# Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2007)

Here, reproduced from today's _National Post_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is the first of a multi-part article about Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=127714


> Harper's foreign policy anti-doctrine
> *A nuanced foreign policy, but a foreign policy still
> 
> John Ivison*, National Post  Published: Wednesday, November 28, 2007
> ...



I'll comment at greater length when the series is finished but, for the moment, while I understand, I guess, the Conservatives' desire to distance themselves from Liberal style and substance (although, in some instances, I would argue that the Martin Liberals were headed towards the right track) a clear, comprehensive policy statement would be helpful, if only to do what Ivison is doing here: telling Canadians what their government is doing.


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2007)

> *These fundamentals are at the root of a new way that Canada is interacting with the rest of the world -- applied on a case-by-case basis to give us a foreign policy that sees itself as a departure from the Liberal world of do-gooding peacekeepers and conciliators. In the Conservative mind, Liberal thinking harked back to a fabled Pearsonian era that never really existed, where Canada was the Rotary Club of nations, pursuing selfless acts in the interests of the global community, and coating every initiative in a layer of self-congratulation. The Conservatives want no part of that service club mentality and have a more forthright, even prickly, style when it comes to dealing with other countries*.



I find it refreshing.....The Liberals always were wandering around the world trying to do goody thingys.....I kept waiting for the Canadian Government to take a position on something, and they seldom did, and even then it was ambivalent....


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Nov 2007)

The following story from this week's Embassy Times which is reproduced under the fair comment section of the Copyright Act puts a different spin on Canadian foreign policy:

Embassy, November 28th, 2007
NEWS STORY

Recent Foreign Policy Shifts Raising Allies' Eyebrows 
Stances on major issues appear to be isolating Canada, and have many wondering where the country is headed on the international stage. 
By Lee Berthiaume
Canada will not try to "appease" any other nation with its foreign policy, but clearly lay out and stand up for its values on the world stage, Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs minister, said last week. 

"When we are at all the multilateral institutions with our friends, the European Union and everything, it's not like we are trying to appease anybody," Mr. Obhrai said. "We are just laying down what Canadian policies are, and that's where we stand, and that's going to be the policy of this government." 

Officials at two European missions at the United Nations, meanwhile, have expressed disappointment and concern over Canada's recent positions on several issues, and warned the country's reputation is on the line. 

Over the past few months, the government has found itself defending its position on a variety of foreign policy issues at the UN and other fora. 

The most recent came this past weekend in Uganda when Canada was blamed for blocking a Commonwealth climate change declaration that would have required binding targets for developed countries, but not developing ones. 

In defending his opposition to the original declaration, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reasserted his belief that his government is not only delivering results for Canada on the world stage, but is positioning itself as a leader on major international issues. 

"For the first time in a very long time, Canada's voice is being heard, and the consequence of our voice being heard is we're getting the changes we want to see," Mr. Harper said. "In all of these cases, we've taken strong and clear positions at all of these international forums, particularly on the difficult issue of climate change." 

A watered down declaration eventually passed, but the disappointment was apparent by comments made by some Commonwealth officials and country leaders. 

"In some way I do feel a little bit disappointed," Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was widely quoted as telling reporters following the summit on Sunday when asked about Canada's position. "We would like to see the developed countries taking a lead role." 

Ironically, Mr. Badawi was much more optimistic about Australia, long a pariah on the climate change file, following the weekend's victory by the country's Labour Party in elections. 

"[Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd] will ratify the Kyoto protocol and I think that is good news," Mr. Badawi said. 

Canada has also been heavily criticized for being one of four countries to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and for refusing to co-sponsor a European Union-led moratorium on the death penalty, though it did support it. 

It has also refused to seek clemency for Canadians sentenced to death in the United States and other "democratic" nations, which prompted particularly harsh criticism from Council of Europe secretary-general Terry Davies, whose organization is responsible for promoting human rights on the continent. 

"I'm just amazed that the Canadian government would wash its hands, just like Pontius Pilate," Mr. Davies told CanWest news service. "In effect, what I think is that the people in government in Canada are subcontracting the death penalty." 

Last week, Canada called on UN member states for the fifth year in a row to censure Iran over its human rights record. The resolution passed 72-50 with 55 abstentions, but an earlier Iranian effort to throw out the resolution came within two votes of being accepted. 

Analysts have said Canada narrowly avoided embarrassment at the UN, and that the fact that the Iranian effort came so close to succeeding was intended as a signal to Canada. 

Mr. Obhrai, however, dismissed such statements. 

"One has to understand we won, which shows quite a big support for the Canadians," he said. "No matter how many voted one way, nevertheless, the fact of the matter is we won." 

Mr. Obhrai said the foreign affairs minister had "worked very hard" to bolster support for the resolution, and "the number who voted on that should not reflect Canada's standing in the world." 

However, Mr. Obhrai said no matter the results of the vote, Canada will continue to stand for human rights, rule of law and the promotion of democracy–"the cornerstones of the new government's foreign policy." 

"These are called Canadian values, and we are pursuing that, period," he said. "We are not out to win or lose, we are out to put Canada's position on the world stage. You remember we said we were going to take a very strong stand on the international front, and we are doing that." 

According to one Western European diplomat posted to the UN in New York from a country that has been closely allied with Canada, there has been a noticeable shift in Canadian policy since the summer of 2006, and a shift in the way Canada is looked upon by other countries. 


Canada Seen as Pro-U.S.: Envoy 

Former Canadian ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker said that when a country takes a position on certain issues, it leads to changes in how other member states perceive it. 

Climate change and Israel are two so-called "definitional issues," and Canada has become much more pro-Israeli than ever before–which lends itself to being identified as pro-American–and strayed from the Kyoto protocol, both of which send strong messages, Mr. Heinbecker said. 

"Those UN votes, those are symbols," he said. "So when we find it necessary to change our position, but nobody else feels it necessary to change their position, it sends a clear signal as to how we want to be seen." 

The European diplomat, who requested anonymity so he could speak freely, said it's likely no coincidence that countries started looking at Canada differently around the time it openly supported Israel during its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. 

"Yes, that belongs to the old perception that Canada is closer to the U.S., and is shifting towards that," said the diplomat, who consulted with his colleagues prior to the interview to ensure he had a complete picture. 

Of particular note to the diplomat was that Canada was once a leader on not only indigenous rights issues, but also women's rights, but it has since cooled its heels on the two files. 

"Where Canada was at the forefront [before], it is less at the forefront, or just normal," the diplomat said. "We don't exactly know if it's because the negotiations by themselves are difficult...which will make some countries to be less at the forefront than they were, or whether there were some instructions from Ottawa." 

On climate change and the death penalty, "it's more of the same," the diplomat added. 

While Canada remains "a main partner and still very active" with his country, the diplomat said, "by other countries like the [Group of 77 developing nations], there is a perception that Canada is closer and closer to the U.S., and maybe sometimes there is a perception that they go along the double standards line for some developing countries, and they are less closer to their position than they were in the past." 

"It's something we feel and analyze rather than an obvious truth, and we don't know if there have been instructions given from Ottawa or something more complex," he added. 

In an email interview last Saturday, former Progressive Conservative prime minister Joe Clark said, "One of Canada's real assets is that we enjoy a high general standing within both the developed and developing worlds." 

"That is not unique–nations like the Scandinavians, Australia, others have similar present or historic credentials, although few of those reach as widely as Canada can." 

Critics have accused the Conservative government of actively following American foreign policy, citing Canada's voting with the United States, Israel and Australia on key files. 

Making reference to Canada's allies over the past few months, Mr. Clark said Canada is currently running a deficit between performance and standing, which cannot be continued if the country is to maintain its position on the world stage. 

"Our reputation now is stronger then our performance," he said, "so that is not a static asset–it has to be renewed and exercised, both by a general readiness and capacity to consider initiatives, and by the active company we keep." 


Allies Confused, Disappointed 

Another Western European envoy posted to the UN, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said some of the positions set out by Canada have confused member states. 

"The resolution on the death penalty...it's absolutely fair to say that, yes, we were disappointed that Canada was unable to co-sponsor the resolution," she said. "We did not see any national, or any reasons of national law, in Canadian national law, to be reluctant with regard to co-sponsorship. 

"We would have wished for Canada to be among the strongest supporters of that resolution." 

The envoy said Canada remains a strong and positive multilateral and international player, and that at this point it's too early to say whether there has been a real, discernible trend. However, she noted the company Canada kept in voting against the indigenous rights declaration. 

"Our impression here was that Canada rightly prides itself for its excellent relations with its own indigenous population," she said, "and with regards to that resolution or declaration, they found themselves in the camp of countries where it's not as evident that there are good relations between the majority and the indigenous people, like Australia." 

When read Mr. Obhrai's quote that Canada does not seek to appease anyone and will stand up for its principles, the envoy said other countries will be watching to see how things play out. 

However, she warned that the UN needs bridge builders more than ever as the North-South gap appears to be widening. 

"We would like to see Canada on our side there because those bridge builders are needed," she said. "I think it's too early to say whether those issues we just talked about can serve as an indication that Canada has shifted with regarding to be a bridge builder. It's too early to say, but we in the EU still need Canada on our side."


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Nov 2007)

As I think of riots in France, Belgium without a functioning government for 150 days, the English bending over backwards to placate increasingly radical minorities, the cartoon fiasco, prominent figures murdered for expressing free speech, I try, really try to give a damn what Europe thinks...  but I can't.


----------



## Jammer (28 Nov 2007)

Pompous, arrogant, self serving, rightous, and holier-then thou.
The European Union
How soon history is forgotten.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Nov 2007)

100% with Recce & Jammer: the "if enough Europeans can be bribed or coerced into agreement, it is morally right" attitude reflects FAR worse on them than it does on us (if I gave a rat's ass what European politicos have to say about us).


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Nov 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ....we in the EU still need Canada on our side."



And there you have it....picking sides.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2007)

Rather than seeing this as "doctrine" or "anti-doctrine", I would suggest that we are seeing a shift towards articulating and advancing our National Interests over content free statements of "values".

This is not to say our National Interests don't reflect our values, what is disconcerting for some people seems to be the idea that you actually have to *do* something to exercise and support the vaklues you espouse.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Nov 2007)

"This is not to say our National Interests don't reflect our values, what is disconcerting for some people seems to be the idea that you we have actually have decided to *do* something to exercise and support the values you we espouse.

 8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is the second part of John Ivison’s series on Canada’s foreign policy:



> Ottawa wants to pare down its 'bloated' list of foreign aid recipients
> *Part 2: Harper's Foreign Policy
> 
> John Ivison*, National Post  Published: Thursday, November 29, 2007
> ...


----------



## GAP (29 Nov 2007)

The huge Aid/NGO community loves governments that pay out of guilt for doing little. It creates whole careers.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Nov 2007)

> SOUTH AFRICA
> President Thabo Mbeki South Africa became a republic and withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961 because of hostility from many members, particularly those in Africa and Asia as well as Canada, to its policy of apartheid. Country was under economic sanctions of varying degrees for the next two decades. Following the release of Nelson Mandela and end of apartheid, South Africa has held several democratic elections and emerged as a potent force in Africa.



I am surprised South Africa is on the list of these so-called "air recipients". I guess I just assumed before that South Africa was a First-World nation since it was one of those self-ruling Dominion countries within the British Empire before and still is a regional power in its corner of the globe, though I believe that Apartheid must have had quite an impact on the economic and social well-being of the whole nation, if you count both the majority and minority populations. I even read that they supposedly had their own nuclear weapons program which was later cancelled, though that has little to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, are the first two parts of a series on foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080421.wcomment0421/BNStory/National    


> * Canada's World: Part I*
> Should Canada unhitch its American wagon?
> 
> MARCUS GEE
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wcomment0423/BNStory/National/home


> * Canada's World: Part II*
> Canada's foreign-policy priorities
> 
> GORDON SMITH
> ...



Marcus Gee, a pretty astute observer, in my opinion, provides pretty thin gruel. There’s nothing much to debate – but I’m sure the loud, sophomoric, knee-jerk anti-American crowd will find great cause for complaint.

Gordon Smith provides a bit more to chew on. He’s quite right in four points:

1.	”The world needs a "steering committee" — a limited group of leaders who meet for summits.”

2.	We need to create (a) middle-power group(s) to address some key issues.

3.	“Canadians [and Americans, in my opinion] should not have illusions about their government's ability to promote democracy and human rights around the world ... Our international activities should be focused where we can make a difference.”

4.	“Let us ensure Canada is in the room when major global issues are being tackled.”

I agree, broadly with Smith’s four points but we part company on the details.

I agree with two global “steering committees,” one _strategic_ and the other _economic_.

•	The _strategic steering committee_ needs to replace augment the ineffective UNSC. It will, of necessity, be biased – otherwise it will share the fate of the UNSC: irrelevance. The _*strategic* steering committee_ must, above all, be broadly acceptable to much of the world. To be credible it must include the USA. To be effective it must include only countries having few *major* disagreements with the USA’s values. That means capitalist democracies. My list includes Australia, Britain, Canada, India, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and the USA.

•	The _economic steering committee_ needs to augment the G8 and the WTO. It too needs limits. I suggest it start with being a group of groups: ASEAN, the EU,  Mercosur and NAFTA, plus, as independent members: America, China, India and Japan.

I have ranted on and on and on about reclaiming Louis St. Laurent’s vision of Canada as a “leading middle power.” That needs to happen but it will be a long, costly process because leaders cannot just be self proclaimed – they must first earn and then maintain their status. I believe Canadians *want* to be leaders and the government *wants* to make Canada a leader. I fear that governments are afraid to tell Canadians that *they* must pay a price – less _pogey_ and more casualties.

The last two good points in Smith’s paper ought to be self evident.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is the third of the three articles on Canadian foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080424.wcomment0424/BNStory/National/home


> * Canada's World: Part III*
> More Asia does not mean less North America
> 
> YUEN PAO WOO
> ...



_” The question is not whether Canada should refocus its priorities toward Asia, as if the continent were a menu choice in an international smorgasbord. Rather, it's about how Canada should adjust to Asian countries' ineluctable global impact on everyday issues ranging from mortgage rates to air quality ... But the collective Canadian psyche has yet to incorporate Asia into its mental map ...”_

That’s the issue.

Canadians have, for nearly 40 years, laboured under the quite juvenile illusion that we matter just because we’re here and _”nice."_ Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a *stupid* –that’s the only world – idea when Pierre Trudeau and Ivan Head crafted it in 1968/69; it was even more stupid policy when it was enunciated in 1970 in the infamous _”Foreign Policy for Canadians”_ white paper, and it remains stupid today. The only problem is that the idea is incredibly popular with Canadians – including many in the _commentariat._

We must understand and adapt to he world as we find it.

For starters that means our foreign policy must always take as its first and dominant factor relations with the USA. Many, I daresay most Canadians, do not much like the USA and would like politicians to find a _”third way.”_ That, too, is *stupid* but we must understand that most politicians, including most prime ministers are venal power seekers, not leaders, so they will pander to the misconceptions of the ignorant masses rather than lead them in the right direction. It’s one of the attributes of a liberal democracy: the fearful, timorous, ill-informed voice of _Joe Sixpack_ must count.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2008)

Bringing Asian Awareness to Canada....

Is it appropriate to bring Islamic awareness to Canada by importing Saudi Imams to teach Islam to us?
Is it appropriate to put Jesuits into Public Schools to teach Catholic awareness?

Some swords have two very sharp edges.

As to the concept of a Global Steering Committee.....No thanks. I choose the people I meet and with whom I associate. I decide my own course.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Apr 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As to the concept of a Global Steering Committee.....No thanks. I choose the people I meet and with whom I associate. I decide my own course.



Roger that...  "Master of my fate and Captain of my soul", so to speak.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Apr 2008)

Are there any more sections to this series, or was that the last of them?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2008)

That was it; a three part series.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2008)

The propensity of the _”chattering classes”_ to misinform Canadians could not be better illustrated than in this bit of rubbish by senior _Globe and Mail_ commentator Michael Valpy (it is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080630.widentitytwo30/BNStory/National/home


> The foreign policy myth
> 
> MICHAEL VALPY
> 
> ...



I have no problem with the first bit of Valpy’s comment. He’s right: Canadians are (self-imposed) captives of a myth. We are not _peacekeepers_ and *we never were*. Valpy fails to mention that when we “did” peacekeeping it was a charter member of the anti-Soviet West – we ‘did’ peacekeeping to neutralize Soviet mischief in the world. We never did and do not now care about the poor and suffering of the world.

Where Valpy goes way off track is in his demonstration of how poorly informed Canadians, himself included, can be. There is no secret about the history of either the Canadian foreign service in its “golden era:” O.D. Skelton created it - in his own image, with many of his own virtues and many of his own flaws.

The origin of the “functional principle” is entirely political: it lies in the Grey Lecture. Louis St Laurent, in the 1947 Grey Lecture set out the five principles that would guide foreign policy, in principle and in action, for his ten years as foreign minister and prime minister and for the next ten years during which Mike Pearson and John Diefenbaker held power. They were:

1.	“Our external policies shall not destroy our unity.”

2.	“The conception of political liberty.” St Laurent went on to explain this: “...  we have come as a people to distrust and dislike governments which rule by force and which suppress free comment on their activities. We know that stability is lacking where consent is absent. We believe that the greatest safeguard against the aggressive policies of any government is the freely expressed judgment of its own people. This does not mean that we have ever sought to interfere in the affairs of others, or to meddle in situations which were obviously outside our interest or beyond our control. It does mean, however, that we have consistently sought and found our friends amongst those of like political traditions. It means equally that we have realized that a threat to the liberty of western Europe, where our political ideas were nurtured, was a threat to our own way of life. This realization has perhaps not been comprehended or expressed by every group and every individual in the country with as much clarity and coherence as, looking back on the events, we should like. I have no doubt, however, that for the young men of our universities who fought in this war, it was a part of our national inheritance which they well understood.”

3.	“Respect for the rule of law [which] has become an integral part of our external as of our domestic policy.”

4.	“Values which lay emphasis on the importance of the individual, on the place of moral principles in the conduct of human relations, on standards of judgment which transcend mere material well-being.” He previously described these: “... in our national life we are continually influenced by the conceptions of good and evil which emerged from Hebrew and Greek civilization and which have been transformed and transmitted through the Christian traditions of the Western World.”

5.	A “willingness to accept international responsibilities.” St Laurent described this: “...there are many in this country who feel that in the past we have played too small a part in the development of international political organizations. The growth in this country of a sense of political responsibility on an international scale has perhaps been less rapid than some of us would like. It has nevertheless been a perceptible growth: and again and again on the major questions of participation in international organization, both in peace and war, we have taken our decision to be present. If there is one conclusion that our common experience has led us to accept, it is that security for this country lies in the development of a firm structure of international organization.”

Point 5 is the very essence of the “functional principle’ Valpy (rightly) admires but it owes little to Skelton or Pearson and much to Louis St Laurent and Vincent Massey (a deeply conservative anti-Semite who is the exact opposite of the sturdy sons of small-town protestant clergymen Valpy mythologizes. Hume Wrong, the very best of the lot, was also not of Valpy’s mythological stock). Here is how St Laurent described the _functional principle_ in action:



> ... we have been ready to take our part in constructive international action. We have, of course, been forced to keep in mind the limitations upon the influence of any secondary power. No society of nations can prosper if it does not have the support of those who hold the major share of the world's military and economic power. There is little point in a country of our stature recommending international action, if those who must carry the major burden of whatever action is taken are not in sympathy. We know, however, that the development of international organizations on a broad scale is of the very greatest importance to us, and we have been willing to play our role when it was apparent that significant and effective action was contemplated.



That (1947-67) was the first (and, sadly, the last) time we had a distinctively Canadian foreign policy. That what Valpy mourns, even as he fails, miserably, to understand its origins and principles.


----------



## GAP (30 Jun 2008)

I like your summary, and agree with most of it, but the whole tone of the article is essentially whining........"Bring Back the Liberals!!"


----------



## North Star (1 Jul 2008)

Yes, this column was all about whining and little substance. Canada is about peace, order, and good government, individual liberty balanced with collective responsibilities, and respecting diversity. Breaking from the Trudeau/Chretien years of flattering despots and staying silent in the face of bigotry is quite refreshing.

"Calling out China for human rights violations? That's not nuanced! Eeek!"


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2008)

And, also related to this issue and the 14 Oct election thread, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ web site, is a prescient comment:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/25/neil-hrab-conservative-war-room-sees-no-benefit-in-harper-addressing-un.aspx


> Neil Hrab: Conservative war room sees no benefit in Harper addressing UN
> 
> Posted: September 25, 2008, 12:47 PM by Kelly McParland
> 
> ...




So, foreign policy only makes it into the election campaign by the back door. It is good, smart *political* tactics, I guess, to presume that Canadians don't want to discuss policy - just well targeted _freebies_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2008)

I’m reopening this thread because, in foreign policy terms, the US, and our relations with it is all important. We must understand, or, a least, consider, how we each see the world.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wcomartin20/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Waiting for the Obama way in Canada? Not so fast
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



Martin is, normally, a smart fellow where Canadian politics is concerned but he has an ‘American _blind spot_.’ His hatred for George W Bush – and for anyone who doesn’t hate Bush equally – is visceral. He fails to see that Canada, including most of the Conservative Party, is, broadly, _Democrat_. There are few _Republicans_ left in Canada – the _religious right_ has, largely, abandoned the Conservative Party and joined a few fringes. Our NDP represents a large Canadian _fringe_ who are a bit too ‘left’ to be in the _Democrat_ mainstream.

We are, in fact, almost in lockstep with the Americans. We were _out of step_ for the past eight years, but Jean Chrétien ran one of the most _conservative_ governments in decades – he was more fiscally conservative than Brian Mulroney – but he was in almost perfect unison with Bill Clinton.

Conservative ≠ Republican; NDP ≠ Democrat; Conservative ≈ Democrat; Liberal ≈ Democrat; that’s us vs. them.

But, I do agree that Obama = “uncharted waters” even as I expect that he cannot force America to lurch left – or anywhere else it doesn’t really want to go.


----------



## GAP (20 Oct 2008)

I suspect Obama will be the US equivalent of our Trudeau....he will start some social programs that once started the population will find hard to divest themselves of, but he is mildly socialist (based on his rhetoric). Whether he governs that way or not remains to be seen, because his veto's can be overridden, he has to pay attention to his own house and senate. They may be democrats (mostly), but they don't want their pork spoiled....


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2008)

Given the state of the economy and the size of the current US deficit, I doubt that Americans will ask for much, and I anticipate they will scream bloody murder if they are offered too much. It will be hard to sell bonds and T-bills to finance much new spending - even defence spending.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a perceptive comment:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/for-harper-canadas-future-is-asian/article1390903/


> For Harper, Canada's future is Asian
> 
> John Ibbitson
> 
> ...



One can only hope that, finally, a Canadian leader – any Canadian leader – is getting ready to slough off the old, decrepit, _Eurocentric_ foreign policy that expressed a deep national yearning to return to the safety of the a colonial womb (we recognized that the British colonial womb was out of the question so we tried to cuddle up and suck at the American teat but out knee-jerk, sophomoric, _institutionalized_ anti-Americanism always got in the way).

The Ruxted Group said:



> Canada needs to “look South” again – towards our good friend and neighbour and our most important trading partner: the USA. By turning about Canada will, also, extend its strong right arm to the Pacific: towards major trading partners like China, India, Japan, and South Korea; towards old friends like Fiji, Malaysia, and Singapore, and towards traditional allies like Australia and New Zealand. Ruxted says 'again' because this proposal is neither radical nor new – Canada cooperated closely with the USA in the not too distant past – within the living memory of Ruxted members, and it created the Colombo Plan (akin to the US Marshal Plan) to help our Commonwealth friends in the Asia/Pacific region. Canada will be 'welcomed back' by trading partners, old friends and traditional allies alike.


Source: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/33-About-Turn!-Time-to-Revise-Canadas-Foreign-Policy-Part-2.html

That’s probably the sensible approach: there is no need to burn bridges but there is a need to rebuild some and to build some nice new ones.

The rebuilding involves both Europe and America. Our ‘bridges’ to Europe, to carry the analogy to its bitter end, are, arguably, carrying the wrong ‘traffic.’ Europe is a _potential_ economic superpower but it’s capacity is highly constrained because it is a strategic weakling. It is a weakling because, despite its deep regulatory and economic integration it has been unable to strike any sort of common *strategic policy* goals. Our ties to Europe, therefore, should be heavy on economics and light on strategy – that’s hard to accomplish because Europe is trying, very hard, to build trade walls to protect its own producers by, explicitly, excluding foreigner competitors, like Canada and China, even as it is, simultaneously, trying to build its strategic credibility by trying – and failing - to “lead” missions like Afghanistan. In other words big, financially strong Europe wants less trade and more strategic cooperation while we want more trade and less strategic entanglement.

Our ties to America are strong, in fact they are overwhelming. No matter what American and Canadian politicians and the _commentariat_[ think (to the extent that they do that at all) North America – from the Rio Grande to the North West Passage is one, single, nearly wholly integrated marketplace – and no amount of regulation will change that. The single North American people need their _internal_ trade and commerce and they will, eventually, overturn idiotic measures made by dimwits such as those in Homeland Security that try to manipulate markets to the disadvantage of sound economics. I often agree that _’security trumps trade’_ but there are limits to that (and any) bromide. Americans are losing their fear of some of their neighbours (us) even as they notice that they are not benefiting as much as they *know* should from ‘open’ borders – because the borders are not as ‘open’ as they should be. We need to strengthen and _widen_ our bridges (and there are several of them) to the USA. We need to further integrate the _markets_ even as we work 9and spend) to maintain our sovereignty and political independence.

Our bridges to Asia (clutching desperately to that analogy) are long and rickety. We need to build new, strong, wide bridges. Asia, unlike Europe, is not monolithic. France and Belgium are *similar*, China and Korea are not; the economics and politics in Oslo are *similar* to those in Stockholm; the politics and economics in Sydney are far, far different from those in Kuala Lumpur, and so on.

First: We need to be aggressive in pursuing free trade agreements with China, India, Australia, South Korea and so on and so forth – despite Canadian’s well known fear of free trade. The government must bulldoze the naysayers or bamboozle them – either is acceptable; they are ignorant people who, unintentionally, weaken our country.

