Author Topic: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy  (Read 21081 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 45,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,637
  • Just plain difficult
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #125 on: November 14, 2011, 11:06:39 »
It will be interesting to see how the PM handles his own domestic environmental lobby on the West Coast.

The same players that are determined to scuttle the Keystone pipeline are equally determined to scuttle the Northern Gateway.

It seems it would be difficult to berate Obama for "caving" to environmental politics and then have to "cave" in Canada.

Does this mean that the PM is going to approve Northern Gateway this mandate regardless of BC politics?  If so, and the thing were done, then twere best done quickly.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #126 on: November 14, 2011, 11:14:09 »
It will be interesting to see how the PM handles his own domestic environmental lobby on the West Coast.

The same players that are determined to scuttle the Keystone pipeline are equally determined to scuttle the Northern Gateway.

It seems it would be difficult to berate Obama for "caving" to environmental politics and then have to "cave" in Canada.

Does this mean that the PM is going to approve Northern Gateway this mandate regardless of BC politics?  If so, and the thing were done, then twere best done quickly.


I agree ... decide it will be done. Buy off the aboriginal bands, they can all be bought. BC wants this as much as Ottawa does. Do it quickly; bulldoze the opposition.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #127 on: November 28, 2011, 08:00:37 »
This, in the report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a significant foreign policy issue and President Obama's response to it will go a long way to shaping the direction of Canada's foreign policy for a generation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/border-deal-a-hard-barrier-for-harpers-critics-to-cross/article2251266/
Quote
Border deal a hard barrier for Harper’s critics to cross

JOHN IBBITSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
From Monday's Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Nov. 27, 2011

The new Canada-U.S. border agreement will be unveiled at the White House by Barack Obama and Stephen Harper in early December. When they read it, some people will go ballistic.

That’s because the Beyond the Border action plan, according to those who have watched the negotiations closely, is expected to include a new entry-exit system that will track everyone coming into or leaving Canada by land, sea or air. It will be part of the continental security perimeter that is one of the key elements of the accord.

Colin Robertson, the former trade diplomat, argues in an article to be published next month in Policy Options magazine that an entry-exit system will enable the federal government to, among other things, ensure that landed immigrants are actually living in Canada.

But the proposal will play to fears that the Conservatives are selling out this country’s sovereignty and undermining privacy rights in exchange for some illusory access to American markets.

The anti-American crowd will be looking for something to bash. This should do nicely.

Those who worked on hammering out the agreement over the past nine months are proud of it. They say it lives up to the mandate the President and Prime Minister gave them last February to make the continent safer and the border easier to cross.

A planned September rollout was delayed in part because of a hitch negotiating a pre-clearance agreement, which will make it possible to inspect some trucks at the factory rather than at the border.

But the problems were sorted out and the final agreement is robust. It will harmonize a plethora of regulations and safety standards in the automobile, food and other industries. It will make it easier to obtain temporary work permits and a trusted-traveller document that will allow frequent crossers to skip the lineup at Customs.

Air, land and maritime inspections will be more fully integrated, and both sides will be able to more easily detect and deter cyber threats.

Though it will begin more with pilots than with full programs, the accord will offer both countries a blueprint for greater economic and security integration.

If, that is, it ever sees the light of day. The Americans are much distracted with economic woes and next year’s elections.

Up here, many will balk at the iris scans or other biometric measures that doubtless will come with the new entry-exit controls, while others will fight the idea of sharing more data on Canadian citizens with the Americans.

At the root of much of the criticism will lie the notion, common to far too many Canadians, that the United States is an empire in decline – and good riddance – and that the faster this country forges new ties with Asia and elsewhere, the better.

But those who would write off the United States should remember that, Buy American and pipeline cancellations notwithstanding, it remains a great power and a great economy. Canada's security and prosperity will always depend on America's, however much we increase trade with the Asian tigers.

Beyond the Border is the indispensible next step in a long, complex but richly rewarding relationship. We know Mr. Harper is solidly behind it. Here’s hoping Mr. Obama also finds the will and the way to see it through.


Ibbitson is correct when he says "Buy American and pipeline cancellations notwithstanding, it remains a great power and a great economy. Canada's security and prosperity will always depend on America's, however much we increase trade with the Asian tigers." ("Always" being understood as a flexible term that means for the life of your grandchildren.)

Canada will turn, more and more, towards Asia, simply because the US market is not big enough for us and for its own manufacturers and hewers of wood, who will be increasingly (albeit often illegally) protected in the next decades. But we do not want, not in the lifespans of your grandchildren, to replace America with China, as we replaced Britain with America during the lifespans of my parents.

But the rate at which we embrace Asia, the rate of policy change, and the degree of that change will be set by Obama's enthusiasm for this deal. If he spurns Canada, America's best friend, then the Asian proponents, people like me, will have won. Obama, in my opinion is stupid enough and greedy enough (to hold on to power) to make a strategic error of great magnitude: "losing" Canada.

But there is a hidden threat, to the USA, in this deal: Canada will insist that the US devote more and more and more attention to its Southern border which, if this deal goes through, will be a threat to us, too. That's a political problem for both parties in the USA ~ both of which are courting the Hispanic vote. We want, as a matter of US policy a 95:5% ratio of effort Mexican border vs Canadian border.



It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 129,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,824
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #128 on: November 28, 2011, 08:13:48 »
Canada has be lax and lackadaisical in monitoring who is coming in and out of our country...

The US concerns aside, I have to shake my head when I hear of groups of passengers getting off planes and promply claiming refugee status with no ID's/fake ID's....and we just blithely set them up with the basic amenities and let them go their way....with lots of stern warnings I am sure...

We don't have to become draconian, but we have to do better than we are....
REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #129 on: November 28, 2011, 09:10:06 »
Canada has be lax and lackadaisical in monitoring who is coming in and out of our country...

The US concerns aside, I have to shake my head when I hear of groups of passengers getting off planes and promply claiming refugee status with no ID's/fake ID's....and we just blithely set them up with the basic amenities and let them go their way....with lots of stern warnings I am sure...

We don't have to become draconian, but we have to do better than we are....


So has the USA - maybe worse than Canada. The National Tourism Association, for example, appears top believe that a platinum card is all one needs to prove that one is a good, legitimate visitor to the USA and ought to get a visa.

The US/Mexico border is a disgrace and a monument to the triumph of cheap, ward heeling partisan politics over national security. Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43) and Obama should all be ashamed - and so should 90% of Americans.



