to stop the growth of Alberta's oilsands.

The letter comes three weeks after several peace prize laureates wrote a letter to United States President Barack Obama asking him to block the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would increase oil sands exports to the United States.

“Just as we called on President Obama to reject the pipeline, we are calling on you to use your power to halt the expansion of the tar sands – and ensure that Canada moves towards a clean energy future,” the letter says.

The laureates point out that Mr. Harper has called climate change one of humanity's biggest challenges. They call on him to back his words with action by using federal powers to halt further expansion of the oil sands.

“It would be wrong for humanity to choose a path that drives hundreds of thousands of species to extinction,” the letter says. “It would be wrong for a rich minority of the world's inhabitants to create a problem like climate change and then refuse to do its fair share to fix it.

“And it would be wrong for this generation to make this planet uninhabitable when we know that our children and grandchildren will be forced to deal with the consequences.”

The letter was co-ordinated through and released by the Nobel Women's Initiative, a group that co-ordinates the activities of the six living female winners of the peace prize.

Jody Williams, an American who won her prize in 1997 for her work toward an international treaty banning land mines, said it makes sense for the group to address environmental causes.

“Part of conflict is the result of the ruination of the environment,” she said, pointing out that the fighting in the Sudan's Darfur region was partly the result of desertification.

“Our security is tied to the environment.”

Ms. Williams said the group's interest in the oil sands is long-standing. She said she appeared at the University of Alberta several years ago to speak out against the oil sands.

“The tar sands is something that has personally bothered me for some time,” she said. “It's not something new.”

Travis Davies, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the oil sands are a needed energy source that is constantly reducing its environmental impact.

“We all want more renewable energy options,” he said.

“[But] every credible forecast cites large increases in energy demand over the foreseeable future. We will need more of all energy sources to meet this need.

“We will continue to improve our environmental performance.”

The letter says Canada is well-placed to be a leader in fighting climate change. It praises Ontario legislation that aims to phase out high-carbon, coal-fired power generation, calling it “probably the single most effective piece of legislation promoting renewable energy in North America.”

Besides Archbishop Tutu and Ms. Williams, the signatories include Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Rigoberta MenchDu Tum, Jose Ramos-Horta, and Shirin Ebadi.

They are renowned for their work in promoting peace and human rights in South Africa, East Timor, Northern Ireland, Argentina, Iran and Guatemala, as well as for causes such as banning land mines.

The letter to Mr. Harper is signed by almost all the same people who signed the one to Mr. Obama, except for the Dalai Lama. Ms. Williams said the group couldn't get in touch with him in time.

Ms. Williams said she doesn't expect a response. “I don't really think they care,” she said.

While this will make Maude Barlow and Naomi Klein so happy they will, likely, pee their pants, Jody Williams is right: they don't care. They do care about the environment, albeit not so much about global warming climate change (because Canada's does little do contribute to it and can do equally little to slow it down) and they do care about the Canadian economy - what they do not care about, and, I suspect what actually annoys them, is hectoring from the international celebrity cheap seats.