Second: We need to strengthen our *cultural* ties with Asia – they should be almost as strong as those with Europe. Hong Kong is one of the 20 largest Canadian cities:  about 220,000 Canadians live in Hong Kong, rather more than live in Regina and just a few less than live in Saskatoon. Too many Canadians regard these fellow citizens as _’Canadians of convenience’_ when, in fact, they are our best trade commissioners and an important entrée into the whole East Asian marketplace because Hong Kong, with Singapore, is both an _entrepôt _ and banking centre for the entire region.

Third: We need to reinvent Trudeau’s _Third Option_, but this time with some good economic sense. We do not need to lessen anything with the USA; we need to *grow* our trade and commerce with Asia, especially, and with (highly protectionist) Europe in areas where that is possible. To some extent that means we must, indeed, be “hewers of wood and drawers of water” (Josh. 9:21) because it is our resources that the low cost, highly productive Asian manufacturers need.

All-in-all there is some small reason to hope that Harper has, at last, stumbled on to the right track.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2009)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, on how to *grow* our relations with Asia, including a prescription that will not sit well with Ottawa’s insular elites:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-new-era-for-canada-rises-in-the-east/article1392258/


> A new era for Canada rises in the East
> *Harper's visit to Asia shows future prosperity lies in links to that part of the world - a situation this country is uniquely prepared for*
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> ...



Off topic alert: _”Obsessing over bilingual requirements”_ is, indeed, a major preoccupation in official Ottawa. It weakens our public service, top to bottom. It actually endangers our public safety – some (maybe even most analysts) agree that yesterday’s Greenpeace _intrusion_ on to Parliament Hill was facilitated by a failure of security that lies rooted, in large part, on _empire building_ in Parliament’s various factions, including a nepotistic system of staffing that ensures that language skill, which – in official Ottawa - often means _native_ French, trumps skill, experience, fitness, etc, every time.

But: *Don’t look for any change anytime soon.* This is a toxic issue; it, bilingualism, as become part of our national mythology – rather like _peacekeeping_ – and, as with _peacekeeping_, our affection for it grows as the thing itself diminishes.

*Back on topic*: Harper needs, as Ibbitson suggests, to focus on our trade and commerce *requirements* that will, indeed, mean we have to reshape Canada. That’s far, far more important than the slagging we will receive in Copenhagen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-new-era-for-canada-rises-in-the-east/article1392258/
> Off topic alert: _”Obsessing over bilingual requirements”_ is, indeed, a major preoccupation in official Ottawa. It weakens our public service, top to bottom. It actually endangers our public safety – some (maybe even most analysts) agree that yesterday’s Greenpeace _intrusion_ on to Parliament Hill was facilitated by a failure of security that lies rooted, in large part, on _empire building_ in Parliament’s various factions, including a nepotistic system of staffing that ensures that language skill, which – in official Ottawa - often means _native_ French, trumps skill, experience, fitness, etc, every time.
> 
> ...




See this from 5:10 to the end for a sample of "the opinion of most analysts."


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an _interesting_ column by journalist Doug Saunders. It is _interesting_ because it is so decidedly muddled but, I suspect equally decidedly reflective of the _mainstream_ Canadian view that cannot remember when *power* and Canada could be used in the same sentence:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-little-less-muscle-a-little-more-substance/article1441310/


> A little less muscle, a little more substance
> *Canada's bold new foreign policy has been more about perception than reality – that's why it won't last*
> 
> Doug Saunders
> ...




Saunders, and people like him, and there are many, very many indeed who think like him, yearn for the days when Canada was, disparagingly, referred to, by no less than Dean Acheson (in 1965), as _“a stern daughter of the voice of God”_ because, especially in the late 1960s, 70s and into the ‘80s, we assumed an air of moral superiority to the Americans while declining to get our hands dirty in the real work of building a _free world_ in the face relentless threats from totalitarian systems.

In the 1940s, ‘50s and ‘60s Canada _was_ a *respected middle power*, indeed we were usually seen as a leader of the middle powers. That was all tossed aside in the very worst act of *policy vandalism* in Canadian history: the 1970 White Paper which followed the emasculation of the Canadian Forces and the unilateral repudiation of our international treaty commitments in 1969 – all courtesy Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the worst prime minister in Canadian history – and that includes Sir Jacob Andrews, John Turner and Kim Campbell. Trudeau explicitly upset the foreign policy developed, so carefully, by Louis St Laurent and implemented by King, St Laurent, himself, and Mike Pearson and then, despite the fact that Canada was one of the richest nations in the world, pronounced that we were too poor and too busy with our own internal, domestic nit picking to play an active, productive role in world affairs. It was a disgraceful day for every living Canadian and a slap in the face for every Canadian who had fought and died in battle.

But it, like Trudeau himself, was wildly popular with the greedy, envious Canadian majority that cared little for the world outside its comfortable homes, tidy, unionized workplaces and well stocked grocery shelves. The country, including the generation that had fought and won a great war, was ready to sit back and relax and fuss about the particulars of our tiny, comfortable, rich and _peaceable kingdom_.

Now, in fact, there still are _middle powers_ and we, along with e.g. Australia, Brazil, Italy and the Netherlands are amongst them – whether we can claim any sort of leadership status is quite another thing. But the world, especially the middle and lesser powers, *need* leaders and we have, as Saunders points out, taken some, occasional leading roles, One of the reasons we had sufficient stature to propose e.g. a G20 (in 1999) was because we were doing a share of the heavy lifting in the Balkans. Another, and kudos to Mulroney and Wilson/Mazankowski (for settling the _programme deficit_) and Chrétien/Martin (for settling the remaining, interest on the national debt, deficit), was because we had gotten our financial house in order faster and better than almost any other OECD nation.

Saunders and his _fellow travelers_ crave _soft power_ but they are reluctant, maybe congenitally unable, to accept that Joseph Nye, the _father_ of the soft power theory, was very clear that _soft power_ exists only for nations that have – and are demonstrably willing and able to use – _*hard* power_. There is no Canadian soft power without fleets of warships, brigades and regiments of tanks, artillery, infantry, engineers and supporting troops and squadrons of bombers, fighters and transports. That is an expensive fact of life. Political influence, of any sort, requires political power and, both Lenin and Mao were right, now and again,, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. We *need* guns and money to assert ourselves in the world and we *need* to assert ourselves in the world because we have global interests that, directly, effect our prosperity and we *need* prosperity to maintain internal peace and social harmony which, ultimately, are the best (only?) guarantors of our national unity and sovereignty.

Saunders is wrong. We need a national leader who will say so.


----------



## GAP (24 Jan 2010)

And he is still perpetuating this myth....



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper had just been elected into an Afghan war whose approach had been engineered by then chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier. By deploying a large force to the most dangerous corner of Afghanistan, he believed he could create an image – and possibly also a reality – of military strength and competence.



God!!....give it up man.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2010)

According to this editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Posy_, Canada has, finally, taken the lead and done the ‘right thing’ for Palestinians:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/25/national-post-editorial-board-help-not-hate.aspx


> National Post editorial board:
> *Help, not hate*
> 
> January 25, 2010
> ...




Israel is not the issue; anti-Semitism is not the issue; the issue is that too many – but *not* all – UN agencies and NGOs use Canadian (and American and British and, and, and …) taxpayers’ money for partisan purposes. It’s about time Western nations – the primary donors – stood up and said enough is enough. It is good to see Canada take the lead.

Cue the public (Liberal orchestrated) outrage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2010)

Her is an interesting piece by Liberal insider Eugene Lang, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/foreign+policy+making+look+Foreign+Affairs/3453360/story.html


> For foreign policy-making, don't look to Foreign Affairs
> *Canada's post-2011 Afghanistan policy seems to be coming from the Privy Council Office, rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.*
> 
> BY EUGENE LANG AND ERIC MORSE,
> ...




It is a bit disingenuous of Eric Morse Eugene Lang to blame Michael Pitfield and Ivan Head for Trudeau’s very conscious decision to emasculate Foreign Affairs (then External Affairs). The persistent rumour around Ottawa is that Trudeau’s well established dislike of the External Affairs department was based on the fact that he applied for a post but was rejected – possible, actually probably because he was a French Canadian without _Oxbridge_ credentials.

The _External_ Trudeau detested was the creation of O.D. Skelton, a brilliant but highly prejudiced man.






O.D. Skelton

Skelton had a clear vision of the sort of man (no women, please) he wanted in the Canadian foreign service: robust, well educated, _Orangemen_ from small town Ontario. Despite being an _Anglophobe_ and despite having an excellent education from a first rate American university, Skelton was a great admirer of the Oxbridge _caste_ and consistently favoured English educated men. Although Trudeau pursued a graduate degree at the London School of Economics but he did not present a thesis and, anyway, the LSE was unpopular in _official_ Ottawa in the ‘50s and ‘60s.

In any event, Trudeau disliked _External_ for any number of reasons – not least being that it was a bastion of the entrenched _Anglo Canadian elite_. Equally, perhaps more important to Trudeau, was that _External_ had a strong, coherent, Canadian policy base that was hard to shake unless and until he centralized foreign *policy* in the PMO and PCO.

I continue to believe that Lang, apologizing for the deficiencies of the MNDs he served as a poltical appointee, puts too much ‘blame’ on Gen (Ret’d) Rick Hillier. There is a new _mythology_ in Ottawa that suggests that Hillier was some sort of all powerful _éminence grise_ and that ministers and prime ministers were in his thrall. Those elected people, Paul Martin, Bill Graham, John McCallum and senior civil servants like Alex Himmelfarb were (still are) very smart people who would not be shoved around in a policy discussion by a mere soldier – not matter how possessed with the ‘gift of the gab.’ Hillier mattered and he did work hard to assert DND’s prime position in foreign and defence policy matters and its absolute primacy in military operations but it strains credulity – beyond the breaking point – to assign the ‘blame’ for Afghanistan to him. It was and still is *Chrétien’s War* and *Martin’s War* and, yes, *Harper’s War*; it never was Hillier’s War.

Is a new ‘system’ in which Foreign Affairs and DND are _counter-balanced_ by the PCO (as _State_ and the _Pentagon_ are counterbalanced in the USA) a good idea? Maybe … maybe not. It is not, perforce, a bad idea. What *IS* a bad idea is to make policy in the PMO – that’s meant to be where politics is applied to policy that comes from elsewhere. Can Foreign Affairs be restored to its former (1950s and ‘60s) ‘glory?’ Probably not … not without ignoring a large number of public service ‘imperatives’ and not without a big fight from DND, Finance and, above all, PCO. Should DND have a significant voice in foreign policy? Again: maybe. It is not, absolutely, a bad idea but if DND is to have a major foreign policy voice then a stronger _central_ agency (PCO) voice is necessary.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Aug 2010)

The critical difference between an NSC construct in the States and the evolving construct here in the PCO is one of access - the only way into the PCO is as a civil servant - we do not have a tradition of hired gunslingers as they do to the south.  Having such a narrow gene pool to choose from will hamper the development of true NSC.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The critical difference between an NSC construct in the States and the evolving construct here in the PCO is one of access - the only way into the PCO is as a civil servant



I would disagree. I know of one person who I worked with in the Intelligence Branch who is now (and has been for quite some years) working in the PCO.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Aug 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I would disagree. I know of one person who I worked with in the Intelligence Branch who is now (and has been for quite some years) working in the PCO.



You are right - there are a few military personnel who serve on secondment to PCO.  Having said that, I meant the true power positions in PCO...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You are right - there are a few military personnel who serve on secondment to PCO.  Having said that, I meant the true power positions in PCO...



.......and perhaps, true gunslingers . I worked in conjunction with CIDA while in Afghanistan. My impression was that they live in a self imposed utopian fantasy constantly clouded by rose coloured glasses.

When I had time sensitive projects rejected simply because my assessment said 'man hours' and not 'people\ person hours' there is something terribly wrong and broken with our civilian masters and their organizations. Complete reports and assessments had to be rewritten so as to make everything gender neutral, if not totally female gender slanted. Petty PC policies should not detract from, or derail, the delivery of aid worth thousands of dollars.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an article, based upon the thoughts of a couple of _insiders_, about a possible short term trend in Canadian foreign policy in 2011:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politics-at-home-will-spell-year-of-low-risk-foreign-policy/article1859357/


> Politics at home will spell year of low-risk foreign policy
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...




There is nothing new here but it does bring two items together:

1.	Harper is hesitant to deal with Asia – in part of placate part of his *conservative* base; and

2.	Harper is intent on not doing anything startling – nothing that might offend voters. Playing to our _traditional_ partners is safe politics. 

The problem, as we learned in 2010, is that the world is changing more rapidly than we like. We cannot count on near automatic support from traditional allies and we are not well liked or trusted by many Asian countries. We need to shore up some established friendships and alliances and, more important, make new ones. Many Canadians are, somewhat instinctively, anti-Asian; the government must *lead* them away from what Clark, correctly, calls _”our fading friends and allies”_ and towards newer ones. Too many Canadians think we are an Atlantic nation – and we are, indeed, that – while forgetting that we are also a Pacific nation, with all that implies.

I am saddened that the media did not make much out of our *rejection* by the Trans-Pacific Partnership because it highlights the fact that greedy, short-sighted Ontario and Québec dairy and egg farmers are doing real, serious economic damage to Canada. Our egg and dairy _market management_ system hurts everyone except a few thousand farmers; it must end, sooner rather than later and I understand that means violence and bloodshed on the streets of Ottawa when the Québec milk and egg producers come to town to protest, as they will. It’s OK, we can stand much rioting, a bit of sabotage, setting fire to parliament (all of which *will* happen), many injuries and even a few fatalities, to accomplish something useful.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ..... it must end, sooner rather than later and I understand that means violence and bloodshed on the streets of Ottawa when the Québec milk and egg producers come to town to protest, as they will. It’s OK, we can stand much rioting, a bit of sabotage, setting fire to parliament (all of which *will* happen), many injuries and even a few fatalities, to accomplish something useful.



Ahhh, an opportunity for TV2 to experiment with his beloved CASW troops.. >

As you regularly inform us E.R. it is all about the search for the majority.  If nothing else the Prime Minister has demonstrated a pragmatic streak that is wider than his conservative streak and he (generally) doesn't act unless he has a reasonable hope for success while remaining in power.

The problem with those egg and dairy farmers is that a substantial number live within a megaphone blast of Maxime Bernier's constituency office.

I _think_ the sequence of events that the PM would like to see would be something like this:

1.  US Perimeter Deal
2.  Budget
3.  Election
4.  Majority
5.  Deep Breath
6.  EU Free Trade Deal  (perhaps some more imaginative uses of NATO equipment sharing plans as in the case of Aircraft Carriers and Rivet Joint   assets?)
7.  Redistribution of Seats in the Commons (maybe some advances on the Senate - lots of provincial elections this year)
8. Pacific Trade Deals (to include defence arrangements and politically unpalatable but economically necessary projects like the West Coast pipeline and revamping the marketing boards - Cue Jack, Maude and David and lots of air time for Peter).

That ultimately is the tragedy of the Commons.....we have an opposition (official) that is well connected with interests that understand the need for the politically unpalatable, and understand the need to act expeditiously and, if in power, would do exactly what the Conservatives want to do....but won't allow them to do the correct thing because they NEED to be back in power more than Canada NEEDS to be advancing.

And yep, I'm a Tory.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Jan 2011)

Around number 6, sell the CBC. Justification: free the ROC from the mental illness that prevails in the citizens who author comments on any subject, from any media source on the CBC website.

If these citizens are the Friends of the CBC, who needs them or the CBC.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jan 2011)

I would amend that idea to break up the CBC. Sell off the TV portion and keep the radio portion. In that manner the largest financial drain is gone, but we still retain a national broadcaster who can serve the remote parts of Canada. That, after all, is one of CBC's core missions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2011)

It may be the EU trade deal that saves us, in the end. The Europeans fight very, very hard to protect their closed markets but they hate it when anyone else closes their own market - as we do with our egg and dairy marketing boards. The EU is challenging our many and sundry trade barriers, mostly erected by provinces, including the egg and dairy ones. If we really want a free trade deal with the EU we may have to do, finally, what we should have done years ago decades ago: remove many of our harmful, protectionist trade barriers. Will that cost us some jobs? Yes, without a doubt. Will that, also, create many, many more new and better jobs? Yes, again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2011)

Well, _”good laudy Miss Maudie”_, not everyone is ignoring the obvious benefits of the Canada/EU trade deal. In fact Maude Barlow, who can usually be trusted to be on the wrong side of most issues, is aghast, indeed she is shocked, SHOCKED at what’s going on according to this opinion piece in the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/what-you-dont-know-about-a-deal-you-havent-heard-of/article1859216/


> What you don’t know about a deal you haven’t heard of
> 
> MAUDE BARLOW
> 
> ...




Imagine, provincial and municipal spending being opened up to competition, _Oh, the horror!_







Hurry quick. The shy is falling
http://www.kudelka.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/98_chicken_little...


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Trade lawyer Steven Shrybman has sounded a similar warning....


http://www.policyalternatives.ca/authors/steven-shrybman   Ah, a Steven Staples fellow-traveller. Check. 
[I accept that when I see _policyalternatives.ca_, with their unabashed track-record of skewing, if not completely ignoring facts, I'm predisposed to shoot the messenger]


Admitting my ignorance, this is a chicken-little approach I'd not yet seen:


> Any increase in commodity exports to Europe will place a greater strain on groundwater in Canada, which is already a leading “virtual” water exporter, sending massive amounts of surface and groundwater out of the country in agricultural products.


Yes, I'm aware of us selling water to the States; but how cunning of those damned Harper-ites to smuggle drinking water out of our latte-makers.... in corn on the cob!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...
> Admitting my ignorance, this is a chicken-little approach I'd not yet seen:Yes, I'm aware of us selling water to the States; but how cunning of those damned Harper-ites to smuggle drinking water out of our latte-makers.... in corn on the cob!!




I almost hate to admit this but, in a way, she's (almost) right. Modern, _industrial_ farming, especially on the prairies, is more water intensive than earlier, less efficient techniques. So, in a way, we are exporting water when we sell food. But, what is not clear to me ('cause I'm no expert, either), is that while the water per acre has gone up (there is data on that) has the water per bushel or peck or ton or whatever gone up, too? We know water per acre is up but so is crop yield per acre ... I don't know the respective rates and I'm too lazy to do the research. Someone, anyone, Bueller?

But we 'exported' water, under the table, as it were, when my grandfather harvested rapeseed back in the 1920s and '30s; why is it a problem now? I guess it's a good thing we don't export rice (we don't, right?) because that's a really water intensive crop.


----------



## Jed (6 Jan 2011)

I am pretty sure we export wild rice from Northern Sask.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure we export wild rice from Northern Sask.




Yep, of course we do.  :-[  I forgot about wild rice.


----------



## GAP (6 Jan 2011)

you can't store grain with a high water content...it is purposely dried HERE in CANADA down to 11-13% moisture content, otherwise it will rot in the graineries....

It's okay to ship water via grain to the US....we get all of North & south Dakota's winter water here in Manitoba...so it evens out...heck, I'll bet we even use some to irrigate our crops, just to send it back!! (just like swapping spit with the Americans   ;D )


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> It's okay to ship water via grain to the US....we get all of North & south Dakota's winter water here in Manitoba...so it evens out...heck, I'll bet we even use some to irrigate our crops, just to send it back!!


So you're not on Maude Barlow's Christmas card list either, eh?   ;D


----------



## GAP (6 Jan 2011)

I was happily reading the article, starting to questions things, then I looked at the author.....THAT PRUNE!! 

I never did finish reading the article.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2011)

I'm going to take a slam at this one, because for once it is close to my lane.... ;D

The way you make money in the food industry is to sell air, water, starch and sugar: in that order.

The cheapest ingredient is air (in particular the hot air that marketing spews but that is by the bye) as in the air that inflates your bags of chips, the air in the can that isn't completely filled and the air that makes your ice-cream so nice and smooth and light.  Your liter of ice cream is 50% air.

The next cheapest ingredient is water.....and it is lovely to play with because it is everything.  If you bring home a kilo of steaks....you are bringing home 750 g of water.  You bring home a kilo of lettuce ..... you are bringing home 950 g of water.  You bring home a liter of beer, soda or milk .... you are bringing home less water than in that kilo of lettuce (something between 850 and 950 g of water there).  Even a kilo of corn flakes contains 3 to 4 g of water.  In an industry where margins are in the 2 to 7% range (and 7 is generous) 1% retained water can make a significant improvement in the bottom line (increasing the margin from 3% to 4% is a 33% increase in profitability).

Cereals (bulk commodity) usually contain about 10 to 15% moisture with the target being in the 12 to 13 range.  

So yep, Maude's correct.  We sell food.  We sell water.

Having said that.  We buy food.  We buy water.

Now while we may ship 130 g of water down south in a kilo of grains we also import 950 g of water in a kilo of lettuce (and all other fruits and veggies).

Given that both wheat and lettuce really only supply carbohydrates (with much of the carbs in lettuce being useless indigestible cellulose - say 20% of the 5% total solids) then we are actually trading wet carbs for damp carbs.

50 g of lettuce carbs in 950 g of lettuce water
870 g of wheat carbs in 130 g of wheat water

To get the same food value in lettuce that we export in wheat we need to import 870/50=17.4 times more lettuce than wheat - or import 17.4 kg of lettuce for every kg of wheat we export.  That means that we are importing 16.5 kg of water in lettuce while we export 130 g of water in wheat.

We owe California 16.37 kg of water ....

Time to crank up that irrigation ditch.

Maude, as usual, tells half a tale.  It's hard to tell which is the worse: to assume she is unaware of the other half, or to assume she knows the other half but chooses to withhold it.

Short form: if Maude's agin it, I'm fur it. ;D

Edit: I see I'm not alone here...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2011)

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
> ...




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.”_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2011)

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 (13 Jun 2011)

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 (13 Jun 2011)

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.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> 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 (13 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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 (13 Jun 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> 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 (13 Jun 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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 (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2011)

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 (13 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...
> 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 20th 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 (13 Jun 2011)

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


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> 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 (13 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 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 (14 Jun 2011)

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/threads/37454/post-1052819.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/threads/68433/post-1052792.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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2011)

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
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2011)

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
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2011)

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
> 
> ...




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 (6 Aug 2011)

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  :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Aug 2011)

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


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2011)

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
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2011)

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


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2011)

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
> ...




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.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Sep 2011)

Peace prize laureates?  Zzzzz...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2011)

I'm keeping this pipeline and heavy oil debate in "Foreign Policy" because how other countries and foreign _agents_ based in other countries effect, or try to effect, our domestic policies is a foreign policy issue. here is an interesting column by Gary Mason, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-next-great-pipeline-debate-and-us-funding/article2183615/


> The next great pipeline debate – and U.S. funding
> 
> GARY MASON
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...




We must be conscious of two *facts*:

1. The economic centre of Canada has shifted father and father to the West in the 70 years I have been alive. When I was a small child Montreal was Canada's biggest, richest and most important city. When I was still in grade school the economic centre shifted towards Toronto, by the end of the first _Québec crisis_, when I was a junior officer, the centre had moved, definitively to Toronto and will not, because it cannot, move back to Montreal. Now that I am retired Toronto, while still the economic capital of Canada, must share the wealth with Calgary and Vancouver is, finally, West - to the Far east - for its economic future; and

2. Canada is a resource economy and oil is, for the time being - and until many of you are about 70, our most valuable resource. The welfare state, especially the big ones in Ontario and Québec are paid for by oil from Alberta, and, increasingly, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Look at fair-questions, the website to which Mason refers in his column: _"In various environmental campaigns in Canada, American economic and trade interests are being protected. For example, the campaign against oil tanker traffic on the north coast of British Columbia would landlock Canadian oil and continue the virtual monopoly that the U.S. has on our oil exports - all in the name of protecting the environment.  No oil tanker traffic means no oil exports to Asia. The "antifarming campaign" against B.C. farmed salmon sways market share towards "wild" salmon, most of which is Alaskan."_

We are, in other words, seeing a repeat of the anti-Canadian campaigns of Sen Max Baucus, who has led patently illegal US battles against Canadian softwood lumber - he has forced the US government to lie, cheat and shamelessly violate signed treaties.  _Plus ça change_ and all that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2011)

And yet more, this time reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/09/29/china-to-north-america-send-us-your-oil/


> China to North America: Send us your oil
> 
> Claudia Cattaneo
> 
> ...




As mentioned, it will be very hard for the Americans to overcome their fear of China - hate and fear of the the unknown are so much simpler than trade and commerce.

But this is a HUGE opportunity for Canada to break the US stranglehold on our oil exports.

Some people believe that Canada cannot substitute China as an export market because of NAFTA. They are wrong. See The Librarian of Parliament's brief which says, essentially, that the NAFTA naysayers are wrong. China (or India, Japan and Korea) can buy as much of our oil as they can afford and what percentage we export to the USA doesn't matter - unless the Government of Canada tries to interfere in the operation of the market.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2011)

"As mentioned, it will be very hard for the Americans to overcome their fear of China - hate and fear of the the unknown are so much simpler than trade and commerce."

I disagree. Money will always win out.  Historically, I believe, it can be argued that "trading with the enemy" has resolved as many conflicts as it has prompted.  There is an economic element to virtually every historical conflict with violence being the final resort to bring an intransigent partner to the table - and I include the ancient disputes amongst the merchants of Medina, Byblos and Jerusalem amongst them.

For a more modern and direct reference:

John D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil, Venezuelan shipments to Nazi Germany........and tell me again why some folks might be inclined to question the motives of the Rockefeller Foundation.

Or for that matter Al Gore's association with Occidental Petroleum and Armand Hammer.

You don't need a tinfoil hat to appreciate that people make plans and pull the levers available to them to further their own interests.


Edit:  And, in direct reference to the environmental strategy of business, putting resources beyond use so as to drive up the value of the remaining resource, I give you Stanley Park in Vancouver.  It exists because the original investors discovered there was too much supply of land for the available pool of second tier investors.  The original investors' investment wasn't worth much.  So they performeed a civic service, created a "park" thereby reducing the pool of land available AND giving a focal point to development.  The net result:  the value of their assets increased dramatically.