It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 129,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,824
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #130 on: November 28, 2011, 09:12:57 »
agreed
REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Online Old Sweat

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 80,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,148
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #131 on: December 02, 2011, 10:21:19 »
Lawrence Martin has turned into a one tune orchestra on the subject of evil Stephen Harper and his abandonment of liberal values. This piece from ipolitics is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


The rise – in Canada of all places – of right-wing nationalism

Posted on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, 5:15 am by Lawrence Martin

If someone had predicted a few years ago that Canada would fall into the embrace of right-wing nationalism, they would have been sent off to the nearest home for the mentally encumbered.
 
A nationalism of the left, maybe. We had some of that, at least as conservatives saw it, in the Trudeau years with the National Energy Program, the Committee for an Independent Canada and the like.

Pierre Trudeau was part of a political culture that was always to the left of the Americans. At one point, the State Department labelled him a pot-smoking leftist. Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan’s defence secretary, mocked our armed forces, saying you could put our entire military on a football field and still have room for the game. In his pre prime-ministerial days Stephen Harper himself lamented how Canada had a European-styled socialist bent.
 
To look now however is to see the dramatic degree to which the political culture is being reshaped. Patriotism pivots on pride in a resurrected military and morality-based missions. Pride in country is now linked to our refurbished armed forces and what Harper sees as moral crusades. National security, law and order, tighter immigration standards and bumper-sticker sports populism are among the features of a new right-wing nationalism. It is an accelerating trend and many Canadians worry that Harper, the anti-Trudeau, is taking it too far.
 
Because there are moderate elements to his Conservative government’s policy-making, such as its work on the economy, the big shift isn’t always apparent. But the changes, as enumerated below, reveal a shakedown that sees the ideology and methodology of our governing party closely aligned with those of American Republicans.
 
The Glorification of the Military. This is the new cornerstone of Harper nationalism. He boasts proudly that Canada is now a warrior nation and uses every opportunity to salute the armed forces. A recent report by the National Defence Department, in contrast to other years, says the Canadian identity should be shaped in good part by the military. It is 200 years since Canada was last invaded, but safeguarding Canada, says the prime minister, is his and foremost priority.
 
A Strict Law and Order Regime. The government’s omnibus crime bill and jail-building program, and its hard line on drugs have pushed our criminal justice system further to the right than anyone can recall. Draconian sentencing standards that have failed in the U.S. are being instituted here. Civil liberties are down and state surveillance is up. Legislation will compel internet service providers to disclose customer information.

Message Control. Central to right-wing nationalism is information control and it is one of this government’s major priorities. A vetting system of unprecedented scope requires all communications to be filtered through central command. Much is done to limit access to information in a government often criticized for its secrecy. Fifteen hundred communications officers are at work massaging the message to fit the governing agenda. Bureaucrats, including those at the Privy Council Office are pressured into becoming propagandists.

Flag-Waving Populism. The Conservatives are melding war and sport to appeal – Don Cherry style – to the masses. They raised eyebrows by using the opening ceremonies of the Grey Cup as a chest-beating tribute to their contribution to NATO’s Libya campaign.
 
Anti-Democratic Instincts. Harper’s government has shown no hesitation to bully its way through democratic barriers. It’s padlocked parliament, been the first government ever to be found in contempt of parliament and, more recently, imposed closure and time limits on parliamentary debate at a record-breaking clip.
 
Less Tolerance. The Harperites, while not xenophobic, are less inclined toward multiculturalism and inclusivity than previous governments. They have imposed tighter immigration requirements, narrowed the definition of citizenship and blocked entry to war resisters and other unsavoury types. Their less than favourable take on the United Nations resulted in their being denied a seat on the Security Council.
 
Anti-Intellectualism. In appealing to their populist base, the Conservatives boast of going by gut instead of erudition. They reject and sometimes suppress research and empirical data. Moves against the long-form census and the Justice Department’s handling of crime legislation and the muzzling of government scientists are foremost examples.
 
The Smearing of Opponents. A favorite Republican Party tactic, Harper Conservatives make frequent use of it with manslayer attack ads and demonization of critics, the latest example being their accusing NDPer Megan Leslie of treachery for opposing, on a Washington visit, the Keystone XL Pipeline. Demagogery is a favoured tactic of right-wing nationalists. Harperites impugn critics of the military as being unpatriotic.

Anti-Labour Bent. Union-bashing, particularly since the NDP has become the official opposition, is a mainstay of the Tory way. The government has used heavy-handed tactics to prevent strikes by postal workers and Air Canada flight attendants. It is considering changing the Labour Code so as to define the economy as an essential service, a move which would give the government extraordinary anti-labour powers.
 
Cult of the Leader. Right wing nationalism requires the elevation of the leader’s status. The Conservatives have ordered civil servants to change the nomenclature from Government of Canada to the “Harper government.” They initially denied this, only to be caught out by leaked documents.
 
While this is a democracy, right-wing nationalism is still a frightening prospect to many of soft-centre Canadian traditions. The change to the brash ideological style, one which has worked politically for Harper, contributes to fears of his being a dangerous reactionary. That notion is rejected by his former top strategist, Tom Flanagan. “The prime minister,” he said “has adopted the Liberal shibboleths of bilingualism and multiculturalism. He has no plans to introduce capital punishment, criminalize abortion, repeal gay marriage or repeal the Charter. He swears allegiance to the Canada Health Act. He has enriched equalization for the provinces and pogey for individuals.”
 
Harper is a self-defined incrementalist. While his policy-making, as Flanagan suggests, is not overly radical in many policy domains, it is his mode of operating, his command style, that has brought the system to heel and, most importantly, opened the door to bigger policy changes down the line. Having just embarked on a majority term, he has many years to build on what he has begun. With time, incrementalism defies the smallness implicit in the term.
 
In foreign policy, he has already moved Canada, for the first time in its history many would argue, to the right of the United States. You won’t hear anyone from the Pentagon or the State Department belittling Canada’s military any more. On domestic policy he is still handcuffed in many areas by entrenched Canadian traditions.
 
It will take much work to reform those. But his determination cannot be underestimated. Harper, who at root is still a Reform Party ideologue of old, is out to change the entire concept of the Canadian identity as defined by the prime minister, Trudeau, whose policies he detested.
 
Thus far he’s made remarkable progress. It is a long way from the politics of peacenik Pierre to today’s Harperian state.

© 2011 iPolitics Inc.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #132 on: December 02, 2011, 10:41:27 »
I his own, hyperbolic rate, Lawrence Martin is, mostly, right: Stephen Harper is trying to change Canada by changing Canadians attitudes about themselves and their national institutions - like the crown, the military, law enforcement and so on.