And the strategy works so much better when you can play "beggar thy neighbour" and ensure that it is only their assets that are rendered valueless.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2011)

>Lining up behind environmental groups in opposition to the pipeline are the Coastal First Nations.

Until they get their cut, I suspect.  All it will take to undo part of the opposition is money; the rest: time and lawyers (unfortunately), unless temporary energy (oil) shortages reorganize the priorities of ordinary people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

The problem, my Caledonian friend, is that the "hate and fear China" lobby *is* based on filthy lucre: specifically the Pentagon and the defence industrial base. There are a lot of good paying jobs at stake. And yes, I recognize that the Americans were selling oil to the Japanese until mid 1941.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is a column by Lorne Gunter that makes a good point about the _qualifications_ of the Nobel laureates about whom I complained yesterday:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/29/lorne-gunter-a-peace-prize-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-you-an-expert/


> Lorne Gunter: A Peace Prize doesn’t make you an expert
> 
> Lorne Gunter
> 
> ...




Of course, everyone, even Nobel laureates, is entitled to an opinion but the Government of Canada is also entitled, indeed duty bound to "consider the source," including, in this case, the scientific credentials of Rigoberta Menchu, Desmond Tutu and Jody Williams.

There are some fights that these good, well intentioned people might have fought, this one, for example. ("International pressure is growing on Iran to overturn a death sentence imposed on a Christian pastor for apostasy ... [who] faces death by hanging for refusing to abandon his Christian faith ... [he] was born a Muslim but became a Christian after his 19th birthday. Under Iran’s version of sharia law that makes him an apostate ..." Apostasy is a capital crime.) But opposing the oil sands is easier.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

Following on in the same vein here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is a rather snarly editorial about some Canadians' self depreciation:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Tales+reputation+demise/5480476/story.html


> Tales of our reputation's demise ...
> 
> *National Post*
> 
> ...




Now, I am no fan of Paul Heinbecker; I thought he was a second rate public servant who gave the government poor advice and represented Canada poorly. But we need to understand him in his time. Heinbecker is a creature of the 1970s, when our foreign ministry, then the Department of External Affairs, was undergoing great change: the Heeney/Pearson/Wrong generation was gone, along with their attitudes which included a "commitment" to Western _values_ and, therefore, to Israel.






L. to r.: (seated) Dwight D. Eisenhower, Louis St. Laurent; (standing)
H. Hume Wrong, L.B. Pearson, John Foster Dulles during the Prime Minister's visit
to Washington in May, 1953.
Source: http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/1953/illustrations-en.asp

Inside _External_ the _Arabists_ were on the rise, led, intellectually, by e.g. Edward Said, in the USA, and Peyton Lyon in Canada. The _Arabists_ or _Orienmtalists_ were not, necessarily, anti-Semitic but many found it hard to hide their distaste for Jews, in general. Most _Arabists_ concluded that the Balfour Declaration was, fundamentally, wrong - and act of policy vandalism, at best, a payoff (with someone else's money (land)) to the Rothschilds, at worst - and that Israel itself, its very existence, was and still is  wrong. In my view Heinbecker simply adapted, in the '70s and '80s, as he rose up through the ranks, to the new _climate_, in his department and, broadly, in government, which was pro-Arab and, quietly, vaguely anti-Semitic.

But: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  :boring:


----------



## ballz (30 Sep 2011)

About those oil sands...

A couple days ago when they had those protests at Parliament Hill over this pipeline to Texas, the World Health Organization ironically published a report on clean air in the world.... http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/09/26/air-pollution-who-ahvaz.html

Canada is tied for 3rd place with Australia. The two countries that rank ahead of them have a combined population of less than 2 million.

Fort McMurray (9*) has better-than-the-Canadian average (13*) air quality. In fact, it has better air quality than the top 2 countries as well (both at 11* and 12*)

* - annual average micrograms per cubic metre


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

But just to show that pettiness is never in short supply in our foreign ministry, I offer this this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/baird-demands-gold-drops-canada-from-foreign-affairs-business-card/article2185969/


> Baird demands gold, drops 'Canada' from Foreign Affairs business card
> 
> DEAN BEEBY
> Ottawa— The Canadian Press
> ...









I'm not sure what's funnier: Baird's business cards or the fact that it merits comment in a major newspaper.


----------



## RangerRay (30 Sep 2011)

Personally, I find the "Canada" word mark logo to be an ugly corporate logo.  In my humble opinion, governments should be using their original logos, their coats of arms.

My :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

vs


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

I, personally, prefer the lower one, the Coat of Arms, but ...

I also prefer 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to the current, one leaf, version.






People know I am not a fervent monarchist but I feel that so long as we are a monarchy we should not be ashamed to show our _royal_ symbols. If we want republican symbols then let's become a republic ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2011)

Isn't the "Three leaf" design the initial version of our current "Maple Leaf" flag (i.e. there were supposed to be three leaves in the middle rather than the current one)?


----------



## RangerRay (30 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I, personally, prefer the lower one, the Coat of Arms, but ...
> 
> I also prefer
> 
> ...




With the re-introduction of the Canadian Army, wait for it?   :stirpot: :worms:



> People know I am not a fervent monarchist but I feel that so long as we are a monarchy we should not be ashamed to show our _royal_ symbols. If we want republican symbols then let's become a republic ...



I agree.  Leave the traditional symbols alone.  _If_ (BIG if) we become a republic, go nuts.


----------



## larry Strong (30 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Isn't the "Three leaf" design the initial version of our current "Maple Leaf" flag (i.e. there were supposed to be three leaves in the middle rather than the current one)?



Pearson's pennant.

Pearson had enlisted the help of John Matheson, Liberal MP for Leeds, Colonel Fortescue Duguid, and Commander Alan Beddoe to research the proper heraldry and colours for a distinctive Canadian flag. On a Saturday morning visit to 24 Sussex Drive, Alan Beddoe brought out a design with three red maple leaves on a white background, with blue bars on either side representing "From sea to sea."

Matheson was horrified - he thought the design "amateurish," "dreadful" and without heraldic principles. Pearson, however, was enchanted. Copies of Beddoe's design were made up immediately and publicly displayed

The design quickly came to be known as "Pearson's Pennant" and unquestionably became the forcus of much of the anger over the flag issue. Aside from the aesthetics, many criticized Pearson's tactics in immediately favouring one design and branded him a tyrant and his methods dictatorial; feeling one personn's choice would be forced upon them, many Canadians echoed Diefenbaker's call for a national referendum on the flag issue.


----------



## Kalatzi (30 Sep 2011)

Quote from E.R. Campbell
"Now, I am no fan of Paul Heinbecker; I thought he was a second rate public servant who gave the government poor advice and represented Canada poorly. But we need to understand him in his time. Heinbecker is a creature of the 1970s, when our foreign ministry, then the Department of External Affairs, was undergoing great change: the Heeney/Pearson/Wrong generation was gone, along with their attitudes which included a "commitment" to Western values and, therefore, to Israel.
"
An excellent comment, truly appreciated. 

It occurs to me that in a perfect world that the Arabs would be Negro. Why? The white Rhodesians shared Western Values with us, as did the white South Africans, both have been consigned to the dust bin of history, and rightly so.  To continue the analogy ...

Whenever i hear someone venting about Radical Islam or extremists, they seem to be ignoring, the whole crux of the matter, the Arab Isreali conflict


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's funnier: Baird's business cards or the fact that it merits comment in a major newspaper.


I don't know if it rates that much ink, but I think it's fair to ask:  who must follow the TB's rules?  I'm guessing I know the answer if other gov't folks asked for one-sided biz cards that would be handy for writing things on the back of, and not bearing the Common Look & Feel elements.  Just sayin'....


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I don't know if it rates that much ink, but I think it's fair to ask:  who must follow the TB's rules?  I'm guessing I know the answer if other gov't folks asked for one-sided biz cards that would be handy for writing things on the back of, and not bearing the Common Look & Feel elements.  Just sayin'....




Relatively low level civil servants?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Relatively low level civil servants?


Got it in one!  At least we know who what part of government can't bend the government's rules.

_- fixed that for me -_


----------



## cupper (1 Oct 2011)

My question is WTF does the Minister need business cards for anyway? If the people he is meeting with do not know who he is, or how to get a hold of him, not sure that he should be meeting with them in the first place.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Oct 2011)

It's so he can drop it in the box at Subway for a chance to win a free party sub.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2011)

More on Foreign Affairs Minister Baird's cards, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/dewar-joins-ndp-fray-baird-puts-business-cards-to-good-use/article2188641/


> Bidding on Baird’s business cards
> 
> Pilloried for ordering gold-embossed business cards that erased the word Canada, John Baird turned all that negativity into a tidy profit – $5,000 worth.
> 
> ...




Good for Baird!


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> My question is WTF does the Minister need business cards for anyway? If the people he is meeting with do not know who he is, or how to get a hold of him, not sure that he should be meeting with them in the first place.



A business card much more than an ego stroker - it has contact info and cards can be saved for future reference.


----------



## cupper (3 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A business card much more than an ego stroker - it has contact info and cards can be saved for future reference.



That's my point. It's not like me going to a meeting with other engineers, contractors or DOT employees, where they may not have my contact info, but have need to get in touch with me over various projects. This man is Canada's representative to the rest of the world. Any meeting with other foreign ministers or secretaries of state, ambassadors, etc. would have been arranged months in advance, and the principles would have been fully briefed by aides and so forth.

Why would he need a business card?


----------



## Container (3 Oct 2011)

So.....Im the only one here who thinks its crap that he flaunted the "rules" like that? I must be missing something....

*edit*

To flesh out my comment so its more than a drive by-

What I mean to say is:

- It would appear from the news stories that he didn't bother answer the question as to WHY he made the changes he did. The optics are poor- taking out the name of a building because you disagree with the politics of the person its named after. When your cards, albeit only 400 bucks, cost more than twice what everyone else gets I dont think its unreasonable to for the tax payer to ask why. I myself hate the card requirements. My business cards were priced twice as expensive as well- but I paid the difference. I dont think thats unreasonable for a conservative politician.

- Ignoring the the requirements for business cards that are paid for by the Crown. It mentions that he sought an exemption- what purpose does the exemption serve? If the business card requirements are so poor that we need exemptions perhaps a change to the rules is in order.

The coat of arms is nice as well- is it unreasonable that when someone who works for Canada to have to have Canada on their card? If so the rule should be changed, if not- it should apply to everyone.

Its alot of attention paid to business cards for sure but its the thought process involved in the decision Im concerned about. I dont believe its unfair to ask why and expect an answer.

So when I say "I must be missing something" I mean- folks must have seen an article with a reasonable explanation that I have missed.

Now back to mute


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> So.....Im the only one here who thinks its crap that he flaunted the "rules" like that? I must be missing something....



You take offence to so many things, I think most have just decided to ignore you of late.


----------



## Container (3 Oct 2011)

fair enough- although I went back over my posts and I dont see where Im taking offence.....perhaps the voluteer firefighter thread.

I'll put myself on mute for a while.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> That's my point. It's not like me going to a meeting with other engineers, contractors or DOT employees, where they may not have my contact info, but have need to get in touch with me over various projects. This man is Canada's representative to the rest of the world. Any meeting with other foreign ministers or secretaries of state, ambassadors, etc. would have been arranged months in advance, and the principles would have been fully briefed by aides and so forth.
> 
> Why would he need a business card?



He does meet other people, that are not foreign ministers or secretaries of state, ambassadors, etc. You realize that, don't you?


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2011)

When, about 20 years ago, I worked very closely with a minister and his staff (not the MND) *we* (the staff) each carried a supply of his cards, along with our own.

We stapled his card to every copy of his official 'brief' to a major global conference - a document that was in some demand - and we passed them out to a considerable number of "captains of industry" from around the world who actually wanted to know who our "head man" might be. I also kept a handful of small photos of the minister, just for those "captains of industry." They were pleased at my having foreseen their desire to have both contact information and a picture. They could have asked their own staffs but it made more sense to ask Canadians about the Canadian minister. A lot of work was done "in the hallways" at these conferences and when our minister was "working the crowd" a team of senior officials _hovered_ nearby, at his beck and call, top help him out when one of those "captains of industry" or an equally senior official from another country asked a (too) technical question.

Do you know who this man is? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





There is a good chance that this man, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 doesn't know himwell, either. But he wants to know who he is, what his name is, what his title is and so on when they do meet.
                                                                 Geesung Choi, Vice Chairman & CEO,
                                                                 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The man in the upper picture is The Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry; he _matters_ to Geesung Choi but the two only 'meet' on very rare occasions.


----------



## Wookilar (3 Oct 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's so he can drop it in the box at Subway for a chance to win a free party sub.



 :facepalm: Why didn't I think of that?!?!?! lol

I know if I showed up at any function without the approved format and content (look and feel wise) business cards, I would be hearing about it.
Larger than that, most in the business community know the rules just as well as we do (some don't care as much {_as we should_}, but they still know them). I would be disregarded as a bit of a clown and the chance of getting much respect (or of successfully closing deals) would be diminished.

Maybe "_trust_" and "_competency_" are not really required to operate at that level.

Wook


----------



## cupper (3 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He does meet other people, that are not foreign ministers or secretaries of state, ambassadors, etc. You realize that, don't you?



Yeah. I do.

I guess since he now has to fly commercial instead of the Gov't jet, people may mistake him for some ordinary tourist.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Yeah. I do.
> 
> I guess since he now has to fly commercial instead of the Gov't jet, people may mistake him for some ordinary tourist.


You do realize that sometimes high Government officials can't book flights via West Jet to destinations they don't fly to? Or that MAYBE this particular officials' time is valuable . We're speaking of the Minister of Foreign Affairs......not some public servant.

Your snobbery is becoming unbearable.


----------



## cupper (3 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You do realize that sometimes high Government officials can't book flights via West Jet to destinations they don't fly to? Or that MAYBE this particular officials' time is valuable . We're speaking of the Minister of Foreign Affairs......not some public servant.
> 
> Your snobbery is becoming unbearable.



 :sorry:

That last comment was meant to be ironic humour, not snobbery.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Oct 2011)

Then I am sorry I didn't pick up on that!! Cheers! :cheers:


----------



## cupper (3 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Then I am sorry I didn't pick up on that!! Cheers! :cheers:



My fault. I should have added a suitable smilie.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2011)

Another Harper/Conservative _principled_ stand, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-stand-on-sri-lanka-is-just-not-cricket/article2215265/


> Harper’s stand on Sri Lanka is just not cricket
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK | Columnist profile
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




This follows along neatly from Canada's boycott of the most recent Durban meeting on the grounds that it is nothing but a UN sanctioned hate-fest. Given the sorry state of human rights in too many Commonwealth countries I hope Canada continues to speak out and to act by boycotting the 2013 summit in Sri Lanka and, as necessary, future summits in our countries with suspect human rights records.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Oct 2011)

> It might seem the Commonwealth's stance on human rights isn't going to change the world, anyway. It's not a treaty organization, or alliance, or the UN


Yes. The UN's track record...human rights....  :

I agree, it's up to individual nations, like Canada, to step up to the plate and be heard. The larger the organization, the more cat-herding requirement for consensus brings it down to the lowest, least effective, common denominator.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2011)

I am quite pleased with the stance Prime Minister Harper took at the Commonwealth summit in Australia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/limited-progress-on-commonwealths-human-rights-reforms-after-summit/article2219056/


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed frustration at the slow, bureaucratic pace of reform, but nonetheless refused to sound off on an organization he says “remains relevant and effective.”
> 
> “Realistically I don't think you can expect to drop 106 recommendations on leaders with a few weeks notice and expect all of them are going to be accepted in the space of a weekend,” Mr. Harper said at a post-summit news conference, before embarking on the long, 30-hour flight home to Canada.
> 
> ...



The Commonwealth is one thing: 54 members, a full 1/3 of which are functioning democracies; but La Francophonie is another: 56 members and 19 observers, of which you can count the democratic "members" on one hand.

Will we be able to toe the same line when La Francophonie meets?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Oct 2011)

Are we counting Quebec as a democratic member of the Francophonie?


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2011)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ points up one of the constant dilemmas of Canadian foreign policy:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Canada+left+sidelines+emerging+trade+body/5701750/story.html


> Canada left on sidelines of emerging trade body
> 
> By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News November 12, 2011
> 
> ...




First point: *policy*, any and all policy, always has a _political_ component ~ sometimes domestic politics is the biggest component in foreign policy.

Second point: for at least 100 years - think of Laurier and the 1911 general election in which the Navy and free trade played key roles - domestic politics has _driven_ foreign affairs. This led us, in 1947, to enunciate, clearly and properly and about 50 year later than necessary, a sound basis for our foreign policy - see Louis St Laurent's Duncan & John Gray Memorial Lecture at U of T. National unity was St Laurent's first point.

Third Point: Anyone who follows my musings will know that I favour full, free trade with East Asia and that I do not regard China as a current or even potential enemy. But, in this case, I support the Canadian government's stand.

Fourth Point: Anyone who follows my musings will know that I favour learning to govern without Québec - not *against* Québec, just with (relatively) little representation from that province because I see a _divide_ between "Old Canada" (everything East of the Ottawa River and "New Canada" (everything West of the Ottawa River) (not my original idea, by the way, but I now forget who gave me that simple _vision_, I think it _may_ have been Michael Bliss) and I am convinced that "New Canada's" interests must prevail over those of "old Canada."

The issue is supply management - something I abhor on a variety of (good) grounds. But supply management is important, indeed politically vital to Québec and Québec has taken quite enough "hits" this year between the general election and, more recently, seat redistribution proposals. Domestically the PQ has been rocked back on its heels but Jean Charest, "summer soldier" federalist though he may be, is not secure. Québec doesn't need a supply management debate.

Who, in the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) is against us? My guess is:

1. The USA - because supply management is a real, festering issue for them; and

2. Australia - they also dislike supply management, on principle, but they are more concerned with growing Canadian competition in markets which they have, traditionally, regarded as being in their "back yard."

What should we do? Noting, for the moment, but press on, very aggressively, with free trade deals with China, India (ongoing), Singapore (ongoing), Malaysia, Japan, South Korea (ongoing) and, separately from China, Hong Kong. Don't worry about trade deals with Africa, Europe and Latin America - pursue them, just not with any particular intensity; focus on Asia - where the people and money can be found.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defence-minister-says-he-will-speak-with-israel-about-reported-plans-to-attack-iran/article2234766/


Just found this. Is Iran next?


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2011)

IF Israel decides that it needs to attack Iran it will _hope_ for tacit support from Canada. Israel knows that the USA, the Obama administration, will passively oppose an attack but they are counting on the fact that it will not act, in any way, to prevent, interfere with or punish Israel for it.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ......Don't worry about trade deals with ...Europe .....



Which Europe would that be?

With respect to supply management: I believe that problem will go away in the not so distant future.

A previous employer of mine who I prefer not to name is one of the biggest and oldest dairy co-ops in Quebec.   Their membership are the heart and soul of supply management in Canada.  In recent years they have made major investments in the US and Argentina.  The resulting change in perceptions with respect to profitability and opportunity is ongoing.

At some point the penny will drop that the Chinese and Indians eat cheese.....

Right now good farming land in Quebec, in the Eastern Townships, La Beauce and the Saguenay, is being kept out of dairy production because of the supply management system.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Nov 2011)

Canadian, read mainly PQ dairy farmers, are the richest in the world according to some info I have read. Dairy products are at least double the US prices. Same with chicken.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Nov 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Dairy products are at least double the US prices.



Don't even need to go that far. Look at the price difference between a 4L of milk in BC (just over $4) and a 4L of milk in NS (just over $7).

Don't even have to look outside Canada to know someone is getting screwed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Nov 2011)

Yes, I agree.  We're getting screwed, blued and tattooed six ways from Sunday.  Milk, power etc etc


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Nov 2011)

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

14 Nov 2011 - National Post - JASON FEKETE

*HARPER PUTS IT ALL ON TABLE*

Applies to join trade pact, supply management up for negotiation

HONOLULU • Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Sunday *Canada will apply to join a new free trade agreement with the United States and the Asia-pacific region, and suggested that Canada’s farm supply management systems could be on the table for negotiation.
*
Mr. Harper also said Canada will look further into selling its oil and gas to Asian countries due to U.S. delays in approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. Harper, who met U.S. President Barack Obama over lunch on the fringes of the Asia-pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Honolulu, said Canada will formally ask to join the emerging Trans-pacific Partnership trade group of nine Asia-pacific countries.

A handful of countries in the TPP negotiations — including possibly New Zealand and the United States — have been resisting Canada’s entry into the group because of the Canadian supply management system that protects fewer than 20,000 dairy and poultry farmers behind a tariff wall and hands them production quotas.

The Conservative government has repeatedly said it will strongly defend Canada’s supply management system and that it wasn’t yet in the country’s interest to join the trade group — something reaffirmed Saturday by International Trade Minister Ed Fast.

But Sunday, Mr. Harper stressed his government now wants into the TPP, currently being negotiated among the United States, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. He said he was informed that Mr. Obama has asked for Canada to join the trade agreement.

The Prime Minister said Canada can “easily meet” the broad strokes of the agreement unveiled Saturday by Mr. Obama, even if it means throwing into the mix a supply management system that forces Canadians to pay higher prices for products like milk, cheese, chicken and eggs.

“It has been told to me that President Obama, in fact, was very strong indicating that he would like to see Canada join the Trans-pacific Partnership. We are indicating today our formal intention, we’re expressing formally our willingness to join the Trans-pacific Partnership,” Mr. Harper said.

“We will make an application and I am optimistic we will participate in the future,” he added. “Whenever we enter negotiations, as we’ve done in the past with other countries, as we’re doing right now with Europe, we always say that all matters are on the table. But of course Canada will seek to defend and promote our specific interests in every single sector of the economy.”

Japan announced Friday it was entering negotiations into the TPP and appears willing to dismantle some of its tariff walls for rice and grain farmers.

The Prime Minister met Mr. Obama amid a growing number of cross-border irritants, including Keystone XL, Buy American provisions, the Beyond the Border initiative and new $5.50 travel surcharge to the United States.

Mr. Harper said he is disappointed with the Obama administration’s decision to delay a ruling on the TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline and consider rerouting it, but he says he believes the project will proceed because it is critical for both the Canadian and American economies.

“We are disappointed. Nonetheless, I remain optimistic that the project will eventually go ahead because it makes eminent sense, and I would also point out, I think it’s important to note that there has been extremely negative reaction to this decision in the United States because this pipeline and this project is obviously what’s in the best interests of not just the Canadian economy but also the American economy,” Mr. Harper said Sunday.

“I do think as well though — and I think this is important to say — this does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we’re able to access Asian markets for our energy products and that will be an important priority of this government going forward and I indicated that [Saturday] to President Hu of China.”

The Obama administration announced last week it is delaying a final ruling on the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline until after the November 2012 presidential election while the government looks to reroute it. The $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline would carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from northern Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

The U.S. State Department said it’s ordering a new review of the project aimed at rerouting Keystone XL around sensitive ecosystems along its proposed path through Nebraska.

Canada’s ticket to selling its petroleum to Asia is Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship oil sands bitumen from northern Alberta to a marine facility in Kitimat, B.C., where oil would be unloaded onto tankers for export.

The broader goal of the TPP is to create a tariff-free region and members view it as a critical multilateral agreement, especially with the ongoing troubles from the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations.

Mr. Obama said Saturday he’s “confident” the TPP members can complete the free-trade agreement, hopefully within a year, and have it serve as a model for future pacts.

Mr. Harper, meanwhile, downplayed perceived strains in the Canada-u.s. relationship — be it on Keystone, Beyond the Border or Buy American — blaming domestic American politics for the decisions.

“Remember, not all these things are final decisions. I think Canadians would be wrong to interpret any of these decisions as against Canada,” Mr. Harper said. “This is simply the political season in the United States and decisions are being made for domestic political reasons that often have little or nothing to do with what other countries may think.”

He said negotiations on Beyond the Border — a bilateral trade and security agreement designed to better co-ordinate intelligence sharing and streamline cross-border trade — are going well and that he’s optimistic “a very strong program” will come out of it, with an “announcement in the very near future.”

A working group conducted public consultations on the measures and has completed a 30-point action plan. The Harper government originally said the plan would be ready by the end of summer, but details still haven’t been unveiled.

Other cross-border issues include the new $5.50 surcharge on Canadians and Mexicans travelling by air or boat to the United States — a move Mr. Harper has attacked as a bad policy designed to bail the United States out of a huge debt on the backs of Canadians and other visitors.

There has also been some tension between Canada and the United States in recent weeks after the White House included new Buy American provisions in Mr. Obama’s $447-billion job creation bill that could prevent Canadian companies from bidding on billions of dollars of infrastructure contracts.

The Harper government’s push into Asia-pacific faces some stiff competition, though, especially from the United States.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2011)

I think there is both more and less on the table than Prime Minister Harper suggests.

The "more" is that we offer the USA _potential_, future concessions on supply management plus we give Obama a "win" (getting a supply management 'concession" from Canada) in return for a better border deal. The "less" is that the TPP (the Pacific trade deal) is not especially important, except as a model for the future, and we need not give much any time soon.

The big "more" is the _Northern Gateway_ pipeline and all it implies about the direction (West) Canada will look for its economic future.

But everyone must remember that the USA is, for the near and medium terms, our best friend, the guarantor of our security, a (generally) fair, friendly and HUGE market for our goods and services. Asia is, in the medium to long terms, _potentially_ most of those things: full of fair to good friends and non-threats, and, generally again, fair, friendly and GIGANTIC markets for our goods and services. We are not, and *must* not look at one or the other: we need to cultivate both America and Asia, even as we plod along trying to sell more and more to other, less important regions (Europe, Africa and the Middle East and West Asia).


----------



## GAP (14 Nov 2011)

> we need to cultivate both America and Asia, even as we plod along trying to sell more and more to other, less important regions (Europe, Africa and the Middle East and West Asia).



As a counter balance both America and Asia work, although I have more faith in a fair deal with the US and the prospect of fair trading with Asia, but that seems to me to be more cultural than anything else.....we are used to the rules within the US, because the are the same/similar to ours....that is not the case with Asia....