What Martin fails to mention is that from 1967 to 1980 Pierre Trudeau moved with equal vigor to erase the (only slightly softer) nationalism which existed under St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson. There is a pendulum effect: we were remarkably imperialistic under Laurier and Borden, far, far less so under King, pro-West and newly engaged under St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson and left leaning and downright isolationist under Trudeau; we were engaged again under, but softly, Mulroney and, although a bit less so, also under Chrétien; now we are re-engaged, firmly pro-Western and, once again, nationalistic under Harper.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 45,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,637
  • Just plain difficult
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #133 on: December 02, 2011, 17:08:53 »
An academic buddy of mine often cited the saw "academic battles are so vicious because they matter so little".

Lawrence, after years or "mattering", shaping the agenda as he might perhaps put it, now finds himself reduced to the impotence so common amongst academics....and so he turns vicious.

I am still looking for a video clip from a documentary on CBC at the end of the 2006 campaign where Martin and a couple of other journalists from other papers, were caught discussing how Harper had handled a potentially embarassing situation - but they saw opportunity to spin it negatively in any event:  "What can WE say about that?"
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #134 on: December 28, 2011, 10:11:06 »
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a survey of Canadian foreign policy in the Harper-Baird view:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-baird-crafts-canadian-foreign-policy-with-a-hard-edge/article2284834/
Quote
John Baird crafts Canadian foreign policy with a hard edge

CAMPBELL CLARK

OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011

The man rewriting Stephen Harper’s foreign policy for majority-government times makes no apologies for stepping on a few toes. From climate change to Israel, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is willing to shrug off the gripes.

After five years of minority government, when a focus on short-term politics meant leaving relations with some parts of the world untended, Mr. Baird now has the task of broadening Conservative foreign policy and planning for the longer term.

But it’s not a mandate to please all. The image of Canada seeking to play honest broker and likable conciliator on the world stage is being changed by a deliberate edge to Conservative foreign policy. There’s a willingness to send the military, a high priority on economics and less qualms about raising hackles.

“Stephen Harper said it and I’ve said it: ‘We don’t just go along to get along,’ ” Mr. Baird said in a year-end interview. “There’s 194 countries in the world. I don’t agree with their foreign policy on everything,” he said. “You know the Russian Foreign Minister? His job is to stand up for Russia. My job is to stand up for Canadian values and Canadian interests.”

In a year when the world shook from financial crises and Arab uprisings, Canada’s place in it was shifting, too.

Even before Canada pulled out of a ground war in Afghanistan in July, it joined an air war in Libya. When it was over, Mr. Harper touted victory, and promised a military ready for more. He blocked part of a G8 leaders’ statement urging peace talks on Israel, and bucked the UN majority in vocally opposing a Palestinian bid for statehood. The Harper government closed a deal to harmonize security with the U.S. in return for projects to speed border traffic. And Canada made itself a symbol by withdrawing from the Kyoto climate-change accord.

Mr. Baird’s public image as a partisan pit-bull might make it seem that he was chosen to make foreign policy combative. But that’s a stage persona for a politician who is affable in person. As Foreign Minister, he worked to build all-party support for the Canadian mission in Libya. Foreign diplomats give him high marks for being more accessible and engaged than his predecessors.

But he is a thick-skinned politician who doesn’t wince over disagreements or worry about a little blowback. Canada was once alone on climate change for demanding all major emitters join a new treaty, but it’s a common view now, he said, and Canada’s pro-Israel stand at the United Nations has hardly affected its relations with others.

“I don’t have many foreign ministers or many foreign governments who raise climate change with me. In eight months, maybe two or three times,” he said. “I went to the Middle East for five days. No one raised our voting record at the UN.”

In the big events of 2011, Mr. Harper’s government kept a cold, calculating eye. It reacted with caution to Arab Spring protests in Egypt, but sent fighter jets to Libya.

Mr. Baird’s first trip as Foreign Minister, to meet rebel leaders in Benghazi, marked him the most – meeting professionals and public servants risking their futures in a struggle to oust Moammar Gadhafi. Ottawa went in big with a substantial military contribution, but Mr. Baird admitted that before the stunning collapse of Gadhafi forces, he feared a long war, and a death toll of 100,000 or 250,000.

The Tories’ cooler response to uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia remains marked by the view that a “big chunk” of the revolts were protests against unemployment and cronyism, not purely a call for Western-style democracy. Amid the election of Islamists in Egypt, Mr. Baird said the goal should be to move the region to more civil society, for intellectual freedom, and less corruption – and caution is still warranted.

The harder edge isn’t universal. On a trip to Beijing, Mr. Baird looked like a man trying to get along, calling China a “friend,” as the Harper government seals a new era after a chilly start in ties – but that, too, is a function of hard-edged economic interests with a major trading partner.

Now, Mr. Baird’s task is to broaden Canada’s foreign policy beyond the few priorities of minority years, like the United States, Afghanistan, China and Israel. A foreign-policy review is quietly under way, and Mr. Baird has signalled efforts to renew ties with untended regions such as Southeast Asia.

The short-term survival politics of successive Liberal and Conservative minorities have prevented ministers from travelling and making connections abroad, and limited planning, he said. “Governments are sometimes criticized for looking at things in four-year windows,” he said. “We’ve been looking at things in four-day, four-week and four-month windows for the last seven [years]. And that’s not healthy.’

The priority, as the United States and Europe face challenges and Canada needs to diversify trade, is economics. “That is the lens,” Mr. Baird said. With the U.S., Canada had success in reaching a border accord, but experienced a setback when the Keystone pipeline extension was delayed, he said. With China, Canada wants a foreign-investment agreement; with the EU, a trade deal.

But Canada needs to expand its foreign-policy planning beyond the biggest players, he said. “The countries that are going to be really important for Canada in the future also include Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria. Those are pretty important.”


I think Baird-Harper have it about right when the focus is on economics. Remember Lord Palmerston's dictum that a nation has neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies - just permanent interests. Our interests, I suggest, can be summarized as: P2 ... Peace and Prosperity. The two are intertwined: peace is more than just the absence of war and prosperity is more than just "a chicken in every pot." Peace implies the ability to engage in lawful, usually commercial, pursuits anywhere in the world - for one's advantage; prosperity implies the capability to use one's wealth to do good so that others may prosper too and so that we all may benefit from mutual commercial intercourse ... a rising tide lifts all boats, etc.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #135 on: December 30, 2011, 10:51:53 »
More on "Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy" in an editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Toward+foreign+policy/5924804/story.html
Quote
Toward a foreign policy
 
The Ottawa Citizen

December 30, 2011

Early in the Conservative majority, Stephen Harper suggested some big changes were coming to foreign policy. Foreign Minister John Baird has been saying the same thing in end-of-year interviews. Canada will stand up for its principles and interests. No more being a pushover on the international stage.

This shift in attitude distinguishes the Conservatives from the Liberals, who seem to regard every international disagreement or criticism as a foreign-policy failure. When the Conservatives failed to be sufficiently obsequious to the Chinese regime in their first mandate, for example, Liberals chided them as dilettantes. The Conservatives have warmed to China since, but they have maintained a willingness to risk international disapproval — as in their decision to pull Canada out of the Kyoto protocol. The Liberal approach was to play the nice Canadian at international conferences, while doing little about emissions at home. The Conservatives are also doing little about emissions, but at least they’re a little more honest about their intentions.

Even something as minor as Harper’s stark statement on the death of Kim Jong-il suggests a relatively new willingness to tell it like it is.

This conscious effort to be a little less nice gives Canada more space to create its own foreign policy, slightly less constrained by its desire to be liked. But that only matters if Canada actually uses that space. There are hints here and there of a desire to reshape policy — the creation of an office of religious freedom, for example, or the international institute for extractive industries — but if there’s a unifying vision, the government isn’t sharing it with Canadians.

The Conservatives did want to create a new democracy-promotion agency, too, but now they seem to be considering ways to reboot the troubled Rights & Democracy instead. In all of this, it’s difficult to ascertain when the Conservatives are trying to make real changes to foreign policy, and when they’re using cosmetic tweaks to foreign policy as an easy way to placate the domestic voter base.

There are always rumours of big changes coming at the Canadian International Development Agency. Will it change the list of priority countries for bilateral aid? Will it spend less on bilateral aid and more on multilateral agencies? Will trade or security drive its priorities in the coming years, or will it focus on poverty in sub-Saharan Africa?

Organizations that apply to CIDA for funding have had to wait longer than expected for their answers this year. The government says no organization should consider itself entitled to public funds, and that’s true enough. But if it wants to defund an organization, it should have the decency to say so as quickly and straightforwardly as possible, not leave it and its partners overseas in limbo. The confusion over how funding decisions get made is reminiscent of the scribbled “not” on the KAIROS funding decision that got Development Minister Bev Oda into so much trouble. If CIDA’s goal is to become more transparent and efficient, it’s not doing very well.

It’s great that Harper and Baird share a vision of a new kind of Canadian foreign policy. But so far, the picture looks awfully blurry.

OTTAWA CITIZEN

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


I think Harper is on the right track and I don't think the "picture" is "blurry" at all . It will be much clearer when Harper disbands CIDA, a rest home for less than capable public servants who could not find useful work in e.g. DFAIT, Finance or Industry.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #136 on: January 14, 2012, 18:07:54 »
In another thread, about China, I said: ” And, yes, I recognize that a similar argument could be used to suggest that Canada ought to be united with the USA ~ something I do wish to see happen.” The argument is that two peoples of common ethnicity and language probably ought to be partners in the same country.

This prompted an Army.ca friend to PM me saying, ”Interested in your thoughts behind this statement.”

I thought I would answer here, rather than by PM.

There are many Canadians, and Americans, who favour deeper integration of the two nations. Most, like me, seek some small, incremental changes – I, for example, want to “erase the border” making it possible for good, services, money and people to move very easily between the two countries. This requires some further tariff reform and coordination of our immigration and refuge systems, amongst other things. I want something akin to (but less than) the EU’s Schengen Agreement.

But some people are much more ambitious. They want a currency union, which implies, just for example, a single central bank which means fully harmonized economic policies which means, de facto some form of political union.

I am prepared to concede that such a union might be possible and even desirable – in another 100 or 200 years, but now is not the time.

Relations with the USA must be at the very heart of our foreign policy. The USA is:

1.   Our closest neighbor – and, thankfully, a “good neighbor, “ too;
2.   Our most important trading partner;
3.   A traditional ally; and
4.   A The global superpower.

The USA matters. We must, constantly, decide how we deal with it. Eventually the two countries may decide that some form of political union is mutually advantageous. For now, in my opinion it is “harmonization” we need, not union.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,559
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #137 on: January 15, 2012, 19:27:44 »
Canada ought not become one nation with the US.  Each nation has its own internal cultural strains; those problems must first be solved.  Irrespective of that, the respective systems of government have strengths and weaknesses.  It is better to have two laboratories of governance and currency/fiscal management than one.  If in time the adoption of each other's best practices leads to systems so similar as to be practically indistinguishable, the two might be ready for union.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Arnold: "I thought the sasquatch couldn't swim."
Ranger: "Dare to dream, Arnold.  Dare to dream."

Offline YZT580

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 97
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #138 on: January 16, 2012, 13:29:45 »
Any union between Canada and the US would benefit only the US.  As evidence:  years ago the citizens of Campbellville Ont. paid extremely low property taxes as the tax levies on the major industries in the neighbourhood i.e. a race track and several factories, were more than sufficient to cover the brunt of the community costs.  Enforced amalgamation put Campbellville together with Milton.  The industrial benefits were nullified by the larger population base and correspondingly greater costs and taxes more than tripled.  Canada is a relatively prosperous nation with an easily balanced budget (provided not so common, common sense is used).  The US is big but it is not nearily as prosperous.  There is just a lot of fresh paint covering the rust spots.  We would give up everything and gain what??  Their medical system, their banking laws, their foreign policy their...?  Which of our policies would be implemented in the U.S.  Answer none.  All give and no take is not a marriage or a union, it is enslavement.   Think about it.

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,604
  • Freespeecher
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #139 on: January 16, 2012, 19:26:05 »
Things evolve and change. The United States is wracked by division over "Obamacare", which is a warmed over copy of (or at least inspired by) the Canadian "Single Payer" healthcare regime. Canadian political parties openly court US political operatives to teach them how to win elections (two DNC operatives gave a presentation at the just concluded Liberal Party convention, and DNC operatives have addressed/advised the Liberals in the past). In the mean time, grass roots small "c" conservative parties are gaining in size and organization, the Saskatchewan Party runs Saskatchewan, and the Wild Rose Alliance party is growing in size to become a contender in Alberta politics and may become the governing party in the next few cycles.