Europe, Africa and the Middle East and West Asia for us are dead ends....maintain markets, open new ones if we can, but don't try to get too involved in their problems...

my  :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2011)

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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2011)

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/


> Border deal a hard barrier for Harper’s critics to cross
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




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.


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2011)

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....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2011)

agreed


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Dec 2011)

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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2011)

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.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2011)

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?"


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Dec 2011)

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/


> John Baird crafts Canadian foreign policy with a hard edge
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2011)

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


> Toward a foreign policy
> 
> 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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2012)

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.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jan 2012)

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.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Jan 2012)

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.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2012)

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.


----------



## cupper (16 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2012)

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/


> The last thing we need is another foreign policy review
> 
> DEREK BURNEY AND FEN OSLER HAMPSON
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Jan 2012)

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.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2012)

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/


> Truculent moralizing for a domestic audience
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




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


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2012)

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.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Feb 2012)

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.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Feb 2012)

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/


> On China visit, Harper picks up where Trudeau left off
> 
> MARK MACKINNON
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2012)

> 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.”
> 
> ...


PMO news release, 8 Feb 12


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Mar 2012)

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/


> With friends like Harper, Bibi can do no wrong
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Mar 2012)

This constant fear mongering seems to be the current tactic of the liberal supporters.  It allows them to create fear of Conservative intentions and continue with their traditional "Conservatives are militaristic war-mongerers" line (for all those who remember the liberals aircraft carrier commercials) while at the same time attempting to demonstrate how just the former Liberal policies were, and frame it as the "good old days".

Sure beats trying to have actual policies and working to gain credibility at the grass roots, building a base, and presenting a reasonable option.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Mar 2012)

>the idea that Israel is a democracy and Arab countries are not

Sure, I enjoy the dramatic see-saw of elections in places like Egypt and Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia, during which people like Mubarak and Assad and Hussein and the Saudi rulers trade places every few years with opposition party leaders.  It is much preferred to that one-party, one-ruler situation in Israel...what is the dictator's name, again?

You've an incisive intellect, Mr Simpson.  My esteem for you has changed by many notches.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This constant fear mongering seems to be the current tactic of the liberal supporters.  It allows them to create fear of Conservative intentions and continue with their traditional "Conservatives are militaristic war-mongerers" line (for all those who remember the liberals aircraft carrier commercials) while at the same time attempting to demonstrate how just the former Liberal policies were, and frame it as the "good old days".
> 
> Sure beats trying to have actual policies and working to gain credibility at the grass roots, building a base, and presenting a reasonable option.




Fear sells. It's a much better sell than policy and credibility.


----------



## m2austin (20 Jun 2012)

Sourced from the Winnipeg Free Press, 19 Jun 2012, Link <a href="http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/threat-to-israel-is-threat-to-canada-mackay-tells-israeli-military-commander-159630805.html">here</a>



> *Threat to Israel is threat to Canada, MacKay tells Israeli military commander*
> 
> By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> Posted: 4:27 PM | Last Modified: 5:10 PM
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2012)

The story below is from one of the Afghanistan pages, but it relates to Canadian foreign policy.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106470/post-1161894.html#msg1161894


			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This piece bears on the issue raised in the book, but does not exclusively deal with it. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> 
> *After Kandahar, the history war *
> ...




I am not interested in commenting on the "first draft of history," the journalists and generals are entitled to their opinions but they are, by and large, _impressions_, anecdotes and even "sour grapes" rather than _history_. As Prof. Bercuson points out, it will be decades before real historians have access to enough information to make reasoned analyses and then, as we can see, for example, in the _popular_ revisions to the World War I histories (written to reflect Western distaste for American governmental and military leadership in the Viet Nam era) it will be revised again and again to suit the tastes of the times.

But, just for a moment, let us suppose that there is some *military* logic in e.g. Gen Richards' contention that "there weren’t enough Canadians for the job" in Kandahar. Does that mean that we should have joined with the Brits in Helmand or that they should have joined us in Kandahar? The reporting, at the time, was that Kandahar was all that was left for us because our government "dithered" over what role(s) it wanted to undertake in Afghanistan. Implicit in Gen Richards' comment is the notion that Canada should have decided, as a matter of policy, to play something less than a "lead" role in Afghanistan; perhaps Richards wanted us to be subordinate to the Brits, à la 1899, 1914, 1939 and even 1949. But David Richards is a smart fellow and he knows that Canadian policy in 2004/05, when we decided to go to Kandahar, was to "punch above our weight" and, in both the Chrétien and Martin governments our intention was to rebuild our international position; we were not willing to spend much money on it, but it was a stated policy goal. Indeed, when then Defence Minister John McCallum went to Brussels, in 2002/03, to negotiate Canada's participation into ISAF, his stated goal was to secure a "leadership" position. There was, simply, no way that Canada - not the CF, the country - could or would accept anything less than a full PRT task, as "lead" nation. Gen Richads must understand that, if he doesn't then he was intellectually unable to do his job and, demonstrably, that's not true. So why is he saying it? In my opinion Richards believes that Afghanistan will end up as a Western defeat and he wants the "first draft of history" to indicate that he Brits were not to blame and, since it is politically incorrect to blame the USA, that leaves us.

I agree with David Bercuson that, on reflection, from the outside, the _"Canadian war effort that was confused, somewhat amateurish, overly optimistic and, in many parts of Kandahar province, simply ineffective."_ But why? Are our generals less able? No, not noticeably. Are our diplomats amateurs? No. What about our officials at the top of government? Are they bunglers? No, again. But we, as a country, were, and in my opinion still are, unprepared to "go to war." We may have an intellectual appreciation of the subject but we, the government, the military and, above all, the Canadian people, have forgotten 'how' to wage war. For over 30 years, a full generation, our foreign and defence policies explicitly rejected the idea of 'war.' We were a nation of "peacekeepers" and even as traditional, baby-blue-beret style _Pearsonian peacekeeping_ morphed into something harder (in the Balkans, for example) our plans and policies and, above all, our finances were in denial. Our national policy, from about 1969 until 2006 simply refused to countenance the idea that we might have to go to war.

Policy, any policy, requires two things: thought and resources. Canadian foreign and defence policies, from 1969 until today, have lacked at least one of them: resources (mainly money), and usually, until about 2005/06, both.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Policy, any policy, requires two things: thought and resources*. Canadian foreign and defence policies, from 1969 until today, have lacked at least one of them: resources (mainly money), and usually, until about 2005/06, both.



Amongst the resources required perhaps we might add moral resources.

Do we, as a modern, secular nation have the moral support to accept personal sacrifice?  Or is it just coincidence that in the US, our nearest moral neighbour, that most of the volunteers for the Volunteer Force come from those parts of the country that are most likely to attend church on Sunday?

Where do we fall in the discussion over "atheists in foxholes" and "giving the lie to _dulce et decorum est pro patria mori_"?

What would it take to have the Nation, writ large, accept sacrifice?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Amongst the resources required perhaps we might add moral resources.
> 
> Do we, as a modern, secular nation have the moral support to accept personal sacrifice?  Or is it just coincidence that in the US, our nearest moral neighbour, that most of the volunteers for the Volunteer Force come from those parts of the country that are most likely to attend church on Sunday?
> 
> ...




I'm not sure your characterization of our neighbours is on target. While I do not dispute, because I do not know, the religious beliefs of Americans in uniform, I would have said that _"most of the volunteers for the Volunteer Force come from those parts of the country that are_ least able to enjoy the 'American Dream.'"

As Wilfred Owen reminded us, "dulce et decorum est ..." was a lie when Horace said it; it's something to put stars in schoolboys' eyes. As for atheists in foxholes, we, at least never wrote _Gott Mit Uns_ on our belt buckles. I was just in a rather remote Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery - many, maybe even most of the graves had Christian markers, almost as many reflected the varied religious beliefs of the men from the 5th Battalion, 7th Rajput Regiment, 2nd Battalion, the 14th Punjab Regiment and the Hong Kong Chinese Regiment, and a few British and Canadian Jews are buried there, too. Maybe religious beliefs help individual face death with a tiny bit more equanimity, maybe it's something else that calms them ... maybe our markedly religious neighbours are better able to accept the deaths of their loved ones, or maybe just the deaths of some strangers' loved ones.

To your main point: the country will be able to wage war, as a nation, when the threat is clear and pressing. And that's something we have not seen since 1945 - even Korea and the Cold War could not convince us that we were 'at war.' Notwithstanding an explicit threat from Osama bin Laden himself, Canadians, broadly, do not agree that we, neither Canada nor the US led West at large, are under attack. Maybe they'e right, maybe the 'threat' is, partially, a creation of the "military industrial complex" which needs constant, renewable threats to whip up enthusiasm for 10 or 15 carrier battle groups and newer, better, costlier aircraft.

I believe that the _defence of the realm_, the protection of the country and its citizens, is, as Paul Martin said when he was prime minister, "the first duty of government." When one takes that position, and I acknowledge that few ever do,  then one does not need a "clear and present danger," one expects the government of the day to maintain sufficient armed forces to do the job - one can, and I would, argue that e.g. Mackenzie King failed in this in the 1930s, one can agree that the _*Great Depression*_* made doing it, defending the realm, more difficult, but it didn't make it impossible. King may have failed but few others, excepting Louis St Laurent, have even bothered to try. I have argued, elsewhere how to do what's necessary.

I do not see a major, general war, not à la 1939-45 anyway, on the horizon - which, probably, means it will start next week! - but I can envision a global war, not, as George W Bush suggested, on terror (which is a tactic, not an enemy, in any event) but rather, as Sam Huntington suggested a clash or maybe clashes of civilizations. But even then I doubt Canadians will see themselves and their spouses and children as being 'at war.'

*


----------



## Sythen (2 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe they'e right, maybe the 'threat' is, partially, a creation of the "military industrial complex" which needs constant, renewable threats to whip up enthusiasm for 10 or 15 carrier battle groups and newer, better, costlier aircraft.



You forgot the :sarcasm: smiley.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> You forgot the :sarcasm: smiley.




Nope, I follow the workings of the US House and Senate foreign relations and armed services committees; I note, with interest, sometimes with dismay, the "threat assessments" proffered by various and sundry defence industry lobby groups.


----------



## Sythen (2 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nope, I follow the workings of the US House and Senate foreign relations and armed services committees; I note, with interest, sometimes with dismay, the "threat assessments" proffered by various and sundry defence industry lobby groups.



Though I will note that in your original post you said "partially", I think any reasonable person would take threat assessment from a lobby group with a grain of salt, and would do some additional fact checking before deciding billion dollar purchases. Conflict of interest isn't anything new, really..


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2012)

> As for atheists in foxholes, we, at least never wrote Gott Mit Uns on our belt buckles.



No, but British and, I believe, Commonwealth General Service buckles had DIEU ET MON DROIT (God and my right) on them.

Adds nothing to the discussion. Just some UFI. 8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> No, but British and, I believe, Commonwealth General Service buckles had DIEU ET MON DROIT (God and my right) on them.
> 
> Adds nothing to the discussion. Just some UFI. 8)




I forgot about that.  :-[


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2012)

"Canadian war effort that was confused, somewhat amateurish, overly optimistic and, in many parts of Kandahar province, simply ineffective."

"British war effort that was confused, somewhat amateurish, overly optimistic and, in many parts of Norway/France/Greece/Crete/Hong Kong/Singapore/Burma/North Africa/Italy/Normandy, simply ineffective."

Orderly, professional, and realistic are not adjectives suited to the conduct of war by democracies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2012)

:goodpost:

+300 Milpoints inbound, Brad!


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2012)

An interesting _opportunity_ for Prime Minister Harper emerges if Mme. Marois becomes the Premier of Quebec according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pq-is-spoiling-for-a-fight-with-harper-on-foreign-policy-issues/article4509192/


> PQ is spoiling for a fight with Harper on foreign-policy issues
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Based on what we know about Mr. Harper I think that we can guess what his reaction is likely to be: he will politely ignore Mme. Marois' demands for powers in areas which are in the exclusive federal domain. With specific regard to a formal proposition: *creating Quebec citizenship*. I think Campbell Clark is right: _"that would be flatly unconstitutional and ... Ottawa_ [would]_  contest it."_

In a broader context I suspect that Harper may send a (not too subtle) message to Quebec: elect a federalist and I will meet you part way, I'll talk to a federalist Quebec premier and I'll let that premier have a voice on the world stage; elect a separatist and I'll just ignore her or him.

Even further, I believe that Prime Minister Harper will speak out, saying something like: "I want to clarify powers and responsibilities; I want the federal government to intrude less and less in areas of provincial jurisdiction but that means I want the provinces, including Quebec, to step back from powers that, Constitutionally, are reserved, exclusively, for the federal government."

Looking at foreign policy, _per se_: Campbell Clark and Mme. Marois are both correct ~ Harper has been "governing without Quebec." Many of his foreign and defence policy initiatives are opposed to Quebec's expressed wishes and policies.

In the future it will be both possible and, perhaps, even necessary to "govern without Quebec," not against Quebec, just by ignoring its interests, policies and demands.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2012)

However, what I see, is that Mdme Marois is going to play PM Harper's game.  I don't think for a second that she expects that the Prime Minister will agree to any of her (outrageous in my mind) demands.  I think she hopes that Harper will ignore or challenge Quebec.  She wants to rock the boat and get the Quebec population upset and she'll be the one that starts it all but will lay blame on Ottawa.  Especially now that the BQ is gone (the BQ ironically showed that the system works).

We might be in store for a perfect storm.  A seperatist Quebec government with someone aching for a fight and federal government unwilling to cave or compromise to them. Compromise was achievable with a federalist party.  Interesting times.  We just have to hiope that the PQ ends up in minority territory and implodes from within.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> However, what I see, is that Mdme Marois is going to play PM Harper's game.  I don't think for a second that she expects that the Prime Minister will agree to any of her (outrageous in my mind) demands.  I think she hopes that Harper will ignore or challenge Quebec.  She wants to rock the boat and get the Quebec population upset and she'll be the one that starts it all but will lay blame on Ottawa.  Especially now that the BQ is gone (the BQ ironically showed that the system works).
> 
> We might be in store for a perfect storm.  A seperatist Quebec government with someone aching for a fight and federal government unwilling to cave or compromise to them. Compromise was achievable with a federalist party.  Interesting times.  We just have to hiope that the PQ ends up in minority territory and implodes from within.




My  :2c: : the more Quebec wants to fight the less Canada, and the Government of Canada, will care. I doubt there will be any storm, not matter how imperfect, at all - but I think Prime Minister Harper will be pleased.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Aug 2012)

All PM Harper has to do is chip away, bit by bit, at Quebec's overblown sense of self entitlement. Take a little here, take a little there, ignore their howls and protestations. Eventually, hopefully, they'll be on par with the rest of the provinces and realize that the temper tantrums they threw as spoiled and belligerent children, no longer work with the rest of Canadian society. They can fall in line and be welcomed or they can saddle up and head off into the sunset.

They have to be taught, probably with tough love as appeasement hasn't worked, that there is nothing special about them and their 'Belle Province'.

Their once great stick, that they were needed to elect a majority government, has gone up the chimney like a wisp of smoke. They no longer have the relevance they used to have in order to bargain for special rights not afforded to other Canadians.

That's just my  :2c: and not anything based on academics though.

For some reason I'm hearing Goodbye Yellow Brick Road in my head all of a sudden.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2012)

And this will provide a convenient petard for the NDP to use to hoist itself. Do the dippers back the Federalist or the Quebec nationalist position? If it is the former, they could enrage their base in the province. The party has advocated a number of positions including applying Bill 101 to Federally regulated firms in Quebec and adopting the 50% plus one rule for a referendum on independence that hints they might opt to back the PQ position. If so, then their place as the replacement for the Liberals across the country is not so certain.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2012)

My concern is that a PQ government will try and succeed to set the conditions for success.  Harper isn't popular in Quebec.  That won't likely change.  And you can bet the PQ will capitalise on that and will make big deals out of nothing.  I'm not saying that they should be treated differently than any other province or that Harper should.  But marois and the PQ cronies will play that card.  They want Quebec to seem like it is being ignored and alienated.  Perception is everything and if Marois is able to convince Quebecers that they aren't getting a fair shake, that can spell trouble.  

Quebec/Fed relations have been fairly docile, with 10 years of federalists at the helm and minority governments where the BQ was able to get concessions.  Quebecers essentially were kept more or less content.   Now we have a real possibility of seeing a seperatist party at the helm of Quebec looking for trouble and a Federal Government unwilling to bend to demands.

So we are seing some of those conditions they need.  

1) Dislike of the federal government in power.
2) Seperatist Government heading Quebec (with very nebulous conditions for a referendum)
3) Apathetic pro-fed/anglo voters
4) Fragile/sinking economy

Ultimately I'd like to see a Liberal return, even a minority.  But even a minority PQ propped up by CAQ is not giving me a good a feeling.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> My concern is that a PQ government will try and succeed to set the conditions for success.  Harper isn't popular in Quebec.  That won't likely change.  And you can bet the PQ will capitalise on that and will make big deals out of nothing.  I'm not saying that they should be treated differently than any other province or that Harper should.  But marois and the PQ cronies will play that card.  They want Quebec to seem like it is being ignored  and alienated.  Perception is everything and if Marois is able to convince Quebecers that they aren't getting a fair shake, that can spell trouble.
> 
> Quebec/Fed relations have been fairly docile, with 10 years of federalists at the helm and minority governments where the BQ was able to get concessions.  Quebecers essentially were kept more or less content.   Now we have a real possibility of seeing a seperatist party at the helm of Quebec looking for trouble and a Federal Government unwilling to bend to demands.
> 
> ...



So ignore them. Let them holler and bellyache about it, but again, ignore them. The worst thing we can do is acknowledge their constant bleating and baiting. Ignore them as you would a child that's holding their breath or laying on the floor screaming.

I don't see the problem. :dunno:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Ultimately I'd like to see a Liberal return, even a minority.  But even a minority PQ propped up by CAQ is not giving me a good a feeling.



I know politics makes strange bedfellows, but I think a more likely scenario is a Liberal/CAQ coalition.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So ignore them. Let them holler and bellyache about it, but again, ignore them. The worst thing we can do is acknowledge their constant bleating and baiting. Ignore them as you would a child that's holding their breath or laying on the floor screaming.
> 
> I don't see the problem. :dunno:



Because that is exactly what they want.  Western alienation led to seperatist feelings in some western provinces.  Imagine a  province where it is much more prevalent with many many more fence sitters that could be swayed to one side.

What I would rather see is pre-emptive things like legislation or motions or whatever that would take the wind out of their sails.  Like the Conservatives did to the Bloc by premptively acknowledging in the house that Quebec was distinct before the bloc could table their own motion. Or things like the clarity act.  

Sure, ignore them but don't take your eye off them.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I know politics makes strange bedfellows, but I think a more likely scenario is a Liberal/CAQ coalition.



Possible but i think improbable unless either of those parties gets a minority.  And then probably not even a coalition.  

But hey, who knows.


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2012)

But back to the topic, I think a PQ government will indeed target the Conservatives foreign policy.  But I wonder how that would resonate with the population given that there really isn't a war to pick on any more and only jets that we actually haven't purchased yet?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2012)

Prime Minister Harper has, already, done "pre-emptive things" in areas where the feds intrude on provincial jurisdiction - like: _Here's your health care funding, no federal-provincial conferences required, no negotiations needed._ And that's fine, as far as it goes, in those areas - although I, personally would prefer that the feds vacate (almost all of) the health care field and give the responsibility plus the tax points to the provinces - but Mme. Marois is reported to want to intrude into areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction: foreign affairs and citizenship.

My sense of Mr. Harper is that, no matter what the issue, he doesn't like to deal with the provinces; he especially doesn't like negotiating with them; he remembers Pierre Trudeau's famous quip that the provinces are always _"willing to trade rights for fish."_ Thus, I expect that he will, categorically, refuse to deal with any of Mme. Marois' issues that intrude into the federal domain - in fact I expect that he will be reluctant to deal with *legitimate* grievances so long as a _separatist_ is in power ... in hopes that Quebecrs will get the message.


Edit: format


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2012)

More, in this report which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on how Prime Minister Harper is reshaping Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-honoured-in-ny-as-statesman-of-the-year-aims-to-snub-un/article4536110/


> Harper, honoured in N.Y. as statesman of the year, aims to snub UN
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




More on the Appeal of Conscience Foundation here.

Not speaking to the UN General Assembly is a nice _snub_ - it will be noted in certain circles, mainly in circles (foreign and domestic) that Mr. Harper disdains.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not speaking to the UN General Assembly is a nice _snub_ - it will be noted in certain circles, mainly in circles (foreign and domestic) that Mr. Harper disdains.



Turnabout is fair play.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> – but Mr. Harper chose to skip the UN.


Can I give our Prime Minister MilPoints?

I'm afraid that watching global events, deploying once wearing a 'League of Nations 2' blue beret, and discussions with more than one UN Military Advisor (before the position was upgraded to "LGen" and drawn exclusively from third-world nations) has kind of soured me on any utility of the UN....let alone speaking to them during a press conference week.  

Good on Mr Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2012)

I haven't read much about this extract from _tory diary_ here, in our Canadian media:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/09/by-matthew-barrettfollow-matthew-on-twitter-eurosceptics-dont-always-have-cause-to-celebrate-the-story-likely-to-annoy-the.html


> William Hague announces new British Commonwealth embassies to head off expanding European diplomatic network
> 
> By Matthew Barrett
> 
> ...




It is not a bad _practical_ idea but I'm not sure the _optics_ are great. It will, obviously, send Mlle. Marois into paroxysms of rage as she emands the Quebec be allowed to _cohabit_, diplomatically, with France.

We have few _major_ differences with the UK but, equally, few _shared_ interests, either.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2012)

I'm not sure a joint "embassy" is even a practical idea (given an embassy is by definition sovereign territory owned by the nation which operates it), but perhaps redefining it as a joint consulate, a "Commonwealth Diplomatic office" or some similar construct would work.

A practical expression of the Anglosphere idea, especially if the senior members of the Commonwealth come on board.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2012)

It depends upon how you _manage_ it:

1. If Canada, for example, does nothing in Bishkek, capital of Kyrgyzstan, which is currently 'attended' by our ambassador to Kazakhstan, then the UK embassy would, possibly, simply appoint an officer to represent our _interests_, as Italy does for us in Libya, for example, but it might go one step father - our staff in Astana might have a permanent office inside the UK embassy and the Canadian flag might fly outside; or

2. On the other hand, Canada might post one officer, a _commissioner_ of some sort (some sub-ambassadorial rank) to, say, Manama, Bahrain, to work from the British Embassy there, thus giving us a greater presence there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2012)

And the _Globe and Mail_ does file a report on the _"new agreement to open joint British-Canadian diplomatic missions around the world,"_ which will be signed tomorrow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2012)

The "usual suspects," including, of course, perennial Harper government critic Paul Heinbecker, are out in force, according to the _Globe and Mail_, which tells me that the Canada/UK project may be better than I thought. Generally, in my opinion, whatever Heinbecker is "for" thoughtful Canadians ought to be "against" and _vice versa_.

I understand the foreign service's distaste for this: they are like featherbedding trade union leaders pleading to keep the firemen on diesel locomotives. This project aims to do (a little) more with less, mainly with less foreign service officers.

There is a coincidence of priorities here: Canada wants to cut budgets, and the DFAIT budget is under attack along with all others, and UK wants to counter the increased influence of a "United Europe" which is, itself, combining embassies to _grow_ its influence in ways that the UK fears will run counter to Britain's *vital interests*. Britain is still suffering from the effects of a long recession and there is no  money for more diplomats ~ this might be a 'win-win' for two cash strapped governments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2012)

The _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbitson lays out his views on the required focus of Canadian foreign policy 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/politics/what-the-rise-of-asia-means-for-canadians/article4562851/


> What the rise of Asia means for Canadians
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




See, also: _Ruxted's_ About Turn! Time to Revise Canada’s Foreign Policy[/ul], especially this:



> ...
> First: Canada needs to reaffirm our 'charter membership' in the West – a membership we earned and maintained at a huge cost.  We need to help, perhaps to lead our traditional allies to establish a loose, probably informal but effective alignment (not a formal alliance) based, initially, upon: Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States.  India will be a likely member in the first expansion.
> ...
> Second: Canada needs to turn about ... Canada needs to “look South” again – towards our good friend and neighbour and our most important trading partner: the USA.  By turning about Canada will, also, extend its strong right arm to the Pacific: towards major trading partners like China, India, Japan, and South Korea; towards old friends like Fiji, Malaysia, and Singapore, and towards traditional allies like Australia and New Zealand.  Ruxted says 'again' because this proposal is neither radical nor new – Canada cooperated closely with the USA in the not too distant past – within the living memory of Ruxted members, and it created the Colombo Plan (akin to the US Marshal Plan) to help our Commonwealth friends in the Asia/Pacific region.  Canada will be 'welcomed back' by trading partners, old friends and traditional allies alike.
> ...




Ruxted was right six years ago; Ibbitson is right now, in 2012, especially when he says, _"The hardest thing of all to accept may be a world in which the United States and its Western allies are no longer the sole, or even dominant, global power."_ Emotion (and racism) still play a strong role in politics and, in Canada, politics drives policy, not _vice versa_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It depends upon how you _manage_ it:
> 
> 1. If Canada, for example, does nothing in Bishkek, capital of Kyrgyzstan, which is currently 'attended' by our ambassador to Kazakhstan, then the UK embassy would, possibly, simply appoint an officer to represent our _interests_, as Italy does for us in Libya, for example, but it might go one step father - our staff in Astana might have a permanent office inside the UK embassy and the Canadian flag might fly outside; or
> 
> 2. On the other hand, Canada might post one officer, a _commissioner_ of some sort (some sub-ambassadorial rank) to, say, Manama, Bahrain, to work from the British Embassy there, thus giving us a greater presence there.




I just heard Foreign Minister John Baird speak in the HoC; he is opting for the highlighted option: we will place "a few" foreign service officers in "a few" British mission where were are, currently, not represented - as we do, right now, in Burma. The British will have the same option - putting a UK official in one of our missions, as they do now, in Haiti.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Sep 2012)

The rise of the west was no more an aberration than the rise of any other part of the globe.  India and China are not assured of ascendancy to the first rank of powers if they fu<k up their respective paths to prosperity.  My guess is that China is on the cusp of its next dissolution into warring factions.