For that matter, Canadian demographics and geography could conspire to turn Canada into a Republic around the mid century mark. As the Canadian labour force shrinks due to the demographic bust, wages will have to rise to attract workers, and the nearest source of workers is liable to be the United States (which is culturally similar and has a large and growing vice shrinking population). Americans will be more than eager to work for high Canadian wages, and enough Americans will be established in Canada to start making real changes to Canadian culture, and demanding changes to Canadian institutions. (Doubt my word? Consider that Alberta was settled by large numbers of American immigrents in the 1800's and early 1900's, and look at how Albertan culture differs from even its prarie neighbours, much less the ROC).

So the idea of a formal merger may not be on the table any time soon, but various convergences are already happening. There is always the possibility of a "Black Swan" event which could push things hard in either direction, and of course "unknown unknowns" will continue to surprise people. Close relations have been to our mutual benefit, and the overall trend will probably continue to favour close relationships for the forseeable future.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline cupper

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 771
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #140 on: January 16, 2012, 19:55:25 »
The United States is wracked by division over "Obamacare", which is a warmed over copy of (or at least inspired by) the Canadian "Single Payer" healthcare regime.

You need to go back and look closer to what "Obamacare" is. It is in no way a "warmed over copy" of teh Canadian single payer system.

Other than that, the rest of the comment paints an unfortunate picture of what could happen, if the current political trends continue to play themselves out.
There is no God, and life is just a myth.

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #141 on: January 20, 2012, 13:40:17 »
Some interesting thoughts from a couple of credentialed experts in an opinion pice which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-last-thing-we-need-is-another-foreign-policy-review/article2308432/
Quote
The last thing we need is another foreign policy review

DEREK BURNEY AND FEN OSLER HAMPSON

Special to Globe and Mail Update
Published Friday, Jan. 20, 2012

Canada’s foreign policy is being subjected to yet another “review,” and an announcement of this government’s priorities may be imminent. Nothing has been reviewed so relentlessly over the years with so little in the way of revelation, impact, direction or useful purpose as this country’s foreign policy. To some extent, it betrays a reluctance to accept the reality of what we are and where we are. At the very least, the government should make a virtue of simplicity and precision, offering a clear-headed view of what our priorities need to be and why, while avoiding “feel good” nostrums about how we’d like others to see us.

The cornerstone of our foreign policy must be the management of relations with the United States, not for reasons of sentiment but because that’s how we preserve our most vital economic and security interests and our capacity for global influence. When we get this part of the equation right, our relevance and influence on global issues increases accordingly. When we don’t, our influence and relevance wanes.

We’re an Arctic and a Western Hemisphere nation, and our foreign policy priorities should anchor these dimensions as well, especially since the economic potential of both is likely to increase in the decades ahead.

The dramatic shift in economic power to rising stars such as China, India, South Korea and Brazil should also dictate a change of focus for Canada, especially since trade is a major component of foreign policy and many of these countries need commodities, which are pivotal to Canada’s growth prospects.

What needs to be recognized, however, is that conventional rules for trade and investment don’t apply as much to those emerging markets whose production and investment fall largely under government control. Canada would benefit more from a strategy that leverages our resource base as the means to secure better access for our exporters and investors in markets currently enjoying high rates of growth.

Maintaining an effective, agile military capacity will ensure that Canada can continue to play a selective role on behalf of the United Nations or NATO in combatting threats to global peace. But we shouldn’t pretend to be a universal donor. Future involvement should be calibrated against judicious assessments of our capacity and our interests, and not a Boy Scout inclination to be helpful fixers everywhere.

The hard lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq is that military options have limited long-term effect. “Muscular diplomacy,” the use of sanctions, and carrot and stick negotiations offer a needed complementary role and should be given greater emphasis.

The Middle East is a quagmire where the earnestness of Canada’s desire to be involved exceeds any rational analysis of our direct interests or our capacity for influence. But the same can’t be said for our relations with Turkey and Persian Gulf states such as Qatar that are playing constructive regional roles and with whom our ties need strengthening.

Nuclear non-proliferation is an issue on which Canada has real expertise. As the major flashpoints for global insecurity are likely to come from unstable nuclear powers such as Pakistan and North Korea or wannabes such as Iran, Canada should bolster its efforts with allies to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Development assistance is also an instrument of foreign policy, but more analysis is needed for what works and what doesn’t. Rather than identifying priority sectors or countries for concentration, we need to target contributions in ways that underscore Canadian strengths and make a demonstrable difference to those in need.

Attention must always be given to fundamental principles of our political system – democracy and human rights, gender equality, religious freedom etc. – but these are best espoused by the model we present at home and by collaboration with those whose values we share.

G8 and G20 summits are the pinnacle of Canada’s global involvement. Our solid financial and economic record gives us credentials better than most to articulate and influence action contributing to stability and growth. As our economy continues to grow, while those in Europe sputter, our voice and our influence should increase accordingly. And less emphasis should be given to summits of marginal value, such as the Commonwealth and Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation.

Canada has indulged in more foreign policy reviews than any country of comparable size. More navel-gazing may simply magnify particles of lint. Ultimately, the effect of Canada’s role in the world will be determined more by what we do than what we say we should do.

Derek Burney, senior strategic adviser for Norton Rose Canada LLP, is a former Canadian ambassador to Washington. Fen Osler Hampson is Chancellor’s Professor and director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.


The real issue isn't whether we have yet another review - at worst such reviews waste time, at best they waste time that would otherwise be spent screwing things up - it is found in the last sentence: "the effect of Canada’s role in the world will be determined more by what we do than what we say we should do." To paraphrase an old saying, "those that can do, those that can't teach conduct policy reviews."

There is little with which to argue in the Burney/Hampson analysis, but I would suggest that we should:

1. Remain fully engaged with the USA on every single issue - it is the foundation upon which the peace and prosperity we need and want rests;

2. Increase our engagement with East and South Asia, especially China and India, but also with all the other countries in that triangular region, from India through to New Zealand and back up to Japan;

3. Increase our engagement with the Caribbean - especially the Commonwealth members therein;

4. Remain about as engaged as we are in Latin America and Europe; and

5. Concern ourselves less and less with West Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

We should spend our aid dollars in ways that advance our interests and provide effective help to some of the world's poorest people.

We should be wary of military engagement but when it is in our interest to employ our military it should be "all in, for the win" - with minimum caveats; but we should, publicly, reject participation in coalitions, even ones engaged in worthy causes, where most members of the coalition hide from risks behind walls of caveats - and we should say why we are rejecting such operations: we will not serve with those who will not share all the risks.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline ModlrMike

    : It's riding time again!

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 124,444
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,632
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #142 on: January 20, 2012, 14:14:34 »
I would agree with most of your observations, Edward. Regardless of the outcome, we need a foreign policy that we'll actually follow. Not some "be nice to everyone" mishmash of appeasement. Canada has a golden opportunity to rise to the top of the middle power tier, and be an effective and strong voice in the community of nations. We must not lose this chance to build on our recent successes. The strength of our economy rests on our ability to build good relations with emerging markets and cement relations with existing ones. As our economy goes, so goes the nation.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
If you're surrounded by clowns do you go for the juggler?
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
#37 | Rank: 273 | Cbt Exp: 20,640,154 | Msns: 2,650

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #143 on: February 05, 2012, 11:11:32 »


The Good Grey Globe's Jeffrey Simpson stands in the corner, stamps his feet and threatens to hold his breath until Prime Minister Harper does as he's told in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/truculent-moralizing-for-a-domestic-audience/article2325825/
Quote
Truculent moralizing for a domestic audience

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Feb. 04, 2012

American statesman Dean Acheson once acidly quipped that Canadians discussing foreign affairs reminded him of listening to the “stern daughter of the voice of God.” Canadians, he implied, were pious moralists, ready to give free and often unwanted advice, based on the assumption that Canadians possessed a rare insight into good and proper conduct.

Today, watching the Harper government, foreigners might conclude that Canadians have evolved from pious finger-pointers to truculent finger-pointers, with poses based on presumptive moral superiority toward others.

Almost everything the Harper government does internationally is rooted in impressing domestic audiences, so the truculence that now characterizes Canada’s foreign policy has domestic politics in mind. Judging by polling data, this aggressive in-your-face lecturing of others (save for China) appears to be winning some domestic favour, while, naturally, eroding our credibility abroad.

The latest egregious example of truculent morality was this week’s visit by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to the West Bank. At a meeting with the most moderate leadership in Palestinian Authority history, the Canadians lectured the Palestinians on the terrible mistake they’d made in seeking United Nations membership, a bid that won strong support in the General Assembly.

This unwanted lecture from visitors from afar came from a government whose ministers bragged in Israel that “Canada” is the most pro-Israeli country in the world. This statement is completely wrong. The Harper government may be the most pro-Israeli government in the world, but the population is not. Various polls taken in recent years have shown the reverse: Israel is one of the least popular countries among Canadians, a perception that deeply worries many Canadian Jews. (A poll did note this week that nearly half of Canadians surveyed believe Ottawa’s policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “strikes the right balance.”)

The Harper government insists it favours a two-state solution, but everyone knows it will do or say nothing to nudge Israel in that direction, or to chastise Israel for doing next to nothing to move in that direction. As a result of this attitude, manifested by the ministers’ trip, Canada’s reputation has sunk in the Arab world.

The week before the West Bank lecture, the Prime Minister was telling Europeans how they should deal with their economic crisis during a speech in Davos. This likely impressed Canadians, but not Europeans. The last thing they need is gratuitous advice from a North American country that, frankly, doesn’t count for much in Europe, as anyone who’s lived there knows. And the advice is especially unwelcome when it’s layered with self-applause by Canadians about how well their economy has done.

In climate-change negotiations, the government’s attitude of palpable disdain for the Kyoto Protocol, coupled with its own deplorable record of inaction against greenhouse-gas emissions, shredded whatever credibility Canada might have aspired to enjoy.

Truculent moralizing also is being directed at Sri Lanka, which the Harperites accuse of turning a blind eye to human-rights abuses. This criticism delights Toronto’s Tamil community (the largest Tamil diaspora outside southern Asia), whose members the Harper government is striving to mould into a Conservative bloc.

There was a time when Canadian governments tried to take an even-handed stand in that troubled country, urging reconciliation and offering help. But now Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese-dominated government gets lectures – and a threat that Canada will boycott the next Commonwealth conference there. That possibility so alarmed Britain and Australia that their leaders implored Mr. Harper not to make that threat at the last Commonwealth conference in Perth.

When your closest friends react badly to this proclivity for truculent moralizing, imagine what the rest of the world thinks.

Under the Harper government, Canada lost its bid for a Security Council seat – the first time it had ever been defeated. Were a vote held today, chances are Canada would get even fewer votes.


Simpson is trapped in a time warp, rather like Tannhäuser in Venusberg; but for Simpson it's 1969/70 and his hero, Pierre Trudeau is doing everything just perfectly ~ he is dismantling the St Laurent/Pearson foreign policy that saw Canada assume and play a leading role in the world but a role that, frustratingly, required us to "take sides," to "stand up" for something, for real values and to put our money and our soldiers where our mouthes were. Trudeau offered (and Simpson et al accepted) a new vision: Canada as an observer, not an actor; Canada as an amoral, neutral observer - a country that could, as Trudeau himself said, understand why the USSR felt it necessary to crush the Polish Solidarity movement; Canada as a country that could establish and maintain warm relations with Cuba, presumably because good healthcare is far, far more important than liberty.

But now it is 40+ years later and Canada and the world have changed - mostly for the better in both cases; the malevolent USSR is gone, rotting on the trash heap of history; China, a pleasant place with an unpleasant government, is a competitor, not an enemy; Islam is divided, bits of it, the backward, fundamentalist, medieval bits, have declared us to be sworn enemies but most of it just wants to left alone; America and Europe, although each is undergoing painful economic restructuring, are quiet and friendly, and so on. Canada is assering itself; asserting that its core values, liberal values, will shape its foreign policy: we stand with Israel because it is a thriving, liberal democracy facing threats from some of the most the frightening, fanatical tyrants in the world; we stand with the free, democratic, liberal West, against oligarchs, against terrorists and, often, against the manufactured, manipulated, "flavour of the month" causes ... against, in other words the Trudeau/Simpson version of the world.

Simpson is right in one thing: we probably would get less votes now in a bid for a seat on the UNSC than we did a year or so ago; we should rejoice and take great pride in that; most of the countries that voted for Portugal are not worth having as supporters and would never be considered friends.
 
Jeffrey Simpson is a twit ... maybe not the worst of all twits but, certainly:



Edit: punctuation
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 11:43:10 by E.R. Campbell »
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 45,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,637
  • Just plain difficult
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #144 on: February 05, 2012, 11:51:52 »
Perhaps Jeffrey should spend more time reading British newspapers.