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2012)

ER seems to have a lot of faith in China being able to hold it together, and he makes a valid argument, but they are no longer dealing with an ignorant population....the more the people learn and find out what's out there, the more tenuous the government's hold on them will be....

India, I know very little about, but the caste system has pretty much broken down in almost any other place it was in place.....is India going to be able to keep it up, especially with the level of corruption I keep reading about....

 :dunno:


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Sep 2012)

I believe an argument could be made that China's greed caused the rise of the west - being tendentious.


Brits discovered tea from China.
China told Britain that the Brits had nothing worth trading for the tea.
The only thing that China wanted from Britain was cash, in particular silver.
Britain ran out of silver before it cured itself of its addiction for tea.

Consequences

Britain stole tea plants from China and taught Indians to grow how to grow the types of tea that they liked.
Britain found something the Chinese would trade for teapium.

And thus was born the funding for the liberal west.

And the impoverishment of China.

How is China going to handle its mulligan?  Free trade? Or repeat the policies of the Qing Dynasty?


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> ER seems to have a lot of faith in China being able to hold it together, and he makes a valid argument, but they are no longer dealing with an ignorant population....the more the people learn and find out what's out there, the more tenuous the government's hold on them will be....
> 
> India, I know very little about, but the caste system has pretty much broken down in almost any other place it was in place.....is India going to be able to keep it up, especially with the level of corruption I keep reading about....
> 
> :dunno:




I don't have any more (but no less) faith in "China being able to hold it together" than I do in America or Britain or Canada being able to "hold it together."

I believe think *guess* that the Chinese leadership is trying to recreate the Ming Dynasty (plus / minus). The Ming had two great attributes which the Chinese want to recreate:

1. It was *Chinese*, not foreign, like the preceding Mongol Yuan Dynasty or following Jurchen Qing Dynasty ~ thus it understood Chinese culture and governed in accord with it; and

2. It unleashed the _native_ entrepreneurial nature of the Chinese people.

The current Chinese government is, I also guess, intent on avoiding two of the Ming's major errors:

1. A too rigid, even too _Confucian_ civil service ~ I am told by a friend who is a Party member that the CCP is trying very hard to reform itself, making both the Party (political leadership) and bureaucracy (administrative and policy leadership) into real, functioning meritocracies. I find it interesting that one of the very few areas in Chinese life where corruption is minimal (not non-existent, just at about the same level as, say, in Canada) is the annual university entrance exam system which is, itself, the most important stepping stone towards service in the bureaucratic elite; and

2. A tendency to eschew science and technology ~ partly arising from a too rigid interpretation of _Confucianism_ which _celebrates_ the Chinese gentleman who is a classical scholar but who does not dirty his hands with the world of physical work or the physical sciences.

This is a big, Big, *BIG* project; it is the equivalent of mashing the _Glorious Revolution_, American Revolution, _1830s in Britain_ and the early 20th century in the _Anglosphere_ all into one "project" which can be completed in 50 years rather than 200+. Can the Chinese pull it off? I have no idea? Are they, somehow, so _culturally inferior_ to us that they cannot pull it off? No: Chinese culture is far, far different from ours, but it is not _inferior_.

The big foreign policy problem, for Canada, is not to "pick winners" (or losers) rather it is cope with constant and accelerating *change*.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "usual suspects," including, of course, perennial Harper government critic Paul Heinbecker, are out in force, according to the _Globe and Mail_, which tells me that the Canada/UK project may be better than I thought. Generally, in my opinion, whatever Heinbecker is "for" thoughtful Canadians ought to be "against" and _vice versa_.
> 
> I understand the foreign service's distaste for this: they are like featherbedding trade union leaders pleading to keep the firemen on diesel locomotives. This project aims to do (a little) more with less, mainly with less foreign service officers.
> 
> There is a coincidence of priorities here: Canada wants to cut budgets, and the DFAIT budget is under attack along with all others, and UK wants to counter the increased influence of a "United Europe" which is, itself, combining embassies to _grow_ its influence in ways that the UK fears will run counter to Britain's *vital interests*. Britain is still suffering from the effects of a long recession and there is no  money for more diplomats ~ this might be a 'win-win' for two cash strapped governments.


And the NDP's take?  From Statements by Members in the House of Commons:





> _Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP):_  Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are so nostalgic for the empire that they are counterattacking.
> 
> This is not a joke. They want us to undo a century of progress. First, they had an epiphany about the War of 1812 that they decided to share with every single one of us, and *now rumour has it that the Prime Minister and his acolytes want to reopen the debate on the Naval Service Act of 1910*, which came at a time when Canada was tentatively moving to distance itself from the British empire and develop its own foreign policy.
> 
> ...



On that bit in yellow above (first I've heard of such a "rumour"), from Parks Canada ....


> With the growing threat of a powerful German navy, Great Britain wanted to keep their naval supremacy. To have the money to accomplish this, Great Britain asked its colonies for the funds necessary. Great Britain's reasoning was that, in case of a war it would be their navy that would protect all of the colonies. When asked for these funds, Canada had two options; to either give the money to Great Britain or create a navy of their own. Imperialists wanted to send the funds necessary while nationalists didn't want to send anything. As a compromise, Laurier proposed the Naval Service Act in 1910. Canada would now have its own navy, however in times of crisis the navy could be directed by Great Britain. This compromise proved to be unpopular in Canada and eventually led to Laurier's defeat in 1911.



.... and DFAIT:





> Although relations with the United States were crucial to Canada, membership in the Empire meant that Canada was not isolated from the mounting crisis in Europe. Paramount to British security was the maintenance of the Royal Navy as the most powerful in the world. By 1909 Germany, though primarily a land power, was threatening that supremacy as both countries raced to construct the newest class of battleship, the dreadnought, which rendered earlier ships obsolete. Laurier now came under pressure to come to the aid of the mother country from the Conservative opposition in Parliament and from the imperialistically minded of his own followers. He rejected the idea of giving an emergency donation to Britain, opting instead for using the small Fisheries Protection Service as a base for developing a Canadian navy.
> 
> Laurier's policy came under fire from both sides. Those who felt that the urgency of the situation required an immediate contribution to the British Admiralty derided his "tin-pot navy," while Quebec nationalists opposed aiding Britain's naval position by any means. Laurier's Naval Service Act of 1910, which created a navy that would be completely under Canadian control and not necessarily made available to Britain even in wartime, was denounced by imperialists and Quebec nationalists alike, for diametrically opposing reasons -- the former feared that the navy would not be available to Britain when needed; the latter feared that it would be. After losing a by-election in a supposedly safe Quebec riding, Laurier retreated. But the issue would have a critical impact during the general election in 1911.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2012)

More on how the joint "embassy" idea feeds into the "Anglosphere" project from the CBC website. Altogether a good idea in my opinion, even if the tone in this articel is neutral or even somewhat negative towards the Anglosphere:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/27/f-vp-stewart-anglo-nations.html



> *Brian Stewart: The growing cabal of English-speaking nations*
> Canada-Britain embassy sharing deal is step towards 'Anglosphere'
> By Brian Stewart, CBC News Posted: Sep 27, 2012 6:42 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 28, 2012 5:30 AM ET
> analysis
> ...



Since the Anglosphere idea is based more on common language and culture, it is essentially open ended. There is no reason not to welcome India or the nations of the Carribean into the Anglosphere. Similarly, since it is based on common culture and values, it is easy for members to detach themselves as well. A "Formal" anglosphere would suffer the way other large bureaucratic enterprises have over the years, far better an informal set of relationships with the abiltiy to form "Tiger teams" to deal with pressing issues. We seem to be doing it right at the current time.


----------



## Sythen (28 Sep 2012)

Prime Minister Steven Harper's acceptance speech for "World Statesman" award.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid868989705001?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAAAybGjzqk~%2C6NfTc6c241GVQxOh-GBHNHu5Cuhlf-y9&bctid=1866635685001


----------



## JorgSlice (28 Sep 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Prime Minister Steven Harper's acceptance speech for "World Statesman" award.
> 
> http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid868989705001?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAAAybGjzqk~%2C6NfTc6c241GVQxOh-GBHNHu5Cuhlf-y9&bctid=1866635685001



Great speech by Mr. Prime Minister! I am proud of the GoC


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2012)

More on shared embassies, leading to the whole _Anglosphere_ idea via a small rant about American decline from Conrad Black, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/29/conrad-black-the-british-commonwealth-will-rise-again/


> The British Commonwealth will rise again
> 
> Conrad Black
> 
> ...




There is a lot of worry, I guess about "wither America?" "wither Europe?" and, consequentially, "what about us, what will we do?" Canada has been a committed multilateralist ever since St Laurent and UNTSO (1948) and the Colombo Plan (the Commonwealth's, especially Canada's answer to the Marshall Plan which was St Laurent's idea, which Canada led in the 1950s but in which (since 1992) we lo longer participate). It is more or less _natural_ that Canadians will always look for organizations through which we can leverage our (limited) power.

The Brits, for their part, are trying to distance themselves a bit from the unfolding economic disaster that is (parts of) Europe. They are frightened by the growing trend, amongst some Europeans, to "buy" German leadership (and, presumably financial support) by allowing Germany to assert greater and greater control over all manner of European policies, like a more and ore common foreign policy. The Brits are even more frightened by what many, including Lord Black, see as a growing disinterest in the world by America; Britain has "engaged" in the world for 70 years as America's junior partner or client.


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Sep 2012)

Is it not interesting that Lord Black did not mention the other player in the "great game," the Islamic Crescent? I suspect he recognizes it as not a serious military threat, if nuclear ambitions can be contained, except for certain factions penchants for terrorism or/and petropolitics. It may be that it is apt to turn into a uncabal (if that is a word) of divergent interersts and ambitions, and one that will fracture along its natural fault lines.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2012)

The Islamic crescent encompasses far too many diverse elements to be considereed a unified "power" in either policitcal, economic, military or even cultural terms. The Anglosphere has the advantages of shared cultures, most of the members are already first world powers with comparable economic, political and military muscle (even Canada can project power globally, unlike many of the putative contenders).

The "Sinosphere" has the unified culture, but is still developing the economic and military muscle to rise to the first rank of powers.

The "Indiasphere" is far less unified internally (but has an overlay of "Aglospheric" institutions) and is also still developing. The "split personality might allow India to join the Anglosphere, which will add to our collective strength and abilities.

The EUzone has the economic potential, but is split at least two ways (and probably in several different ways, ie England, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2012)

Wow! Who woulda thunk it? I agree with the _Good Grey Globe's_ Doug Saunders ... strike up the band!

While I understand the need to appeal to a certain, inclined towards the medieval, segment of the Conservative base, the whole idea of an _Office of Religious Freedom_ is so bloody silly that it would be comic if it weren't a major, tragic foreign policy blunder. We, Canada, have no bloody business sticking our noses into the internal affairs of other, sovereign countries ~ unless it is with aid (bribes) or bombs and bullets (real aid) ~ especially not into the affairs of states which don't matter.

Anyway, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is Saunders (exceptionally rare) bit of good sense:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/religious-freedom-sends-the-wrong-message-to-the-wrong-people/article4591927/


> ‘Religious freedom’ sends the wrong message to the wrong people
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




The _Office of Religious Freedom_ is nonsense, but there are, in the civil service, as in the military, some people who prove the absolute truth of Parkinson's Law, and they can be posted to it and we can cut their Internet access and they will do no harm.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We, Canada, have no bloody business sticking our noses into the internal affairs of other, sovereign countries ~ unless it is with aid (bribes) or bombs and bullets (real aid) ~ especially not into the affairs of states which don't matter.



Too bad the Thirty Year's war took place so long ago; that settled the issue in Europe in 1648, but apparently some people have trouble learning and understanding the lessons of history...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2012)

Here is the first of two interesting pieces from the _Good Grey Globe_ - this one, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is really interesting because Lawrence Martin manages, albeit with difficulty, to put aside some of his hatred of Prime Minister Harper long enough to examine the direction of his foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-tories-are-on-the-right-track-on-trade/article4592591/


> The Tories are on the right track on trade
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




First: a quibble ~ the _nuance_ that Martin and all then other _conservatives_ (used in the way John Stuart Mill defined "conservatives") desire was, actually, just the visible sign of Pierre Trudeau's abysmal ignorance of foreign policy. Under St Laurent and Pearson Canada was not _nuanced_, we had "a brashly partisan approach" to liberty and democracy, we had cast aside King's timidity and, proudly, stood for something. Trudeau, like Isaiah Berlin's hedgehog, had one, single, defining idea: he opposed nationalism. But he, Trudeau, wasn't for anything; he just knew that nationalism was "bad;" in reality he wasn't even sure why. It is madness to want to hang one's intellectual hat on such a weak hook.

But: Martin is right that the Conservative government is "seeking to build free or freer trade bridges here, there and everywhere – with the European Union, South Korea, Japan, India, China." Of course Martin would not be Martin if he didn't get that wrong, too ~ his (and Sinclair Stevens') complaints about "free trade" not being "managed" enough are silly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2012)

A second interesting article, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisojs of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, with which I do not agree but which deserves some attention:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/is-this-canadas-latin-path-to-asia/article4592174/


> Is this Canada’s Latin path to Asia?
> 
> CARLO DADE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




First: we must recognize that Carlo Dade by virtue of his job, has a professional focus: Latin America.

Second: I remain "confident" that Latin America retains the innate capacity to screw up ~ politically, economically, etc.

While I support freer trade everywhere and while I also agree that Latin America is "low hanging fruit" ripe for the picking, I do not believe that free trade with Latin America, even with Brazil, is of high importance.

All that being said, using e.g. Chile as a lever to 'enter' Asia has merit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2012)

Australia has just issued a new foreign policy white paper, Australia in the Asian Century. I haven't read it all yet but there are some bits of interest in the "five key areas" in which the Gillard government suggests Australia must succeed in the 21st century:

_"First, irrespective of how the Asian century evolves, Australia’s prosperity will come from building on our strengths. We need to reinforce the foundations of our fair society and our prosperous, open and resilient economy at home. We need to build on areas where we already perform well, in order to extend our comparative advantage. Critical to this will be ongoing reform and investment across the five pillars of productivity—skills and education, innovation, infrastructure, tax reform and regulatory reform."_ This is motherhood, designed, I think, to placate those who want Australia to "stay the course" and remain _detached_ from Asia.

_"Second, as a nation we must do even more to develop the capabilities that will help Australia succeed ... As a nation we also need to broaden and deepen our understanding of Asian cultures and languages, to become more Asia literate. These capabilities are needed to build stronger connections and partnerships across the region."_ This is smart thinking, it means being less _Eurocentric_ and even farther less _American_ in their thinking. It is something Canada can and should do, too.

_"Third, Australia’s commercial success in the region requires that highly innovative, competitive Australian firms and institutions develop collaborative relationships with others in the region. Australian firms need new business models and new mindsets to operate and connect with Asian markets. We will work to make the region more open and integrated, encouraging trade, investment and partnerships. Firms will adapt their business models to seize the opportunities created in our region."_ Also a good idea for Canada.

_"Fourth, Australia’s future is irrevocably tied to the stability and sustainable security of our diverse region. Australia has much to offer through cooperation with other nations to support sustainable security in the region. We will work to build trust and cooperation, bilaterally and through existing regional mechanisms. We will continue to support a greater role for Asian countries in a rules‑based regional and global order. Australia’s alliance with the United States and a strong US presence in Asia will support regional stability, as will China’s full participation in regional developments."_ This is a bone tossed to the Americans and the "stay the course," _conservative_ crowd but the last phrase is a break with US policy which remains committed to _containing_ China.

_"Fifth, we need to strengthen Australia’s deep and broad relationships across the region at every level. These links are social and cultural as much as they are political and economic. Improving people-to-people links can unlock large economic and social gains. While the Australian Government plays a leading role in strengthening and building relationships with partners in the region—with more intensive diplomacy across Asia—others across a broad spectrum spanning business, unions, community groups and educational and cultural institutions also play an important role. Stronger relationships will lead to more Australians having a deeper understanding of what is happening in Asia and being able to access the benefits of growth in our region. In turn, more of our neighbours in the region will know us better than they do today."_ Again, this is a lead Canada should follow.

More to follow as I read more.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2012)

There _may_ be more on this later today, but on the assumption that the _Good Grey Globe_ has had an advance look at the Minister's (leaked) comments, this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, tells us hat Canada is moving on to the right track on aid to, especially, Africa:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-signals-radical-shift-in-foreign-aid-policy/article5582948/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Ottawa signals radical shift in foreign-aid policy
> 
> KIM MACKRAEL
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I have said, before, that I agree with Dambia Moyo's thesis, in her first book, _Dead Aid_, that traditional government-to-government aid, often, in Canada's case, so called "tied aid" that gave money to countries to hire Canadians companies to build "bridges to nowhere" and unnecessary railway networks, was a waste and accomplished little - beyond making a few African dictators very, very rich. *Investment*, she suggested, was a better course open and she applauded the Chinese for sending their big resource companies to _invest_ in Africa rather than just cutting a cheque. If this article is correct then we will follow suit.

Most critics of _investment_ rather than _aid_ note that the investor expects - will demand - a return on investment. That's true: Chinese (and now Canadian) resource companies do and will demand a return ... which is as it should be. The Africans need to get used to the idea that rather than "deserving" aid because they are poor they can, through their own hard work, make themselves less poor.

This policy will be attacked as cruel capitalism ~ it is anything but.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This policy will be attacked as cruel capitalism ~ it is anything but.



One only needs to read the comments (and I suggest you don't) to see that you're right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2012)

Foreign Minister John Baird speaks his mind in this interview report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Canada+takes+sides+world+referee+Baird+says/7737264/story.html


> Canada takes sides, not a world referee: Baird
> *Will keep supporting ‘freedom, human rights’*
> 
> By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
> ...




Canadians, and others, needn't like the Conservative government's foreign policy but none can deny that Minister Baird is clear, forthright spokesman. We are done with the evasions, pandering, half-truths, sweet talk and downright lies that characterized the past 45 years, especially during the Trudeau and Chretien regimes.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2012)

......and hopefully we keep electing folks who keep on this path.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2013)

Much as I think the French are doing the wrong thing, in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons in Mali, I cannot argue with Jean-David Levitte, the diplomatic adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy and the former ambassador to both the United States and the United Nations who is quoted, in a New York Times article as saying: _"if you don’t have the military means to act, you don’t have a foreign policy.”_

It is something I wish Canadian politicians, especially Prime Minister Harper, would understand.

_Soft power_ is good, as the USA demonstrated in the 1950s and after it can be GREAT, but as Joseph Ny, author of the _soft power_ book, says, you cannot make the best use your soft power, even if you have it in abundance, without some "hard power" to prove you actually belong in the power projection business.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2013)

_"if you don’t have the military means to act, you don’t have a foreign policy.”_[/size]

But can every nation afford sufficient military means to act in every situation?

Or does every nation have to figure out how to make the best use of its available resources and determine which fights to pick and which fights to walk away from?

Isn't that decision at the heart of determining a national foreign policy?

Switzerland's foreign policy is not to pick any fights.

Having said that:  I trust everyone on this site knows by now that I believe that every nation should retain the ability to implement the last resort of kings,  and equally I believe that Canada can do better.  

I don't know that most Canadians agree with me.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Switzerland's foreign policy is not to pick any fights.



No, it just backrolls everyone else's.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No, it just backrolls everyone else's.




And a very successful policy that can be.  Look how well Britain did with the wars against the Louis's and Napoleon.


----------



## cupper (21 Jan 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Switzerland's foreign policy is not to pick any fights.



Actually, it's to make itself look as small and insignificant as possible so that everyone else forgets that it is there. 

To quote Harry Lime from "The Third Man":

"_Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock._"

And being founded within a mountain citadel doesn't hurt either.


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2013)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/09/conrad-black-a-foreign-policy-for-an-ascendant-canada/

I agree with most of his comments, but am a little surprised that he's chiming in with the "buttons and bows" bit now (granted, it seemed like it's an afterthought.)  "Panache" sounds a little too much like "blinged out like a Mexican General" to me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Feb 2013)

Of note, though, is the fact that his comment on "bling" comes in the same breath as the mention of naval vessels and showing the flag proudly - a diplomatic function.

Unlike the Army and Air Force, it has always been a duty of the  peacetime Navy to show the flag and carry out port visits in foreign countries in support of DFAIT, and to host diplomatic functions on board while there. I think it is in this duty that he would prefer uniforms with a little more panache. Let's face it, while the N.C.D. offer a great deal of protection to the wearer, it is a totally cheap looking non-descript garment. The (very limited in number) alternative Naval D.E.U. does not look very "nautical" for the crewmen and for both crew and officers, is still a cheap looking garb. A good looking seaman's jumper to go out in foreign port or host functions onboard and an alternate khaki uniform for officers and C&PO's - paired with better fashioned and higher fabric quality D.E.U. would cetainly not go amiss in those diplomatic duties. We could look for good examples to the R.A.N., which has managed to upgrade its uniforms in a way that is both respectful of the traditional look and clean and modern looking at the same time.


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Feb 2013)

"Mister Takagi, I could talk about industrialization and men's fashion all day, but I'm afraid work must intrude."

I love Conrad Black. He is such a renaissance man that he reaches movie-villain levels of awesomeness on a regular basis. 

And he does seem like a well-dressed guy. If he says we look like slobs, then maybe we should be taking fashion advice from him.  I don't have a degree in fashion design, but if we had a few experts on the payroll 25 years ago then maybe we could have missed out on garrison dress.


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Feb 2013)

Criminal or not, Mr Black has some well thought out points.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... While I understand the need to appeal to a certain, inclined towards the medieval, segment of the Conservative base, the whole idea of an _Office of Religious Freedom_ is so bloody silly that it would be comic if it weren't a major, tragic foreign policy blunder. We, Canada, have no bloody business sticking our noses into the internal affairs of other, sovereign countries ~ unless it is with aid (bribes) or bombs and bullets (real aid) ~ especially not into the affairs of states which don't matter .... The _Office of Religious Freedom_ is nonsense, but there are, in the civil service, as in the military, some people who prove the absolute truth of Parkinson's Law, and they can be posted to it and we can cut their Internet access and they will do no harm.


Sorry to disappoint you, ER....


> The Harper government is planning to announce its long-awaited Office of Religious Freedom in an event at a Toronto-area mosque next Tuesday.
> 
> The announcement — which the government refused to acknowledge Friday — comes 22 months after the Tories first promised to create a modest, religious freedom branch within the Foreign Affairs Department.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, via _National Post_, 15 Feb 13


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Sorry to disappoint you, ER....The Canadian Press, via _National Post_, 15 Feb 13




The only saving grace is that the budget is so low that a handful of middle level civil servants, with degress in _victims' studies_ from UQAM and Concordia, will blow it all on a few trips to conferences to which no one pays any attention but which are held in exotic tropical places in the Nov to Apr time frame.

The new bureau's annual work programme will be, roughly:

     Apr to Aug: plan and conduct summer vacation;

     Aug to Oct: plan for and secure DM's approval for conferences in exotic and tropical places; and

     Nov to Apr: attend said conferences about which no one cares and write reports no one reads.

          Repeat, annually.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Feb 2013)

I am confused:  Is this office supposed to offer free religion or free us from religion ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Feb 2013)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am confused:  Is this office supposed to offer free religion or free us from religion ???




It's designed to pacify a tiny lunatic fringe of the religious right: they want Canada to castigate the Saudis for not _tolerating_ Christianity. That won't happen. In fact, with a $5 Million anual budget, nothing will happen but it will be trotted out if the Tories get into trouble in some rural ridings.

It is more likely to try to appeal to "new Canadians" by affirming _their *right*_ to practice their own religions, here in Canada, without hinderance. Those socially conservative new Canadian votes in the Ontario and BC suburbs are more valuable than rural votes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2013)

One writer's opinion on what's needed for the Office of Religious Freedom ....


> .... First, she or he must be convinced that religion is an important dimension of human existence and its practice a fundamental human right. And further, that this right should be actively promoted and protected by Canada’s federal government in its diplomatic activities abroad as well as within our borders. And still further, that such protection merits a specific diplomatic focus in addition to Canada’s existing commitment to human rights promotion.
> 
> Second, the ambassador must be broad-minded about all religions and subgroups within them in order to avoid charges of bias in running the office. The worst-case scenario on this front is unfolding at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which has been dogged by accusations of pro-Christian bias since opening in 1998. It’s being sued for religious discrimination by a Muslim policy analyst claiming her job offer with the commission was revoked for fear of disapproval by its vice-chair — a person who has publicly advanced a Christian-centric conception of religious freedom and a suspicion of American Muslims’ beliefs. Canada’s government must have a rock-solid confidence in its own ambassador being a person of wholly different sensibilities.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Star_, 18 Feb 13


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2013)

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which will be dedicated to promoting freedom of religion or belief around the world. He also announced the appointment of Dr. Andrew Bennett as Ambassador to the Office. The Prime Minister was joined by Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, and Julian Fantino, Minister of International Cooperation.
> 
> “Around the world, violations of religious freedom are widespread and they are increasing,” said the Prime Minister. “Dr Bennett is a man of principle and deep convictions and he will encourage the protection of religious minorities around the world so all can practice their faith without fear of violence and repression.”
> 
> ...


PMO, 19 Feb 13

More on the Office here, and about the Ambassador here:


> Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett
> 
> Dr. Bennett is a public servant and academic with an extensive educational background in history, political science, and religious studies. He received a Bachelor of Arts in History (1st Class Honours) from Dalhousie University in 1995, a Master of Arts in History from McGill University in 1997, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh in 2002. In addition, he is in the process of completing a part-time degree in theology in Eastern Christian Studies at the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies at Saint Paul University in Ottawa.
> 
> Dr. Bennett has worked for the Privy Council Office, Export Development Canada and Natural Resources Canada in a wide variety of analytical, research and corporate roles. He has also held roles as Professor and Dean at Augustine College in Ottawa, as a Scholar Expert on the Americas Desk with Oxford Analytica and as a Researcher with the University of Edinburgh’s Institute on Governance where he focused on the process of devolution in Scotland ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _iPolitics_, is a look at Canadian foreign policy through the lens of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's recent, highly partisan, comments:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/03/18/jean-chretien-and-the-golden-age-that-never-was/


> Jean Chretien and the golden age that never was
> 
> By Fen Hampson and Derek Burney
> 
> ...




It isn't belittling Lester B Pearson to remind readers that the foreign policy which he oversaw wasn't his: it was Louis St Laurent's foreign policy ~ from the creation of the UN and NATO to the decision to finesse the peacekeeping resolution through the UN and to play a major role in UN peacekeeping - it was all St Laurent, even after he retired in 1957.

There was a "golden age" in Canadian foreign policy: from the mid 1940s until, about, 1960. It was a result of a combination of people, exceptional people, and a _vision_ (see St Laurent's 1947 Grey Lecture) and wealth (thanks to our strong position at the end of World War II). None of those ingredients exist today, nor did they in the 1980s and '90s.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 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
> 
> 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.




And, in this budget, he has finally done it: folded CIDA (back) into the Department of Foreign Affairs, where it belongs.

Although Foreign Affairs is no longer the home of the "best and brightest" in Canada's public service (they're now in PCO and Finance ~ Foreign Affairs was emasculated in the early 1970s) its civil servants are still excellent when compared to the _fluff_ who populate CIDA. Surely Minister Baird will take a whip to the CIDA people and, metaphorically, _cleanse the temple_ and make foreign aid into a tool of foreign policy, again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2013)

Two interesting, and supportive, comments from two former Foreign Ministers in the _Globe and Mail_:

Lloyd Axworthy says Ending CIDA is a bold and admirable move;

Barbara McDougall agrees but says In merging aid with foreign affairs, Baird has his work cut out for him.

I agree with both; it is a good great idea and the NGOs and some segments of government will fight like hell to keep aid separate from foreign and trade policies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2013)

And here, from a mainstay of the _help the poor, regardless of costs or consequences ~ it's all the fault of capitalism_ faction, is the counterpoint, in an article in the _Globe and Mail_ entitled Once a leader, Canada disappearing from the developing world. You don't need to read it all; one sentence sums it up: _Once a leader, we have become an also-ran, absenting ourselves on critical development issues, cutting aid to the poorest, stalling projects, driving NGOs to bankruptcy and using aid money in the most blatant ways to promote short-term Canadian commercial interests._

As I have pointed out elsewhere, development aid has been, by and large, a monumental failure, for donors and recipients alike, for the past 75 years; of course there have been some exceptions (e.g. The Colombo Plan) but, in general, Dambisa Moyo is right in her controversial but very worthwhile book Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa.

"Development" doesn't just happen because we - and others - throw money at the feet of fools, dictators and charlatans. In fact Dr. Moyo posits that commercial loans, loans which must be repaid, and business investments, which must produce a return, are far better than traditional aid. I suspect she's right and i hope we jump on that bandwagon (with China, amongst others) and provide some real "development" leadership.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> ... greedy, short-sighted Ontario and Québec dairy and egg farmers are doing real, serious economic damage to Canada. Our egg and dairy _market management_ system hurts everyone except a few thousand farmers; it must end, sooner rather than later and I understand that means violence and bloodshed on the streets of Ottawa when the Québec milk and egg producers come to town to protest, as they will. It’s OK, we can stand much rioting, a bit of sabotage, setting fire to parliament (all of which *will* happen), many injuries and even a few fatalities, to accomplish something useful.




More on the horrid mishmash of failed policies that is supply management in Canada in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/fowl-play-how-supply-management-is-thwarting-canadas-agri-food-industry/article10234073/?page=all


> Fowl play: How supply management is thwarting Canada’s agri-food industry
> 
> BARRIE MCKENNA
> WELLAND, ONT. — The Globe and Mail
> ...




"Asinine" is the right word to describe Canada's agricultural policies, and were it not for one single factor - cowardly politicians, Conservative, Liberal and NDP, federal and provincial - this asinine system would have been dismantled years and years ago. It may take "free traders" from the EU* and the TPP to, finally, make Prime Minister Harper or his successor grow some balls and some brains and do what's right for Canada.


_____
* I find it hard to believe I used "free trader" and EU in the same sentence without an  :  The EU is the biggest protectionist cartel in all of human history.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Mar 2013)

And God help you if you try to buck the system. If you do this happens:



> That’s Outrageous!
> 
> Whatever happened to common sense?
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## CougarKing (26 Mar 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, in this budget, he has finally done it: folded CIDA (back) into the Department of Foreign Affairs, where it belongs.
> 
> Although Foreign Affairs is no longer the home of the "best and brightest" in Canada's public service (they're now in PCO and Finance ~ Foreign Affairs was emasculated in the early 1970s) its civil servants are still excellent when compared to the _fluff_ who populate CIDA. Surely Minister Baird will take a whip to the CIDA people and, metaphorically, _cleanse the temple_ and make foreign aid into a tool of foreign policy, again.



Reinforcing the points above is this article from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI)...

CDFAI Vice President and Distinguished Research Fellow, Colin Robertson, explains in The Globe and Mail that *CIDA's merger into DFAIT has the potential to be beneficial for both organizations.* He argues that bringing the two under one roof can lessen the disconnect between the conduct of Canada’s foreign policy objectives and delivery of development assistance.

Globe and Mail article



> COLIN ROBERTSON
> 
> *The CIDA move's not radical. Canada is just playing catch up  *
> 
> ...



     

I find it interesting that in all the talk about CIDA's merge with DFAIT, that no one in the press so far even mentioned a crown corporation based in Ottawa called the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) or how it would be affected by the merge. While the IDRC was always separate from CIDA to begin with, and is also partially funded as well by the UK government's own development agency (DFID), it still takes up 1.2% of Canada's overall aid budget.

I find Robertson's use of the phrase "let a thousand flowers bloom" as an allusion to China's 1950s "Hundred Flowers campaign" amusing.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2013)

Like many of the other policy platform planks, the Conservatives have some sound foreign policy ideas, but little inclination or appetite to put it in motion:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/28/terry-glavin-tories-have-the-ingredients-for-ambitious-foreign-policy-but-no-advocate/



> *Terry Glavin: Tories have the ingredients for ambitious foreign policy, but no advocate*
> 
> Terry Glavin, Special to National Post | 13/03/28 10:07 AM ET
> More from Special to National Post
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an editorial that makes an important point about Canada in the world ~ we are a _pluralistic_ country with strong cultural values that exclude some practices and beliefs that others might find acceptable:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/when-something-is-barbaric-call-it-barbaric/article10713368/


> When something is barbaric, call it barbaric
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...




Both Minister Kenney (and his officials) and the _Good Grey Globe_ are to be commended for spelling out Canada's values in a clear fashion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Apr 2013)

Every once in awhile, the Mop & Pail gets something right and surprises me. Good on them and today's government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But just to show that pettiness is never in short supply in our foreign ministry, I offer this this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/baird-demands-gold-drops-canada-from-foreign-affairs-business-card/article2185969/
> 
> ...


The latest ....


> Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has joined his cabinet colleague International Cooperation Minister Julian Fantino under the microscope of Parliament’s language watchdog over separate “English only” controversies.
> 
> While Fantino is under investigation over a directive for bureaucrats to send him correspondence for review in English only, a new report by Official Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser said Baird’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had violated its obligations under federal language legislation by printing English only business cards for the minister.
> 
> ...


Postmedia News, 10 Apr 13


----------



## GAP (10 Apr 2013)

> Fraser’s report also recommended that Baird’s department fix the problem by the end of September ....



The new batch of 10,000 cards should be delivered by then.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2013)

Prof Roland Paris has some very harsh words for Foreign Minister John Baird in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
(_Caveat lector_, I know Prof Paris, and I like him; he's an acquaintance rather than a friend, but he's a thoughtful guy and his opinions are honestly held.)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/bairds-east-jerusalem-scandal-shows-canada-has-a-mideast-dishonesty-gap/article11257627/


> Baird’s East Jerusalem scandal shows Canada has a Mideast dishonesty gap
> 
> ROLAND PARIS
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Prof Paris is right, in my opinion. We have, Canada has, changed its foreign policy and we, our government, should be forthright, even proud of that change and we/it should stop _shily-shalying_ around the issue. The fact is that Canada's policy is now, broadly, that Israel, is in the moral and geo-political _right_ and the Arabs, especially the Palestinians will have to adapt to Israel's own definition of its own borders. The new policy is justifiable on moral, strategic and historical grounds. Put simply there are no "partners for peace" for Israel in the Middle East; the Arabs, especially the Palestinians, don't want "peace" as we might understand that word ~ they want Israel to disappear. Their aim has no foundation in history or politics; Canada is correct to reject it on common sense grounds.

But our government, the government run by the political party I support, is trying to be too cute by half. It is dishonest and unbecoming.


----------



## CougarKing (18 Apr 2013)

Having seen first hand how effective career diplomats can be when I was working in a grad. school coop for the Consulate General of Canada in Chongqing, China, last year, I agree with Gar Pardy's view of Bruno Saccomani. Knowledge of the local culture and language is critical in as high a position as ambassador; one prime example of a career foreign service officer is our former ambassador to China, David Mulroney, who speaks Mandarin fluently and has served in Canada's Consulate General in Shanghai, our trade office in Taipei, Taiwan, before heading our embassy in Beijing. Mulroney was instrumental in furthering Canada-China relations, through such activities such as preparing the groundwork for the PM's state visit to China last year as well as the success of the Canada-China Business Council in promoting mutual investment between the two countries. 

National Post link



> *Mountie in charge of Harper’s personal security detail to be appointed Canada’s ambassador to Jordan*
> 
> The Mountie who heads Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s personal security detail will be appointed Canada’s ambassador to Jordan.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (18 Apr 2013)

good call


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2013)

I think the PM has on occasion made some bad appointments.  Time will tell if this is one of them...


----------



## CougarKing (23 Apr 2013)

When the writer of this article below mentions the relatively small size of actual foreign service officers in DFAIT, he means about 400 of various ranks. While the article below mentions 1,350 as the size of the PAFSO, the difficulties of expat life as experienced by diplomats (mentioned in the article below) only apply to those 400+ who serve overseas; the others among the 1,350 should be staff in other divisions of DFAIT based in Ottawa and other parts of Canada.

While interning with our consulate in Chongqing, China, the vice-consul corrected a coop work report by me for my grad. school. in which I wrongly described the foreign service as having "legions" of foreign service officers across our diplomatic missions across the world. 

She corrected me in saying there are actually only about 400 CBS (Canada-based staff) or Canadian citizens who serve as diplomats and trade commissioners at our various embassies, high commissions, consulates and trade offices across the world (around 170+ diplomatic missions). The reason behind this small number is because most of these CBS are supported by thousands of local staff from the host country or LES (locally engaged staff).

These LES locals are NOT Canadian citizens but are often paid higher than their counterparts in the host government's agencies that have similar positions; the tasks these LES members do varies from translation, to being a liaison to local counterparts, to various administrative, trade, immigration (visas) and public outreach work. Some of these LES members who attain more senior ranks are even sent to Ottawa (e.g. DFAIT's Bisson Centre) for further training. 

To give you a sense of the size of the LES:CBS ratio, consider our consulate in Chongqing. When I was there, there were 11 people working in the Consulate: 2 Canadians (the Consul and Vice-Consul), and 9 local staff (4 local trade commissioners, 2 trade commissioner assistants, 1 public affairs officer, 1 admin officer and 1 driver). 

Compared to smaller consulates, the main embassy in Beijing has about 300 people, of which about 80-90 were CBS and Canadians from other government agencies such as Immigration Canada and CIDA, supported by around 200 plus LES. (plus the CF military attaché and the MPSS detachment)

link



> *Why don’t diplomats get the respect they’ve earned? *
> 
> iPolitics Insight
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Apr 2013)

>Our best hope lies in addressing these challenges through knowledge-based problem-solving and complex balancing, backed by dialogue, negotiation and compromise.

And motherhood and apple pie.  Shorter version: "Our best hope lies in addressing these challenges through analysis and diplomacy."  Duh.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2013)

While, very broadly, I support Daryl Copeland's views on why (and how) traditional diplomacy almost always fails, I am not convinced that a bigger foreign service is the answer. A *better* foreign service would certainly be welcome, but the problems with the public service, broadly, are long standing and, I suspect, institutionalized by now. Making a just adequate service larger does not, it seems to me, address the problems with implementing Canadian foreign policy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2013)

Come on, what's not to like about more people and higher pay?  It has worked such wonders with public education.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2013)

One can, and many do question the _conduct_ of Canadian foreign policy under Prime Minister Harper's government (note the comments about "the Conservatives have shown themselves resistant to the notion that policy-making should be linked to a realm of facts existing independently of swagger and spin," and a perceived "willful obliviousness to realities beyond Ottawa spin") but few question that the Conservatives have principles, not even those who disagree, vehemently, with those principles.

But principles have prices as these two article show:

1. Disgruntled Arab states look to strip Canada of UN agency, says the _Globe and Mail_, describing an organized campaign, let by Qatar, to move ICAO from Montreal to Doha in order to retaliate against Canada's stance on the Middle East; and

2. The _Ottawa Citizen_ editorialized about A rebuke to Sri Lanka which cannot help but complicate the CPC's domestic political campaigns - while this will placate Tamils, a group the Conservatives have 'punished' in the past, it will annoy many other Canadians of South Asian ethnicity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 May 2013)

The _Toronto Star_ continues to fret that "Two years of Conservative majority government have brought profound changes to Canada, and some may be hard to undo. Not everyone is celebrating Thursday’s birthday" - the "not everyone" refers to the so-called _Laurentian Consensus_ which, John Ibbitson posits, managed the Canadian socio-economic and political agenda for pretty much all of the 19th and 20th centuries. But there is one important excerpt from Tim Harper's column:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/03/stephen_harper_has_reshaped_canada_in_two_years_tim_harper.html


> But some of the biggest changes in two years under the Harper government have been our place in the world.
> 
> Canada’s lockstep support for Israel and its noisy bid to undermine Palestinian observer-state status at the United Nations has removed from Ottawa any pretense of a voice searching for common ground in the Middle East.
> 
> ...



Match that comment up with a story in the _National Post_ headlined: "New Bank of Canada Governor’s most important attribute is understanding the Harper agenda" in which John Ivison suggests that "Stephen Poloz knows monetary policy will have to dovetail with a fiscal track that has already been set, if we are not to have an economic train-wreck."

Both Tim Harper and John Ivison are describing a foreign policy which has some very pronounced _mercantilist_ attributes. The consensus - even amongst non-Laurentians - is that mercantilism worked for Elizabethian England but was responsible for a couple of centuries of near constant internecine European wars and had, by the 19th century, outlived its usefulness.

But, perhaps, _mercantilism_ can still work for some developed countries, especially those like Australia and Canada (and even Brazil) that are resource rich but population poor. In any event it does appear to be this government's favoured policy.


----------



## GAP (3 May 2013)

Whatever the description of the type of Foreign Policy we have is, I am liking it far more than the weak knee, rollover and whine policy we had under the Liberals...


----------



## CougarKing (3 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> the problems with the public service, broadly, are long standing and, I suspect, institutionalized by now.



Speaking of which...

link



> *Protesting Canadian diplomats picket outside Canada's embassy in D.C.*
> 
> WASHINGTON - The spectacle of buttoned-down Canadian diplomats picketing Canada's embassy drew some fascinated stares Friday from tourists and other passersby in the U.S. capital.
> 
> ...



Still, I just can't imagine this picketing happening at smaller DFAIT missions abroad such as our consulate in Chongqing where I was working my grad. school coop last year, since there were only 2 CBS(Canada-based staff)/foreign service officers there aside from our local Chinese staff. 

At least one veteran CBS/foreign service officer has told me that DFAIT's largest missions abroad are the embassies in Washington DC, New Delhi, and Beijing; I could imagine this picketing happening in Washington DC, but not in Beijing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2013)

More on _mercantilism_ in foreign policy in this article, by very _progressive_ York University professor Caroline Shenaz Hossein which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/05/07/caroline-shenaz-hossein-the-harper-government-commercializes-international-development-2/


> The Harper government commercializes international development
> 
> By Caroline Shenaz Hossein
> 
> ...




Although _mercantilism_ is, largely, out of favour, it ~ or a modernized version of it that doesn't focus on silver and gold, anyway - still has credible proponents like Harvard's Prof Dani Rodrick. It appears, to me, that John Baird and Stephen Harper are listening to him.

Prof Hossein asks _"Why not make reforms to CIDA_ [rather than fold it into DFAIT]_?_" My answer is that the CIDA model - foreign aid in some way independent of foreign policy - is wrong for this government. It may be that Pierre Trudeau (Ivan Head, his foreign policy guru, actually) wanted _"to fund alternative ways to humanize our world,"_ but Stephen Harper is interested in prosperity for Canada ... jobs! Jobs!! JOBS!!! to paraphrase Brian Mulroney - and that means adapting and applying every available tool to that end.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2013)

This report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, could have gone in Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread but this, it seems to me, is a better place given the current government's evident focus on making trade (and prosperity) the centre of its policy agenda:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/crucial-deal-on-canadian-autos-cheese-beef-trade-hangs-in-balance/article11777527/#dashboard/follows/


> Crucial deal on Canadian autos, cheese, beef trade hangs in balance
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




In my opinion the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) and whatever both follows it and includes China (and India) is the main prize, but freer trade, with everyone, is better than _managed_ trade. The EU is a tough nut because it is a *protectionist cabal*, even worse than is the USA, but it is an important market all the same.


----------



## GR66 (8 May 2013)

I know that the mere suggestion is fraught with countless nationalistic concerns about protecting our sovereignty but wouldn't there be a huge potential benefit of entering into a Customs Union with the United States?  Clearly access to the US market is a much greater prize for other nations than access to the much smaller Canadian market.  Would the potential negative impacts of a Customs Union with the US on certain protected Canadian industries not possibly be more than offset by being able to piggyback on the free trade deals negotiated between the US and the rest of the world?

What would be the other positive economic effects of knocking down the border restrictions between Canada and the US allowing Canadian companies to more easily export our products and take advantage of US supply chains, etc.  

Certainly such a move would require Canadian companies to improve their competitiveness and efficiency in order to go head to head with US companies, but isn't that what we should be driving for anyway if we want the Canadian economy to prosper?


----------



## GAP (8 May 2013)

The impression I have is the EU has some silly protectionist and market standards, while the U.S. is simply very protectionist.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I know that the mere suggestion is fraught with countless nationalistic concerns about protecting our sovereignty but wouldn't there be a huge potential benefit of entering into a Customs Union with the United States?  Clearly access to the US market is a much greater prize for other nations than access to the much smaller Canadian market.  Would the potential negative impacts of a Customs Union with the US on certain protected Canadian industries not possibly be more than offset by being able to piggyback on the free trade deals negotiated between the US and the rest of the world?
> 
> What would be the other positive economic effects of knocking down the border restrictions between Canada and the US allowing Canadian companies to more easily export our products and take advantage of US supply chains, etc.
> 
> Certainly such a move would require Canadian companies to improve their competitiveness and efficiency in order to go head to head with US companies, but isn't that what we should be driving for anyway if we want the Canadian economy to prosper?




A true customs union makes sense to me and we are, I think, about 95%+ there. A real customs union means that all goods and services available in Canada are, automatically and without restriction, available in the USA and _vice versa_. It means we have to, completely, harmonize standards for domestic production and for imports. (By the way the metric vs US version of _imperial_ systems is not an impediment at all but there are, literally, hundreds of thousands of standards, maybe millions of pages of text, to be standardized ~ bureaucratic nirvana!) A real customs union should include the free movement of goods, services and labour - citizens and landed immigrants from each country should be able to work in the other, subject to being admissible on security grounds.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 May 2013)

Slightly off topic, but I think if we spent half as much time trying to open up trade between provinces as we did with foreign countries the economy would be much better off.


----------



## CougarKing (21 May 2013)

Yet another avenue that will help advance Canada's interests, aside from the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

Globe and Mail link



> *It’s time for Canada to join the ‘second NAFTA’ of the Pacific  *
> 
> Colin Robertson
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2013)

Perhaps nothing has rankled John Ibbitson's "Laurentian elites" more than the Conservatives _volte face_ on Israel-Palestine. It was sudden but not, perhaps, unexpected. Under St Laurent, Pearson and Diefenbaker we were, broadly, pro-Israel and even our _Pearsonian peacekeeping_ was highly biased - UNEF (1956) was designed to protect Israel from further Arab aggression.

In the 1980s the Arabs, advised and aided by _Hill and Knowlton_ and the like, mounted a vigorous and effective international public relations offensive which aimed to and succeeded in making major changes in the Western public's perception of the Arabs and the Israelis. Canada and Canadians shifted with most others and our government's position went from being pro-Israel to essentially neutral to markedly anti-Israel.Tthen, suddenly, under the Conservatives, it shifted back to something that Lester Pearson would find very familiar.

The _national Post_ is doing a four part series on this issues. The first report is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/31/conservatives-have-given-canada-a-voice-in-israeli-palestinian-conflict-but-are-we-still-seen-as-an-honest-broker/


> Conservatives have given Canada a voice in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but are we still seen as an ‘honest broker’?
> *Canada’s vigorous defence of Israel has dramatically raised this country’s profile in the region, earning praise and condemnation. In a four-part series, the National Post’s Tom Blackwell examines how Canada’s involvement has taken some surprising turns, giving it a front-row seat in training controversial Palestinian troops and prosecutors, and exposing it to legal attack over one of the conflict’s most emotional issues. Today: Could Canada become a player in the peace process?*
> 
> Tom Blackwell
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2013)

Here is rare, _favourable_ review of review of Conservative foreign policy from in an article, penned by a former diplomat, that is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-insider/john-bairds-dignity-agenda-an-idealistic-notion-that-just-might-work/article12357749/#dashboard/follows/


> John Baird’s ‘dignity agenda’ – an idealistic notion that just might work
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Minister Baird's speech is, indeed, worth a read and its aims are both laudable and achievable. But, if he and the prime minister and cabinet are serious then we will, sooner or later, have to do more that spout platitudes; we will have to act and acting to bring or restore "dignity" is likely to require the application of hard, military power.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2013)

Senator Colin Kenny (Liberal) casts a critical eye at the state of Canadian diplomacy in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/06/24/canadian_foreign_aid_clever_politics_poor_statesmanship.html


> Canadian foreign aid: Clever politics, poor statesmanship
> *Last year’s cut in foreign aid, bringing it down to 0.31 per cent of GDP, was a sad step in the wrong direction.*
> 
> By: Colin Kenny
> ...



Senator Kenny is pining for a _"golden age"_ of Canadian diplomacy which, he believes, existed under Liberal Prime Ministers Lester B Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. he is quite wrong. There were three "golden ages:" two under Conservative PMs (Borden and Mulroney) and one under a Liberal (St Laurent).

     Borden's "golden" age was during and immediately after World War I when he insisted that Canada was more _independent_ that Britain thought. he insisted upon and won separate and distinct Canadian
     representation at the Paris Peace Conference (See MacMillan, _Paris 1919_, p. 45). it was a courageous and momentous position which led, directly, to the Statutes of Westminster. Perhaps it was a "golden
     moment" but it rested upon Canada's contribution to the war effort which had been HUGE and which risked national unity, such as it ever was and Borden deserves credit for that.

     The second "golden age" occurred when Louis St Laurent was foreign minister and later PM. I have talked about St Laurent's foreign policy often enough but he was, hand down, Canada's best - and in my opinion
     only even "great" - foreign  minister, the rest are all (from Charles Murphy to John Baird) nonentities.

     The third "golden age" was in the 1980s when Brian Mulroney stood foursquare against all of our allies and with the anti-apartheid forces in South Africa. he was, of course, standing on the shoulders of another
     Conservative, John Diefenbaker, but as a policy position it was distinctly and clearly Mulroney's and he managed it while still, broadly, remaining "on side" with Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan.

There was no Pearson/Trudeau "golden age." While Mike Pearson was a good (maybe even "near great") foreign minister, he implemented St Laurent's policies until it became too expensive to do so. Trudeau's _peace initiative_ was a policy disaster that made Canada a laughing stock. (See: Plamendon, _The Truth About Trudeau_ Ch 5.)

What bothers Sen Kenny is a return to Canada's more or less _traditional_ foreign policy: simple mercantilism.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Trudeau's _peace initiative_ was a policy disaster that made Canada a laughing stock.


Unless you're more left-leaning sensitive, in which case:

"...in 1984, the PM tried another world initiative, which focused much attention on the need for disarmament, but also fell short of success."1   



1. Whitney Lackenbauer, ed. _An Inside Look at External Affairs during the Trudeau years: The Memoirs of Mark MacGuigan_, U. of Calgary Press, 2002, p. 68.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2013)

Colin Kenny and David Cameron should read Dead Aid before they start on about foreign aid....


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2013)

Conrad Black offers his own, somewhat radical, prescription for Canada in the world in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/29/conrad-black-canadas-day-canadas-era/


> Canada’s Day, Canada’s era
> 
> Conrad Black
> 
> ...




I agree, pretty much across the board with what Conrad Black says in the first seven paragraphs, from _"As the Houses of Parliament adjourn for the summer, Canadians can reflect on the fact that this country is in better condition than all but a few others ..."_ all the way through to _"... Canada can assume a position of leadership by intelligent acts of policy innovation and proposal of reform of international organizations that will gain adherence and emulators."_

But, I do not agree with his currency prescription. I think we should press for the the adoption of the IMF's _Special Drawing Rights_ to be:

     1. The standard world reserve currency; and

     2. Based on the values of a "basket" of currencies that is based upon the _strength_ of economies and  _stability_ of currencies. The current IMF "basket" consists of the _Euro_, Japanese _Yen_,
         UK pound sterling, and US dollar. My "basket" would exclude the _Euro_ because it has neither _responsible_ fiscal nor monetary policies and cannot have under the current arrangement, but would include
         the Dutch, German and Finnish _euros_, the Australian and Canadian dollars, the Danish and Norwegian _krone_, the Indian _rupee_ and Chinese RMB.