In the last two years, since the latest iteration of "The Crisis" (How long can a crisis stay a crisis? Even if you are being bombed everyday you learn to adapt.) - but in the last two years I have seen an increase in references in the press to Canada.   Sometimes it is specific and reference how we are managed.  Sometimes it is just in passing as in references to "Washington, Tokyo and Ottawa" in the same sentence.  Even Harper's address to Davos, if not generating headlines it at least generated comment.

If Canada is not setting the world on fire at least it is not being ignored.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

Offline ModlrMike

    : It's riding time again!

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 124,444
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,632
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #145 on: February 05, 2012, 12:47:58 »
Mr Simpson seems to have forgotten that both Messrs Ignatieff and Rae vociferously denigrated the Governments attempt at a UNSC seat. Perhaps some of the countries that voted against us took this as a sign that we really didn't want the seat in the first place.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
If you're surrounded by clowns do you go for the juggler?
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
#37 | Rank: 273 | Cbt Exp: 20,640,154 | Msns: 2,650

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 45,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,637
  • Just plain difficult
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #146 on: February 05, 2012, 12:53:51 »
Mr Simpson seems to have forgotten that both Messrs Ignatieff and Rae vociferously denigrated the Governments attempt at a UNSC seat. Perhaps some of the countries that voted against us took this as a sign that we really didn't want the seat in the first place.

And lest we forget: the winning competitor was Portugal.  No offense to the Portuguese but given their current predicament how much weight do we reckon Portugal carries in the "halls of power" and what does that say about the value of a seat on the UNSC in any event?

Syria: Russia and China's resolution veto shames UN, says William Hague
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #147 on: February 06, 2012, 12:37:44 »
This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, might have gone in the China Superthread along with other, similar reports, but it is indicative of the "about turn" we are making in our foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/on-china-visit-harper-picks-up-where-trudeau-left-off/article2327981/
Quote
On China visit, Harper picks up where Trudeau left off

MARK MACKINNON

Beijing— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Monday, February 6, 2012

“What, in concrete terms, will flow from all this goodwill?”

The question could be posed of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to China this week, but in this case it was actually asked 39 years ago, in a CBC news report I came across regarding the visit of a very different Canadian leader, Pierre Trudeau, to a very different China.

Back then, Mr. Trudeau was trying out a strategy that Mr. Harper once rejected on principle (as he does most things Mr. Trudeau believed in), but is now embracing: engaging the Communist Party leadership in hopes of winning influence with them. Four decades on from Canada’s first stab at it, many digits have been added to the bilateral trade and investment figures, but what else has changed substantially in the relationship between Beijing and Ottawa?

Watching the CBC report from October 1973 is a reminder that these are two countries that still don’t know each other very well four decades on. Close your eyes (so you can’t see his mutton chops and floppy bow-tie) and much of what reporter Ron Collister said then could be repeated today.

“Exchanges galore, scientific, medical, cultural – the agreements, to quote one Canadian official, cover everything but the kitchen sink,” Mr. Collister intoned, sitting with his arms crossed in front of what appears to be a still photograph of Beijing’s main railway station.

Canada was going to open a new consulate in “Canton” (better known these days as Guangzhou), Mr. Collister reported, an act that would be repeated in 2009 when Canada added trade offices in six more Chinese cities. But there were concerns about how Canadian businessmen would be treated in the Chinese market.

As Mr. Collister put it: “Will there be, in fact as well as in promise, easier access for Canadian businessmen generally? The Chinese have let in only the businessmen selling the goods they want.”

The Chinese market has, of course, opened dramatically since then, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. And more than a few Canadian businesspeople made their fortunes along the way. But this remains a unique market, a place where the success or failure of an enterprise can often be determined by the whim (or greed) of a local official, and where the foreigner who feels maligned has little recourse. The justice system is rarely a friend here.

So Mr. Harper comes to China 39 years after Mr. Trudeau, hoping for one more agreement to cover that kitchen sink – a foreign investment protection agreement (or “a FIPA,” as diplomats who need more time off call it) that would hopefully give Canadian companies another piece of paper to waive around in such disputes.

Negotiations towards a FIPA have been taking place since 1993, but expectations are high that Mr. Harper and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao can finally sign one this week in Beijing. But some believe Mr. Harper will either have to accept a weak deal or none at all with a rising China that doesn’t seem in the mood to make compromises (as China-watcher Charles Burton put it, “terms like ‘reciprocal fairness’ or a ‘level playing field’ are not in the vocabulary of the Chinese leadership nowadays, and Canada can like it or lump it.”)

The Chinese side certainly isn’t making any promises. “The prospect of economic and trade cooperation is bright, so I believe that we will have a lot of fruits during this visit,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told me when we chatted today about the upcoming visit. “But of course, as far as the investment protection agreement, my colleagues in the Commerce Ministry, they are working very hard with the Canadian side, so hopefully we can have some result for this visit.”

And even if there is a deal, as Mr. Collister asked 39 years ago, “How will Peking interpret the agreements?”

Of course, the relationship has never just been about trade. Mr. Trudeau met with a seemingly doting Chairman Mao in 1973, and came away with the impression that the Chinese leader was “very interested in our northern reaches, in questions relating to the Arctic” – another topic sure to arise when Mr. Harper meets President Hu Jintao this week. They also “discussed the Middle East at some length,” Mr. Trudeau said, a ritual that will be repeated just as ineffectually in 2012.

Unmentioned by Mr. Trudeau (and the CBC) in 1973 was the topic of how China’s government treats its people, a glaring omission given that the country’s bloody Cultural Revolution was then in full swing.

Following a year in which Human Rights Watch delivered another scathing report on the Communist Party’s intolerance of dissent, will Mr. Harper at least deviate from the decades-old script on that point? (The Prime Minister made no mention of human rights in a “written interview” he gave to China's official Xinhua newswire ahead of the trip.

Or would we lose the pandas after 40 years of waiting?


Mark MacKinnon is being too cute by half; he acknowledges that both China and Canada are "different countries," but he understates the enormous difference in China. In 1973 it was nearing the end of an 65 year interregnum that separated the Qing dynasty (which fell in 1911) from the new one, let's call it, for the moment, the Red dynasty, founded by Den Xiaoping in 1977. (By the way, 65 years is not overly long for an inter-dynastic interregnum in China, although most were shorter.)

We, meaning Canadians in general - ordinary people, experts and politicians alike, still do not really understand China; we don't "know" the Chinese people in the way we "know," for example, Americans or Germans or even Indians. We, that big broad "we," again, comprehend even less how the (now badly misnamed) Chinese Communist Party governs itself and how China's leaders are selected. We don't "know," beyond Hu Jintao,  the men atop the huge bureaucratic/industrial/commercial and military monstrosity that is the Ministry of National Defence ... we need to understand its central place in the Chinese power structure and we need to understand how it has been, under Hu Jintao, trying to reduce its own importance and we need to try to understand it it will continue on that path under Xi Jinping.