Nor do I agree with NATO being _"transformed into a world-wide alliance of reasonably democratic countries pledged to all-for-one collective defense and security."_ I agree we need such a global alliance but I believe it must be smaller and less formal than NATO. We've discussed this at some length here on Army.ca ~ my candidate members of the global _coalition_ include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. There should be _combined_ and _joint_ strategic/political and operational/military planning staffs based in one capital with good _communications_ (physical - airports, etc - and electronic).

I do agree, broadly and generally, with his views on prisons and punishments. I favour locking up far fewer people for much, much longer periods in much, much harsher conditions. I do not believe that, despite the excellent people who work in them, prisons are in any useful way suitable tools for "rehabilitation." Prisons are suitable for punishment and for protecting society but there are, I guess, better ways to _prevent_ or _rehabilitate_, especially for young offenders. But that's not a foreign policy issue.

I also share, in part, his view that the current government, the one for which I voted, the one run by the political party that I support financially, _"too much resembles a competent government of caretakers rather than an administration aggressively seeking to reform what is decayed and lever on Canada’s strengths to be a more effective exemplary influence in the world."_


----------



## CougarKing (1 Jul 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nor do I agree with NATO being _"transformed into a world-wide alliance of reasonably democratic countries pledged to all-for-one collective defense and security."_ I agree we need such a global alliance but I believe it must be smaller and less formal than NATO. We've discussed this at some length here on Army.ca ~ my candidate members of the global _coalition_ include: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. There should be _combined_ and _joint_ strategic/political and operational/military planning staffs based in one capital with good _communications_ (physical - airports, etc - and electronic).



I've seen you point out this list of candidate nations- or at least similar groupings- in previous posts at other threads. Still, I am surprised that you would leave out three key American allies: Thailand, South Korea and the Philippines.

Thailand, as you are well aware, has been an American ally since the Vietnam War, when US forces were allowed to operate from Thai soil. Thai and US forces still conduct exchanges and joint training through the annual CARAT exercises, IIRC. They are a second-string Asian economic tiger, and have a well-equipped military that even has an aircraft carrier. They can be seen as a counterweight to other rivals on the Indochina peninsula such as Myanmar and Vietnam. In spite of recent political upheavals such as the 2006 military coup, and the recent Red Shirt vs. Yellow Shirt rivalry, they are relatively more stable than say, another nominal US ally called Pakistan. Thailand may have its own problem with Islamic insurrectionists in its Southern provinces like Narithiwat, but it's not something that has overwhelmed its security forces. 

South Korea, one of the four original Asian economic Tigers, is another ally worth considering for your prescribed coalition. Apart from the deep ties with the US forged through the Cold War, as well as their growing diaspora in Western countries, they have close ties to the West. You're already aware of their well-equipped, well-trained military, the same ROK military which also sent a contingent to support NATO in Afghanistan a few years ago. The only reasons I can fathom for you leaving them out would be their occasional distrust for Japan, over territorial disputes between Seoul and Tokyo, as well as their preoccupation with the North Korean threat.

The Philippines, another close American, non-NATO ally, occupies a strategic position because of its proximity to the South China Sea as well as the Chinese mainland. Being a former US colony, they are one of the more "Westernized" Asian nations culturally (and like India, they can be considered a second-language Anglophone nation) and are booming economically in recent years in spite of economic stagnation in the first two decades since the Marcos era. In 2011 it surpassed India and China as being the largest contributor of recent immigrants to Canada. They have frequent exercises with US forces through BALIKATAN and CARAT, and there have been overtures at allowing US forces to have greater access at their former bases in Subic and Clark airbase in the islands. While the Philippine military has a lot of outdated equipment, this has been partially offset by recent acquisitions such as two frigates bought from the US. 

*I suspect you also left out these three because of varying levels of political cronyism and corruption in all three countries; however, other countries in your list-notably India and Malaysia- also suffer from these problems. 

*off topic: I wish everyone here a Happy Canada Day!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jul 2013)

I like Mr Black's idea of what to do with the UN :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jul 2013)

Black's last paragraph really hits the nail on the head.  

I would add Indonesia, as a G20/ASEAN nation with significant interaction in economic affairs in the region.  It also represents a nation where Islam has far more to do with individual religious choice and freedom, than it does with state/regional-driven melding of politics with religion. 

Agree with you, Mr. Campbell, that widening NATO too far might cause dilution, but is something to consider so long as done in a considerate, analytical manner, not one simply geared towards increase membership numbers.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jul 2013)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ..... but is something to consider so long as done in a considerate, analytical manner, not one simply geared towards increase membership numbers.


Lest it become League of Nations 3.0 to the UN's current (and probably irredeemable) 2.0


----------



## observor 69 (1 Jul 2013)

In spite of the vitriol thrown by many at Mr. Black  I would allow him to remain in Canada and continue to provide his intelligent and informed commentary. An item of which there is a desperate shortage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I've seen you point out this list of candidate nations- or at least similar groupings- in previous posts at other threads. Still, I am surprised that you would leave out three key American allies: Thailand, South Korea and the Philippines.
> 
> Thailand, as you are well aware, has been an American ally since the Vietnam War, when US forces were allowed to operate from Thai soil. Thai and US forces still conduct exchanges and joint training through the annual CARAT exercises, IIRC. They are a second-string Asian economic tiger, and have a well-equipped military that even has an aircraft carrier. They can be seen as a counterweight to other rivals on the Indochina peninsula such as Myanmar and Vietnam. In spite of recent political upheavals such as the 2006 military coup, and the recent Red Shirt vs. Yellow Shirt rivalry, they are relatively more stable than say, another nominal US ally called Pakistan. Thailand may have its own problem with Islamic insurrectionists in its Southern provinces like Narithiwat, but it's not something that has overwhelmed its security forces.
> 
> ...





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Black's last paragraph really hits the nail on the head.
> 
> I would add Indonesia, as a G20/ASEAN nation with significant interaction in economic affairs in the region.  It also represents a nation where Islam has far more to do with individual religious choice and freedom, than it does with state/regional-driven melding of politics with religion.
> 
> ...




I should not includes lists of countries; it's not productive.

Let me change my proposal to something like "the list of countries should be confined to those that are real, albeit in some cases, slightly troubled democracies,"* and there needs to be small, permanent strategic/political and operational/military staffs provided by a cross section of members who can afford to assign officers and NCOs to such a task. That staff must have a good deal of US input - global military operations need US support, but the US should not be allowed (and should be unwilling) to dominate the organization

One further point: I'm not anti-NATO. I suspect it has outlived *most* of its usefulness and I doubt its capacity to conduct "out of area" operations, but I think there is a need for an (expanded?) Agency for Military Standardization - but don't forget that much of the all important communications standardization is not done by NATO, it is done by another much smaller organization called the Combined Communications Electronics Board (CCEB) - NATO, generally (always, in my experience) ratifies CCEB decisions without debate.



_____
* And I would use a list like the one published, annually, by the Economist Intelligence Unit to define who is and is not a democracy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2013)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ could go in a number of places, but:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/peter-mackay-needs-a-shuffle-how-about-nato-secretary-general/article13094035/#dashboard/follows/


> Peter MacKay needs a shuffle. How about NATO secretary-general?
> 
> STEPHEN SAIDEMAN
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




This is such a good idea that I will be very, very surprised if:

     1. Prime Minister Harper and Minister MacKay have not discussed it already; and

     2. Assuming that Mr. MacKay said "yes," it has not be broached in other capitals.

NATO's Secretary General _traditionally_ comes from Europe - in part to offset the US' dominance in all other areas of NATO. Here is a list of them: two Belgians, three Brits, one Dane (the current one), three Dutchmen, one German, one Italian (plus two other Italians in acting roles) and a Spaniard. The job has often been for four years.

It would not be the first time a Canadian has been mentioned for the job; in fact, Peter MacKay was touted as a candidate in 2009.

It is time for a Canadian in that job and Peter MacKay would be a very good choice. I wonder if it came up during Prime Minister Harper's recent tête-à-têtes with Prime MInister Cameron and other some other G-8 leaders.


----------



## Remius (9 Jul 2013)

He might be going to justice.  Lateral move, he's a lawyer (one of the only ones).  i doubt that he would be chosen over the German candidate.  The Germans hold too much influence in Europe.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (9 Jul 2013)

This is indeed a good idea, given the current amount of heat on Mr.Mackay. A break from Canadian politics before a return (much like Chretien) would do his career a significant amount of good. Upon his return he would be able to modestly boast about his international experience and as Canada has recently become more imperialist, I mean "involved" in world affairs this would make him a good candidate for conservative leadership in the near future.

However does NATO want someone who won't be quiet or someone who may be a little more ready to use force? As current NATO members leaders are down sizing their militarys involvement. So I think it is safe to assume they would prefer Thomas. And most good ideas rarely come to fruition.


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2013)

But for McKay it might be a godsend....if he stays past 2015 he's gonna take a hit on his pension as well as have to wait for it.....financially it works for him.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Having seen first hand how effective career diplomats can be when I was working in a grad. school coop for the Consulate General of Canada in Chongqing, China, last year, I agree with Gar Pardy's view of Bruno Saccomani. Knowledge of the local culture and language is critical in as high a position as ambassador ....
> National Post link
> 
> 
> > *Mountie in charge of Harper’s personal security detail to be appointed Canada’s ambassador to Jordan*....


For better or worse, confirmed today:


> .... Bruno Saccomani becomes Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, with concurrent accreditation to the Republic of Iraq ....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Jul 2013)

Wonder if they will accept his credentials in Jordan.

It is pretty insulting (in my view) to send a career police officer who has not even got a university degree ( Dawson college is a CEGEP - Quebec's combination version of the finishing years of high school to go to University and community college technical training. In his case, I would not be surprised (since they don't specify the program he graduated from) that he got a "general" CEGEP diploma, which is equivalent to an Ontario grade 13.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2013)

The West is rather unique in spending a bit more time and energy in sending professional diplomats abroad than other nations (in the very old days, the Ambassador was often also a spy, so it made sense then to send a cunning person. It was also true that a man like Francis Walsingham would be running things at home as well....)

Frankly, the vast majority of nations in the world send hacks, cronys and similarly qualified people as Ambassadors, envoys and other high level posts. So long as there is a decent support staff and he keeps up on his reading, this isn't going to be the end of the world.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2013)

Our foreign service has become accustomed to the notion that some vital posts like Washington and Beijing will often be shared - professional diplomats and political insiders, while some high profile but less important posts like Paris and London will be, almost always, reserved as rewards for political appointees. But posts like Amman have, almost always been the exclusive domain of the professionals. 

But diplomacy is changing and some countries welcome the appointment of a person who has direct, personal contacts with and, presumably, the ear of the head of government.

Jordan is a special place: it provides excellent access to the Palestinians and has always been regarded as a "plum post" for the foreign service which still, despite years of Conservative government, has a strong _Orientalist_ or _Arabist_ mindset, as enunciated by e.g. Edward Said or Peyton Lyon.*

Thus, the posting of an _outsider_ is a direct threat to the professional foreign service. It suggests that:

     1. The prime minister wants his own eyes and ears in an important Middle Eastern capital; and

     2. He (Prime Minister Harper) does so because neither he nor the foreign minister trusts the professional foreign service's judgement on Middle Eastern policy.

I have written several times about my concerns with the foreign service. I think King, especially, _politicized_ to an almost unimaginable (in any other country) degree and then Trudeau emasculated it - not because he disliked its politics but, rather, because he hated its leadership: small town Ontario, _Oxbridge_, WASP and complacent. All of Prime Ministers Diefenbaker, Mulroney and Harper struggled to find a balance between their deep distrust of a markedly Liberal foreign service, but one which was undeniably competent, and their need for sound, well informed analysis. With this appointment Prime Minister Harper appears to have come down firmly on one side of that fence: he doesn't trust the judgement of the professional foreign service; he does not believe that they can find the balance between their personal biases and their duty to implement the policies of the elected government; he cannot fire them all so he will, simply, remove the _professionals_ from some influential posts. 

_____
* In some cases the _Orientalist_ mindset crossed the line into simple anti-Sematism, which is not surprising in a foreign service that, until the late 1960s, still bore the fingerprints of OD Skelton ~ it's not that Skelton was an anti-Semite, but given his time and place in society it would be surprising if he wasn't ~ it is that he built a foreign service based upon a certain kind of candidate: ideally a young man from small town Ontario, with a good education, preferably an _Oxbridge_ education and they were, very likely, products of the same society as Skelton himself  ~ classic _WASPs_ ~ and it was deeply anti-Semitic. Fredrick Blair, author of the infamous "none is too many" comment, and Deputy Minister of Immigration was Skelton's friend and colleague. Blairs comment (1941) that "Canada, in accordance with generally accepted practice, places greater emphasis on race than upon citizenship," was not out of keeping with _official Ottawa_ or Canada writ large in that time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2013)

John Ivison takes a pessimistic view of Canada's one, single, overarching foreign policy focus ~ relations with the USA ~ in this article which si reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/02/john-ivison-obamas-latest-keystone-comments-could-foreshadow-a-crisis-in-canada-u-s-relations/


> Obama’s latest Keystone comments could foreshadow a crisis in Canada-U.S. relations
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




Many of us cut our academic teeth on Arthur Lower's _Colony to Nation_ and some of us, reflecting on Canada's shift, in the 1960s from dominance by Britain to even grater dominance by America, used the phrase _Conoly to Nation and back to Colony_ to describe Canada's relationships with the great powers.

Maybe it is time to take up Richard Nixon's challenge and recognize that America will, always, pursue America's _interests_ and they will often be defined by the American domestic political agenda. President Nixon said:

    "- each nation must define the nature of its own interests;
     - each nation must decide the requirements of its own security;
     - each nation must determine the path of its own progress."

President Obama is, pretty clearly, following the (common sense) _Nixon Doctrine_.

Our interests include, but are not limited to: exploiting our proximity to and familiarity with the giant American (relatively) free market and getting the best possible prices for the goods and services we take to market. If American decides that Canadian oil is not a key component of "its own security" then that is their choice. The oil can and will be sold to others.

What should we determine to be "the path of [our] own progress?" I have answered that before: we want "peace and prosperity," and I have explained that *a)* the two usually go together and *b)* each is more complex than the single word. One step on "the part of [our]own progress" might be to stop expecting America to act in *our* best interests.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Aug 2013)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/decision-on-keystone-pipeline-likely-delayed-until-2014/article/2534717

*Decision on Keystone pipeline likely delayed until 2014*

By SEAN LENGELL | AUGUST 26, 2013 AT 2:55 PM

The State Department’s decision on the proposed Keystone XL transcontinental oil pipeline is in danger of being bumped to next year, as the agency’s internal watchdog says it needs more time to finish an ongoing investigation of the project.

The State Department Office of Inspector General said its months-long probe of whether the contractor the department hired to conduct an environmental impact study had a conflict of interested likely won’t be ready until January.

The study, by Environmental Resources Management, suggested the pipeline would have little effect on the environment or global warming. But Mother Jones magazine earlier this year reported that analysts who helped draft the report had worked for TransCanada — the Canadian company proposing the project — and other energy companies poised to benefit from the pipeline.

The State Department, which must approve the pipeline because it would cross an international border, says there is no timetable for its decision. But because of the highly controversial nature of the project, the agency is expected to hold off on a decision until after the watchdog report is released.

A State Department official, speaking on background, said Monday the agency won't release its final environment impact study on Keystone until "after additional analysis and the issues identified in the public comments have been incorporated." 

The project has divided Democrats, with environmentalists fighting the proposed pipeline that would carry Canadian crude oil from Alberta’s tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast, while labor groups and some Democratic lawmakers from oil states want the jobs the $5.3 billion project would create.

The president says he will evaluate the 1,179-mile proposed pipeline based on whether it would significantly add carbon to the atmosphere, which scientists say contributes to global warming.

A September court case involving a lawsuit by three Nebraska landowners who would be affected if the pipeline is built could delay the project further. A win for the landowners, who oppose the pipeline, likely would force TransCanada to resubmit its plans with the U.S. government — which could set the project back years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Aug 2013)

Time to shut off all the taps going south and start turning on the ones going east and west.

The US can dig their own or buy it from the Saudis.

I think the PM should tell Obama to piss up a rope.

It's time to look after our own interests. 

That might be all overly simplistic, but I feel better for having said it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Time to shut off all the taps going south and start turning on the ones going east and west.
> 
> The US can dig their own or buy it from the Saudis.
> 
> ...




While I have some a lot of _emotional_ sympathy ...

     1. _Keystone_ is, still, a good project, but it is anything but the be all and end all; and

     2. _Keystone_ or not, we still need pipelines going both East and West to get heavy crude to refineries in Canada and to global markets, including the US North East; but

     3. Even "repurposing" existing pipelines is going to take years ~ for now, the more oil we can get to markets, any markets, the better; and, finally

     4. US politics is US politics and rational men and women should never factor their _*irrationality*_ out of the business equation.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Aug 2013)

You know, it's kind of funny, BC and all.

In 1867 the price of getting BC to join Canada was a transportation link to the rest of the country:  A railway.

In 2013 it seems that BC doesn't want to be part of Canada.

Perhaps we should inform them that the bill for the railway has come due and the price for staying in Canada is a Pipeline.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Aug 2013)

We know which way President Obama will go, especially but very unlikely the Dems hold the Senate and gain the Congress: NO Keystone.

Quebec, the Indians the environmentalists (many US funded, but that's another story) are not in favour of Keystone or the East - West. As a matter of fact they are pretty well against everything.

With this majority, or the next majority which will give the Conservatives more time I suggest war time measures to ensure these vital measures to the economy of Canada proceed.

State that the pipelines are a national imperative, complete the safety/environmental studies and set the standards, build including expropriating the land. If a Canadian Pipeline Force (CPF) has to be created as guards, crowd control, emergency response for explosions/fire/leaks so be it. Take a cut from the revenues to fund the CPF.  

Build a few more modern multi billion dollar refineries strategically located across Canada while your at it. 

Nationalize Trans Canada pipelines if you have to, but I doubt it will have to be done.

Sell Canadian crude at market, especially to the US. Full bore. Not soft power but slick power.


----------



## GAP (27 Aug 2013)

> I suggest war time measures to ensure these vital measures to the economy of Canada proceed.



You had this fantasy long?..... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2013)

OK, so Prime Minister Harper wants to do something (presumably something useful) to, about or for Syria ~ something short of war ...

He has promised to bring Syrian refugees to Canada. That's a silly idea ~ real refugees don't want to come to Canada, they want to go home, as soon as it is safe. But, we are a rich country and we can and should do _something_, and refugees do need help.

Of all the countries in the region one, Jordan, is pretty close to being a 'friend."

Jordan is, also, awash in (uhnwelcome and costly) Syrian refugess.

So, maybe, we can do something useful to, about and even *for* the Syrians _and_  *for* the Jordanians, too, by helping the Jordanians with the refugee problem.

It would cost many tens of millions of dollars (but that will still be less than the cost of settling a few thousand Syrian refugees in Canada) but we could design and build and then maintain a "model" refugee camp in Jordan - a mini city for a few thousand people (say 1,000 families and 1,00 single people) with shelter, water, food distribution, health care, police, fire and administration ~ all managed and done, in the main, by Syrians refugees (so add jobs to the list) under Jordanian supervision. We have companies in Canada, like ATCO, who can move quickly and efficiently into a crisis and establish infrastructure, we have people, mostly from the voluntary sector who can, also, move quickly and efficiently into a crisi and, even more importantly, move out as soon as locals are prepared to take over. We have the money, too.

Something like this might even provide the politically critical series of "good news" photo ops for years to come.


----------



## GAP (30 Aug 2013)

Maybe set up a small refugee city based on these

Concrete Cloth Makes Durable, Semi-Permanent Shelters
http://gajitz.com/concrete-cloth-makes-durable-semi-permanent-shelters/

A New Ingeniously Designed Shelter For Refugees--Made By Ikea
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682416/a-new-ingeniously-designed-shelter-for-refugees-made-by-ikea

For the money and humanitarian effort something like that would be far more effective for all the reasons ER mentioned, than bringing over a few hundred people who just want to go home.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It would cost many tens of millions of dollars (but that will still be less than the cost of settling a few thousand Syrian refugees in Canada) but we could design and build and then maintain a "model" refugee camp in Jordan - a mini city for a few thousand people (say 1,000 families and 1,00 single people) with shelter, water, food distribution, health care, police, fire and administration ~ all managed and done, in the main, by Syrians refugees (so add jobs to the list) under Jordanian supervision. We have companies in Canada, like ATCO, who can move quickly and efficiently into a crisis and establish infrastructure, we have people, mostly from the voluntary sector who can, also, move quickly and efficiently into a crisi and, even more importantly, move out as soon as locals are prepared to take over. We have the money, too.



While I agree with you that bringing these refugees to Canada is not such a good idea- since you stated in another thread about the differences between immigrants who want to come here and refugees who don't-  I disagree that one can actually make a "model refugee camp". No matter how clean, well-supplied or organized such a settlement will be, the very term "refugee camp" implies deprivation and dependence on the host country or the sponsors of the camp. It would be bad for optics; refugee status visas are better optics for our politicians.

Yes there are many people in the development/crisis response/NGO sector/IGO sector (e.g. Red Crescent/Red Cross, World Vision, etc.)  that do take care of refugees, but funding such organizations is just a temporary solution. Eventually either the situation in Syria must change or Jordan (or whatever host country they're stuck in, such as Iraq or Turkey) must take them in on a longer/more permanent basis.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... So, maybe, we can do something useful to, about and even *for* the Syrians _and_  *for* the Jordanians, too, by helping the Jordanians with the refugee problem.
> 
> It would cost many tens of millions of dollars (but that will still be less than the cost of settling a few thousand Syrian refugees in Canada) but we could design and build and then maintain a "model" refugee camp in Jordan - a mini city for a few thousand people (say 1,000 families and 1,00 single people) with shelter, water, food distribution, health care, police, fire and administration ~ all managed and done, in the main, by Syrians refugees (so add jobs to the list) under Jordanian supervision. We have companies in Canada, like ATCO, who can move quickly and efficiently into a crisis and establish infrastructure, we have people, mostly from the voluntary sector who can, also, move quickly and efficiently into a crisi and, even more importantly, move out as soon as locals are prepared to take over. We have the money, too.
> 
> Something like this might even provide the politically critical series of "good news" photo ops for years to come.


Agree this would be useful.  This could help out where it's needed while keeping out of the shooting bits - most of the "atta boy's" with little potential for "holy @#$%^&'s".

Since this would be a bit medium- to longer-term solution, any place for DART in the equation?  While this qualifies as a "disaster", my sense is that DART is more set up for short-term deployments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Agree this would be useful.  This could help out where it's needed while keeping out of the shooting bits - most of the "atta boy's" with little potential for "holy @#$%^&'s".
> 
> Since this would be a bit medium- to longer-term solution, any place for DART in the equation?  While this qualifies as a "disaster", my sense is that DART is more set up for short-term deployments.




Yes, sending the DART to Jordan, assuming the Jordanians would accept it (agree to ask for it, actually), could be a neat idea, as a start point.

S.M.A. I agree that "the situation in Syria must change" but I must be consistent and repeat that ONLY the Syrians can change Syria and they will (I hope) do so in their own good time. Until then refugee camps, ugly as they are, are a fact of life and what I am proposing, essentially, is a way to help the Jordanians to "take them in on a longer/more permanent basis." But I want a Canadian flag for the photo ops and I want any "attaboys" that might float about.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I want any "attaboys" that might float about.



I hope you don't just mean signs like this...  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Aug 2013)

ERC: 





> but we could design and build and then maintain a "model" refugee camp in Jordan 474,042 people on Indian Reserves all across Canada- a mini city for a few thousand people (say 1,000 families and 1,00 single people) with shelter, water, food distribution, health care, police, fire and administration ~ all managed and done, in the main, by Syrians refugees Indians (so add jobs to the list) under Jordanian Army Engineers?? supervision. We have companies in Canada, like ATCO, who can move quickly and efficiently into a crisis and establish infrastructure, we have people, mostly from the voluntary sector who can, also, move quickly and efficiently into a crisi and, even more importantly, move out as soon as locals are prepared to take over. We have the money, too (Billions) *.



* *Budget 2013 Highlights – Aboriginal and Northern Investments *
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1363964630328/1363964850834

S.M.A.: 





> No matter how clean, well-supplied or organized such a settlement will be, the very term "refugee camp" Indian Reserve implies deprivation and dependence on the host country or the sponsors of the camp. It would be bad for optics; refugee status visas assimilation isare better optics for our politicians.



Ghetto comes to mind. Who wants to live in a ghetto? The Chiefs don't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2013)

I'm putting this here because I think it also has implications for Canadian foreign policy, Conservative or not.

This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Royal United Services Institute's_ web site:

http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C52210D1AC29AE/#.UiEcATasiVZ


> Parliament's Decision on Syria: Pulling Our Punches
> *The UK Parliament's decision not to intervene militarily in Syria marked an important watershed in UK defence and security policy. The consequences will be examined with interest by allies and potential adversaries alike.*
> 
> RUSI Analysis
> ...




Traditionally and _constitutionally_ the prerogative to deploy the military rests with the _executive_ ~ the Queen in Council, effectively the cabinet. Parliament's authority rests on its absolute control of taxes and spending. The Queen (Prime Ministers Harper or Cameron, in reality) can send her forces wherever she wants but unless parliament votes "supply" (the money) she can't keep them there - not if she wants to pay them their wages and pay for their bullets and beans. It's a neat system that has worked pretty well for 500_ish_ years.

But: the _people_, literally the public, don't like that system ~ they want a "say" in these thing. And I think that desire for _control_ or, at least, for some form of consultation applies equally in Canada, Britain and America, where there are already calls for President Obama to go to Congress before he bombs Damascus. In reality, the closest a government leader can come to "consulting" the people is to do what Prime Minister Cameron did and allow parliament to have a free vote on the issue, _constitutional convention_ be damned.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2013)

The problem I see with establishing refugee camps in Jordan, which already has many refugee camps, is that we are putting the load on the Jordanians.

If refuges are to be created they should be on uncontested "waste" land or cut out of the hide of the aggressor's claims.  But that would require forceful action and boots on the ground.


----------



## Privateer (30 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _...constitutional convention_ be damned.



...or evolved.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Aug 2013)

>Quebec, the Indians the environmentalists (many US funded, but that's another story) are not in favour of Keystone or the East - West. As a matter of fact they are pretty well against everything.