I welcome better, closer relations between Canada and China - primarily because I do not believe it serves anyone's interests to turn China into an enemy. But: we are dealing with the most foreign of foreign countries and we need to deal with caution and be prepared to surprises, some of them unpleasant. Remember Donal Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns," China has more than any other other country with which we have ever dealt.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Online milnews.ca

  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 173,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,700
  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
New deals announced w/China
« Reply #148 on: February 08, 2012, 10:50:25 »
Quote
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao today witnessed the signing of new joint initiatives and the renewal of existing bilateral initiatives between the two countries in the areas of energy, natural resources, education, science and technology, and agriculture.

“The rapidly increasing commercial, cultural and scholastic ties between our two countries are creating new jobs and economic growth that are benefitting Canadian families, businesses and communities,” said Prime Minister Harper. “The agreements being signed today, in such a wide range of areas, are further testimony that we are taking relations to the next level and further strengthening our strategic partnership.”

More specifically, the two leaders witnessed the signing of:

    A Memorandum of Understanding on Sustainable Development of Natural Resources that will provide a platform to promote Canadian expertise, technologies and services in that area;
    A renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding on Energy Cooperation that will attract capital investment and improve access to Chinese markets for Canada’s energy resources, technology and related services; and,
    Initiatives on agriculture that clear the way for immediate access to the lucrative Chinese beef tallow market and joint research that aims to create a stable trading environment with China for Canadian canola seed;
    A statement of intent to launch two new calls for proposals for joint research and development projects under the Canada-China Framework Agreement for Cooperation on Science, Technology and Innovation, as well as the announcement of results for a previous call for project proposals;
    A three-year renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding related to the Canada-China Scholars’ Exchange Program that will increase the eligibility criteria for Canadians to study in China; and
    A Memorandum of Understanding on protected areas and parks that will provide a framework for Canada and China to collaborate and share their professional and scientific knowledge and experience in the management of national parks and nature reserves.

The Prime Minister also announced the conclusion of negotiations toward a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA).
PMO news release, 8 Feb 12
Like what you see/read here at Milnet.ca?  Subscribe, and get great swag while helping keep the lights on!

"Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress."  Mahatma Gandhi

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
« Reply #149 on: March 02, 2012, 08:50:05 »
Here is the Good Grey Globe's Jeffrey Simpson on one of his favourite dead horses - Canada's Middle East policy, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/with-friends-like-harper-bibi-can-do-no-wrong/article2355671/
Quote
With friends like Harper, Bibi can do no wrong

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 02, 2012

With his country contemplating an attack on Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits his closest ally in the world on Friday: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Mr. Harper has changed Canada’s traditional positions on questions relating to Israel, to the intense satisfaction of Israel and, in particular, the very right-wing coalition government Mr. Netanyahu leads.

All previous Canadian governments had fully supported Israel’s legitimacy, security and right to self-defence. Canada signed a free-trade agreement with Israel (and the Palestinian Authority). Thousands of people moved back and forth between the two countries. Canadian Jewish organizations received all-party support.

But all previous Canadian governments also had expressed sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and supported their right to a state. Canada chaired a United Nations group on Palestinian refugees and, depending on the type of resolution, acknowledged the problem of Israeli settlements, including their illegality as defined by UN resolutions, on land occupied after Israel’s victory in the 1967 war.

Whether Liberal or Conservative, Canadian governments strongly supported both Israel and peaceful Palestinian aspirations. Canada had marginal influence in the region but, nonetheless, urged both sides to talk and, on occasion, was willing to criticize actions on both sides deleterious to peace.

No longer. Mr. Harper has taken a radically different approach. His government has become Israel’s pulling guard in the world. Inside meetings of la Francophonie and the G8, Mr. Harper has personally inserted himself – or instructed Canadian diplomats to insert themselves – to block resolutions even mildly critical of Israel, including references to the settlements. Mr. Harper has thus isolated Canada from its traditional allies such as the United States, Britain and France.

After last fall’s UN General Assembly meeting, Israel announced new settlements. Barack Obama’s administration criticized the move. So did the European Union. The German Chancellor personally phoned Mr. Netanyahu and asked him to desist. Canada said nothing.

At that UN meeting, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird wrote his own speech, an over-the-top effort laced with fiery rhetoric supporting Israel and damning its foes. Mr. Baird, on becoming the minister, had informed his department that he didn’t want to hear from experts there because he and the government had already fixed their positions on Israel and the Middle East.

Mr. Baird recently spent five days in Israel, with an Orthodox rabbi from Canada alongside. Retired Canadian diplomats, asked if they could ever remember a Canadian foreign minister spending five days in any country (apart from international negotiations), scratched their heads and said no. By contrast, Mr. Harper spent four days in China, a rather more important country than Israel.

But not more important, apparently, to the Harper government, whose insensitivity to the Palestinians is complete and whose support for anything Israel does or wants is unconditional.

Should Israel attack Iran’s nuclear installations – an attack Mr. Netanyahu will be discussing next week in Washington – he can assume complete support from Mr. Harper. The Canadian Prime Minister has already portrayed Iran in the worst possible light, using language that parallels the most hard-line rhetoric within Israel. He even suggested Iran might use nuclear weapons should they be constructed, as if the Iranians were completely suicidal.

The radical shift in Canada’s position comes from at least four factors: the Harper government’s sometimes “white hats/black hats” view of certain foreign-policy questions; an evangelical Christian streak in the Conservative Party that’s religiously favourable to Israel; the idea that Israel is a democracy and Arab countries are not; and a political calculation that most Canadian Jewish voters could be pried from the Liberals.

An attack on Iran, whose regime is thoroughly awful, would unite the Iranians, lead to reprisals and perhaps to a much wider conflict, delay but not halt Iran’s nuclear program, bring about the end of diplomacy and inflame the Muslim world.

So far, the Obama administration has been trying to counsel restraint. Not so for a Canadian government that has radically changed the country’s long-standing policies.


Memo to Simpson: Jeff, my boy, we have these things called elections; every few years the people, ordinary people, some not even from Toronto, get to decide to make a "radical shift" to long established policies.

Let me see ... maybe a lot of Canadians actually agree with supporting a vibrant, liberal democracy that is under constant, deadly attack from tyrants and terrorists. No, that must be wrong ... Simpson says so.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"