Only the environmentalists.  With the first two, it's only a question of money and opportunity (jobs and other long-term benefits).


----------



## Underway (30 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ghetto comes to mind. Who wants to live in a ghetto? The Chiefs don't.



In some communities they don't care as they are living in huge mansions and amazing houses with lots of snowmobiles and ATV's, SUV's while their people sit in squalor.  Mainly because they are stealing their own people blind.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Sep 2013)

The Kremlin signalling to 24 Sussex Drive not to have any untoward ideas about intervening into Syria?

link



> *Russian ambassador warns Canada that Syrian conflict is Iraq redux*
> 
> The chance of U.S.-led military intervention in Syria continued its drive toward inevitability as the international community receives confirmation that a chemical attack occurred earlier this month.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2013)

This may certainly be the case.

However, the Cold War never really ended.

On face value, nobody can believe what the Russians say.

Because they never really, ever, say anything, unless it's 100% in their own interest.

In which case, if they believe it will further their own objectives, they will lie.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm putting this here because I think it also has implications for Canadian foreign policy, Conservative or not.
> 
> This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Royal United Services Institute's_ web site:
> 
> ...




More on this topic in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/syrian-crisis-is-a-teachable-moment-for-western-leaders-on-limits-of-authority/article14103076/#dashboard/follows/


> Syrian crisis is a teachable moment for Western leaders on limits of authority
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I _think_ Prime Minister Harper is very serious about his Constitutional prerogatives and limitations. Prof Sossin is correct: there is not, yet, any Constitutional convention in Canada regarding limits to the crown's (cabinet's) authority to deploy forces. Parliament, of course, has absolute authority over the crown's ability to sustain or maintain forces - in war or not. 

I also _think_ that the decisions to consult parliaments in Britain and Canada have been wholly partisan. I _suspect_ Prime Minister Cameron guessed that he might lose the vote and I also _suspect_ that he isn't overly bothered by the outcome. Had Prime Minister Cameron been serious about deploying British Forces he would have and could have used a "take note" debate. Prime Minister Harper's recourses  to parliament were designed more to embarrass the Liberals than to actually seek parliament's _consent_.

Our unwritten system, which allows the prime minister to deploy forces but requires parliament's approval to maintain them, is sensible and robust. The American and French constitutions are less so.


----------



## Inquisitor (4 Sep 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This may certainly be the case.
> 
> However, the Cold War never really ended.
> 
> ...



FTFY

I suggest that the stream of leaks shows that all the powers do this,  The eastern bloc far moreso that the West. 

At the same time if you take the statement about never believing the Russians at face value,  it makes the possibility of a strategic misunderstanding far more likely.


----------



## CougarKing (7 Sep 2013)

Strong words from both Harper and Baird. But is it really wise to continue towing the ``Assad used chemical weapons`` line to conform with US rhetoric against Syria when most of the rest of the world does not support Obama`s intentions to strike Syria or at least has the sense to stay out of this Sunni-Shiite quarrel? (even in spite of gathering evidence that Assad`s regime did cross the so-called ``red line`` ) 



> link
> 
> *Baird says Canada cannot allow Syria to act with impunity*
> CBC
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2013)

Sadly, I suspect most of the chest thumping is for domestic consumption and to assuage that guilty feeling for sitting back and doing nothing (even if realistically there was nothing we could have done anyway).

In terms of real effective action Canada _could_ provide some manpower and resources to enforcing a quarantine zone or cordon around the ME to ensure the fighting does not spill too far beyond the borders and start affecting Europe, Russia, China or the Americas. Like it or not, Turkey and Iran will eventually get more heavily involved, and the Saudis and Gulf States will eventually be forced to dissipate their accumulated oil wealth on protection as well as force generation to ensure "their" side prevails in the Shia/Sunni wars.

A realistic Canadian foreign policy will have to be examining the potential effects of these changes on Canadian interests, and how Canada can benefit from this while mitigating the negative fallout from the ongoing wars and instability.


----------



## CougarKing (23 Sep 2013)

Perhaps having more and larger MPSS detachments at more DFAIT missions overseas might be something to consider? Especially for missions (DFAIT term for signify embassies, consulates or trade offices overseas) in countries known to be possible hotspots?  The US has Marine sentries at several of their embassies overseas.

link




> *Canadian diplomat's death highlights dangers of foreign service work*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA - Being a foreign service officer often involves genuine risk, not just endless cocktails at swishy parties, say those with strong ties to the diplomatic world — a fact driven home by the death of a Canadian who worked at the high commission in Kenya.
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Sep 2013)

I am a little unclear how more Canadian MPs at the embassy in Kenya would have prevented the death of a diplomat at a shopping mall.

Could you explain?


----------



## CougarKing (23 Sep 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am a little unclear how more Canadian MPs at the embassy in Kenya would have prevented the death of a diplomat at a shopping mall.



Just had the thought that those diplomats (called CBS officers or Canada-based-staff in DFAIT parlance) in higher-risk cities could be escorted.

Looking on it again, seems it is impractical to have CBS officers escorted around everywhere considering the number of officers at certain missions, with those higher CBS, such as each mission's Ambassador at each embassy, or the Consul General at each consulate, probably getting priority.


----------



## JorgSlice (23 Sep 2013)

Wouldn't MPs become nullified once off the property line of the Embassy anyway?

I understand there is a push to have more Embassies manned with MPs and increase the size of Embassy Security Teams; however leaving the safety of the Embassy should be a "...at your own risk..." deal as it is now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2013)

"De Kerckhove says Stephen Harper's Conservative government "has very little time for its diplomats."

Typical.

Just like the special interests and politicians that dance on people's graves after a mass shooting.

It's not about the loss of a loved one or valued employee.

It's all about how you can embarrass the other side and poke a sharp stick in their eye.

I'm guessing the PM didn't give him his friggin' gold watch , when he retired, and he's still pissed.

Wanker.


----------



## larry Strong (23 Sep 2013)

What would a Professor in the Department of French at the University of Toronto, know about if the PM cares about diplomats or not??/



Larry


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Sep 2013)

What's the annual fatality rate per 100,000 for DFAIT employees?  (This is not a trivial question  - either additional protection is necessary and cost-effective by cold actuarial analysis, or it is not.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2013)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> What would a Professor in the Department of French at the University of Toronto, know about if the PM cares about diplomats or not??


You may have your de Kerckhove's mixed up.

The one quoted, Ferry (a former foreign service officer and senior official in Foreign Affairs), would probably be in a pretty good position to talk about the vibe within the department before he left in 2011.  

The U of T one, Derrick, maybe not so much. 

That said ....


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> .... It's all about how you can embarrass the other side and poke a sharp stick in their eye ....


.... it does have a _bit_ of that feel, don't it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Walter Russell Mead's blof _ViaMeadia_, is an interesting proposal:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/09/29/why-australia-and-canada-should-cooperate-more-on-asia/


> Why Australia and Canada Should Cooperate More On Asia
> 
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> ...




His points, including about the UK leaving the EU, are well taken.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Oct 2013)

On TV last night, CBC's Terry Milewski also reported that Harper had difficulty "attracting attention" during his visit to Kuala Lumpur, in part because his visit coincided with that of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Malaysia. Canadian trade with Malaysia is only about $3 billion a year compared to China's $100 billion a year trade links with Malaysia.

Yahoo News



> *Harper meets with business leaders in Malaysia*
> CBC
> 
> (...)
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2013)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Ten thousand people are feared dead in TACLOBAN.I suspect the toll will be much higher throughout the affected area.
> 
> http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/typhoon-death-toll-in-1-city-could-reach-10-000-1.252064





			
				mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Now if we had a couple of ships like the Karel Doorman. We could send one to the  Philippines, immediately!
> We did it for Katrina. There are plenty of Canadians especially from Winnipeg (send it and the PR in the namesake city would pay dividends), that have immediate family there.
> We did it for Haiti, because the GG was from there and it was already our second largest target for annual aid money.
> I think sending help and supplies would be a sight more useful than dumping cash into relief funds or agencies. We dumped millions upon millions into Haiti and the people got nylon tents from Canadian Tire.
> ...




*How* Canada helps in these disasters is always likely to be somewhat controversial.

Philippines is a _second world_ country - it has an _advancing_ economy, one of the better performers in Asia, right now, but it is hampered by a government that has 400 years of horrible examples (Spain and the USA) that encourage epidemic levels of corruption and all manner of political chicanery. In this particular case:

     1. The Philippines, especially the Philippines military, can _manage_ disaster relief; they will, as pbi said elsewhere ask for what they need;

     2. Direct, country-to-country aid money may not be as well spent as we would wish ~ corruption will eat too much of it;

     3. Aid agencies work freely in Philippines so they are, in this case, the best way to route aid.

I will be happier when the government adds dollar for dollar matching aid to that raised by the Philippines-Canadian communities.

I believe (I'm out of my lanes) that a ship like the Karel Doorman would be a good addition to the Canadian fleet  but not as an aid platform.






Of course, warships are the most versatile military units we have: they project power wherever they go and can do humanitarian missions at the same time. But humanitarian relief is not a reason to buy a ship or form a military unit.*

_____
* We are, in my opinion, doing the DART right, it "is not a standing unit but a core group of existing military capabilities that are pre-identified and retained at a high level of readiness." Even then I _suspect_ we devote too much time and money to a tertiary military requirement.


----------



## CougarKing (19 Nov 2013)

Is it really that unusual that a GG meets a new foreign head of state (or slightly lower foreign officials who are seen as on the rise to become head of state) BEFORE the PM? 

National Post




> *It’s been two years, and Harper still hasn’t had a bilateral meeting with China’s president. Is there a deeper issue?*
> Jason Fekete, Postmedia News |
> 
> OTTAWA — Nearly two years after Xi Jinping, now China’s president, initially ducked an invitation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to visit Canada, the two leaders still have not held an official bilateral meeting — sparking questions by some experts about the state of Sino-Canadian relations.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a report on the latest shift in Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-new-foreign-affairs-vision-shifts-focus-to-economic-diplomacy/article15624653/#dashboard/follows/


> Tories’ new foreign-affairs vision shifts focus to ‘economic diplomacy’
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




_*"Peace and prosperity"*_, I have often argued, is a good shorthand phrase to describe Canada's (and most other nations') vital interests. I have explained that the two tend to go hand-in-hand and are, in sum, greater than just the absence of war and a "chicken in every pot." This, a _commercial_ agenda - it's not a strategy, is consistent with our national interests and interests ought to be the base upon which all policies rest.

I would add, however, that a "commercial agenda" cannot succeed unless Canada presents a _balanced_ face towards the world ~ we must have some military muscle to make this work. "Economic diplomacy" is one aspect of a _soft power_ strategy but, as Joseph Nye, the father of _soft power_ pointed out, it, soft power, is worthless unless it is backed up by visible, effective had power ... hard power we, as a nation, are ready, wiling and able to use.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Nov 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The plan was stiffly resisted by many senior officials within the department itself, according to a government official speaking on background. Calling the new directive “a culture shift” for Foreign Affairs, the official said the action plan sends a message to Canada’s diplomats: “Take off your tweed jacket, buy a business suit and land us a deal.”



Interesting that he uses the past-tense, as though it's still not 'stiffly resisted' by O.D. Skelton's kids.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2013)

More, reflecting I think the Paul Heinbecker school of _"Harper is destroying Canada"_ analysis, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/ottawas-dollar-diplomacy-its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-knew-it/article15621712/#dashboard/follows/


> Ottawa’s dollar diplomacy: It’s the end of the world as we knew it
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I expect that Paul Heinbecker is bashing his keyboard right now, turning out elegant, well crafted phrases to tell us why Prime Minister Harper is wrong and Pierre Trudeau was right, but I _suspect_ that Campbell Clark has stolen his thunder.

Foreign policy IS about more than just trade and commerce. Of course we need to stand for something other than just making a quick buck. But: we have to be able to afford our principles and we are a trading nation and some of our core principles - like private property - have a strong economic dimension.

So, stand by for the weeping and wailing ... but pay it no mind.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Nov 2013)

It is amusing when "thinkers" who are offended that Harper's policies might be diminishing Canada's diplomatic power seem indifferent to the importance of economic power.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Nov 2013)

Aren't we just catching up with the rest  of the world with this approach?


----------



## Journeyman (29 Nov 2013)

I think it's more a case of being 'up front' with our focus, rather than catching up.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Nov 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole American/British/French political strategy in the Middle East based on economic policies e.g. access to cheap oil?


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2013)

Yes, but with a twist: if "The West" were collectively more energy self-sufficient, there would still be advantages to preventing any other bloc from consolidating access to ME oil.  (The same principle applies in general to any strategically important commodity.)


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2013)

Totally true. 

The USN provides control of the sea lanes and access to ME oil not becasue they need it (in the past, the US primarily imported oil from Mexico, Canada and Venezuela), but to ensure their trade partners had access to inexpensive energy. Europe, Japan, the Four Tigers, India and China all benefit form the USN doing the heavy lifting, and the US gets the benefit of having multiple large trading blocks with large economies as their market, and no peer or near peer competition on the seas.

As US naval presence shrinks, we should be thinking more of how to fill the gaps, and who our allies might be in holding the Pacific lines of communicatin and oceanic trade.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act fro the _Globe and Mail_, is a stinging, and, to recycle the author's own words, "a bitter, small-minded," and, I suggest, narrow minded and ill considered critique of Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-bitter-small-minded-foreign-policy/article16147665/#dashboard/follows/and


> Canada’s bitter, small-minded foreign policy
> 
> PETER JONES
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Professor Jones needs to go back to school, this time to history class. _Interests_, which are always rooted in domestic situations, always set foreign policy. Foreign policy is ALL ABOU US ~ about what we do about, with, for, and, sometimes, to other countries in order to secure OUR advantages, at home and abroad.

I have not agreed with all of this government's policies nor, especially, with how they pursue all of them, but, broadly and generally, this is *better* foreign policy that anything offered in the Trudeau/Chrétien eras. It is not the best foreign policy Canada has ever had ~ that was M. St Laurent's, enunciated in 1947 ~ but it's a damned site better than most, including, I suggest, the policies of America and Britain.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jan 2014)

>simplistic moral absolutes

For example, the quaint notion that terrorist sponsor states should be pressed to cease sponsoring terrorists, in order to promote that "simplistic moral absolute" that a person has a right to life.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2014)

And here, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, Michael Den Tandt, who has no trouble disdaining Mr Harper, shreds the arguments of Prof Peter Jones and his ilk and explains that the Conservative foreign policy is meeting the aspirations of "main street:"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/02/michael-den-tandt-on-foreign-policy-tories-closer-to-main-street-than-critics-suggest/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> On foreign policy, Tories closer to Main Street than critics suggest
> 
> Michael Den Tandt
> 
> ...




Consider the absolute truth in that last paragraph again: _"it_ [the CPC]_ provides policy that millions of Canadians, albeit often with nose pinched between thumb and index finger, consider to be the least bad alternative, and that millions more simply agree with._ Despite the less than sterling grammar (he should have said "and with which millions more simply agree") Mr De Tandt is spot on: Prime Minister Harper, unlike Paul Heinbecker and Peter Jones, understands that most Canadians want to support a spunky little liberal democracy that is surrounded and threatened by 100,000 medieval barbarians and most Canadians agree that we should show Iran our utter, complete contempt for its bullying and threats and utter disregard for the natural, fundamental rights of people.

I always know when the Conservatives are setting out clear, principled, sensible foreign policy: Paul Heinbecker's knickers are in a knot.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2014)

One of the problems with tying our diplomat stuff to closely with various industries abroad such as mining is your rep hangs on the actions of people you have little control over. Canadian mines have had from very good to very poor track records overseas, promoting a project run by a company with an iffy track record may come back to bite us. I don't hold out hope that this government would take the time to do an indepth review of the companies and people involved in a project prior to promoting it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2014)

Slightly   ff topic:


I'm posting this here, rather than starting a new topic, because Justice Ndon's comment, in a decision, about foreign policy being (or should be) "forbidden territory" for judges rings true for me.

I am interested in member's opinions about this article which suggests that Prime Minister Harper is trying to reshape the SCC by appointing judges who appear to favour "judicial restraint."

Mods may want to split this off into a new thread if it becomes a real topic rather than just a minor tangent.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Slightly   ff topic:
> 
> 
> I'm posting this here, rather than starting a new topic, because Justice Ndon's comment, in a decision, about foreign policy being (or should be) "forbidden territory" for judges rings true for me.
> ...



So what, really, did the PM do that previous PMs didn't. Like Senate appointments, it's his prerogative who gets the nod, same as it's always been.

All I can see here are a bunch of old boys\ girls club types bellyaching because they didn't have one of their cronies appointed.

A deeper look, which I have no interest in doing, may even show that the vast majority of dissenters are, shall we say, *liberal* thinkers.

Maybe it's time for a dissenting opinion. One that doesn't jive with the other SC types that believe it's their job, not parliament's, to make laws instead of just interpreting them.

Unless we want to go down the same road as the US, where SC types are vetted by everyone who holds any type of political office, before they are appointed or rejected, we have the system we have. 

The PM used it to his, supposed, advantage. So what?


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jan 2014)

The article points out that the SCC maintains its independence and authority despite the presence of justices previously appointed by Harper.  If Nadon is less notable as the article claims, it is unlikely his arguments are going to sway the others in a closely-divided decision.  Ultimately, the SCC's role is to be a corrector, not an originator.

Mostly it seems the legal establishment is in a snit because Nadon isn't one of the legal establishment's star attractions.

Politically, this remark is very revealing: "I feel very strongly that the orderly progression and evolution of the law requires a strong court – a court that’s capable and willing to demonstrate leadership. I think this appointment unquestionably weakens the court."  People who want to use every other institution - SCC included - to thwart Harper's parliament are annoyed.

I "feel very strongly" that the law should evolve by legislation, and the court's leadership should be limited to overturning pieces of law that are unlawful.  Lawyers may feel differently, but they might need to remind themselves their profession exists to serve, not to rule.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2014)

I, too, "feel very strongly"  that the role of Judges should be simply to determine if a given set of actions are legal. ie. they conform to the encodified laws of the relevant jurisdiction (federal, provincial, municipal).

Fairness and justice should not be their demesne.  That is entirely the demesne of Parliament.  If the outcome of the trial is not perceived to be fair or just, despite the legalities, then the issue should be taken before Parliament
  
Judges are not arbitrators.  Juries and Parliamentarians are arbitrators. 

Judges may be arbitrators but then, so may Professional Engineers, if the parties in dispute agree to be bound by their judgments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I "feel very strongly" that the law should evolve by legislation, and the court's leadership should be limited to overturning pieces of law that are unlawful.  Lawyers may feel differently, but they might need to remind themselves their profession exists to serve, not to rule.




I agree, but I assert that parliament and our provincial legislatures and city councils often, far too often, even regularly, craft laws that are, themselves, "unlawful" and unconstitutional. I want a strong _active_ court that is happy to throw parliament's laws out and demand new ones. I agree with the ways judges are appointed now; I do not want even a whiff of the American system which politicizes justice, in my opinion. Only qualified lawyers are nominated, our system sees to that, and once appointed our judges are independent, and we need that to balance our legislators.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jan 2014)

Trying to nail down a meaningful and agreed definition of "activism" is always the most difficult part of this discussion.

If "activist" means "overturns unconstitutional laws", then I support activism.

If "activist" means "applies personally held political beliefs and sociopolitical ideology as decision factors", then I do not support activism.

If "activist" means "interprets law to create new entitlements and obligations", then I do not support activism.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Trying to nail down a meaningful and agreed definition of "activism" is always the most difficult part of this discussion.
> 
> If "activist" means "overturns unconstitutional laws", then I support activism. ✔ Agreed!
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, but I assert that parliament and our provincial legislatures and city councils often, far too often, even regularly, craft laws that are, themselves, "unlawful" and unconstitutional. I want a strong _active_ court that is happy to throw parliament's laws out and demand new ones. I agree with the ways judges are appointed now; I do not want even a whiff of the American system which politicizes justice, in my opinion. Only qualified lawyers are nominated, our system sees to that, and once appointed our judges are independent, and we need that to balance our legislators.



More to the point that they will craft laws without giving it careful thought and process, leading to many poor result or unintended consequence. The CPC hurt themselves with the haste they used to change things and claiming it was a crisis. So remind me when a government hasn't claimed a crisis is happening?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2014)

Jeffrey Simpson gets it mostly, but only very grudgingly, right in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/no-room-for-nuance-in-harpers-mideast/article16373065/#dashboard/follows/


> No room for nuance in Harper’s Mideast
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I believe that much of Prime Minister Harper's ~ the CPC's foreign policy is based on principle. I believe our former, incorrect policy towards China was principled even as it acted against out own, vital, national interests. I believe our policies towards Sri Lanka and Israel are still ground in principle because *we can afford to stand on principle* where they are concerned. Our policies towards America, China and Europe are, more or less, grounded in reality, as they must be.

But you may rest assured that the national _commentariat_, the "chattering classes," and the _Laurentian Elites_, like Simpson, will never give Harper and Baird credit for either principle or pragmatism ~ instead they will trot out weak minded fools and trained _Trudeauite_ seals like Paul Heinbeceker to weep and wail about "balance." They will call for "balance" when principle is appropriate and principle when national interests are at stake. It's why our foreign and defence policies were emasculated between 1967 and 1984. 

I disagree with Jeffrey Simpson's characterization of Prime Minister Harper's (and Foreign Minister Baird's) views as _Manichean_, I think they are far more nuanced than Simpson imagines; but I do agree that the appeal to the large, strong, _reliable_ Jewish (and Tamil, in another context) vote is more than just coincidental.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2014)

The (anticipated) counterpoint ~ that Prime Minister Harper's Middle East policy is contrary to Canada's interests traditions of _"being “multilateral” and an “honest broker” "_ ~ is made in the _Toronto Star_ (where else?) by Tony Burman, former head of Al Jazeera English and CBC News, who teaches journalism at Ryerson University.

See:T Time for Canada, Israel to stop living in fantasy world ... Canada's reputation in significant parts of world will sink ever lower as a result of PM Stephen Harper's vanity tour of Israel, writes Tony Burman.

Burman concludes his diatribe by saying: "It is time for both countries to abandon their respective fantasy worlds. Israelis should work hard this week to ignore most everything they hear from Canada’s prime minister. And Canadians should work equally hard to wrestle back Canada’s foreign policy debate from Harper and his crowd. For both sides, time is truly running out."  :-\


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> -the _Toronto Star_
> -former head of Al Jazeera English
> -CBC News,
> -teaches journalism at Ryerson University.



Any one of these alone is enough to disqualify the individual as a serious or unbiased commentator, but all four together? Wow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Any one of these alone is enough to disqualify the individual as a serious or unbiased commentator, but all four together? Wow.




I disagree, any of the four gets him a "voice," and probably should. And while we may, as I do, reject his tone and his content, more people trust him, and what he says, than trust me and believe what I say.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2014)

More people need to get to know you, then... :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2014)

An interesting debate has opened in the _Twitterverse_ between respected journalist David Akin and Jason Kenney, federal Minister of Employment, Social Development & Multiculturalism.

Mr Akin suggests, in his column that Prime Minister Harper may have gone too far, is breaking new ground, in how he defines anti-Semitism in his speech (today) in the Israeli Knesset.

Minister Kenney responds that Prime Minister Harper is, in fact, just using the Ottawa Protocol which was negotiated in 2010 by some 50 countries using the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights' definition of antisemitism ... thus it is an 'established,' internationally agreed set of examples of conduct that constitute anti-Semitism.

The _Laurentian Elites_, at least in so far as Prof Michael Behiels of the University of Ottawa speaks for them (and he is of that ilk), will be up in arms, declaring that the end of Canada s we know it is near because prime Minister harper takes a strong stand for Israel.


----------



## GAP (20 Jan 2014)

I see the PM announced 60+Million for the Palestinians. The CBC was wailing long and hard about how this is a reduction of about 50%.....poor Palestinians......


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2014)

Meanwhile, from today's Telegraph

UN trying to raise 4 BUKP for Syria

2013

US          700 MUKP
UK          230 MUKP
Ger         200 MUKP
Kuwait    200 MUKP
Canada  110 MUKP   
Japan       75 MUKP
S. Arabia  61 MUKP
Norway    46 MUKP
UAE          44 MUKP
Australia   43 MUKP
Quatar      40 MUKP
Sweden    34 MUKP
Denmark   33 MUKP

Canadians ponying up along with the Arabs, the Anglosphere and the Scandinavians as the heavy-hitters in providing aid.

Is that buying influence?  The great Whig policy of paying other people to fight your wars.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, from today's Telegraph
> 
> UN trying to raise 4 BUKP for Syria
> 
> ...




And a damned fine policy it was, and still is, too! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                                                                 Harumph!


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2014)

Lawrence Martin pokes a stick into the Canada-USA relationship, specifically the Harper-Obama (administrations) relationship, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/we-can-expect-canada-us-friction-to-grow/article16413031/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it#dashboard/follows/


> We can expect Canada-U.S. friction to grow
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




First, I agree, broadly, with Lawrence Martin on two points:

     1. The Pentagon, Eisenhower's "military industrial complex," writ large, has a pretty poor track record since, say, 1950, but that's a minor point; and

     2. Given the deep philosophical differences between Prime Minister Harper and President Obama, and their closest advisors, then "bilaterally, things could very well get worse before they get better."

Second, our relationship with the US is the single most critical thing in Canada's foreign, trade and economic policies. But, as someone else pointed out, recently, in commenting on the fact that the US has been without an ambassador to Ottawa for a very only time, the relationship is so close, so big, and so bureaucratic ~ bound together by masses of rules and regulations ~ that it chugs along happily with little regard to who is in the White House or 24 Sussex Drive, much less who is in what embassies. While relations between governments, _per se_, might get worse, the overall good, productive relationship is in little danger.

Third, and this is a quibble, the Middle East is still a "flashpoint" and the _wrong_ war there (say, one between Syria and Israel) could lead to a broader conflict that could spread to neighbouring regions. But Canada is a very, very minor player ~ despite the value Mr Harper gives to Israel for both ideological and partisan, domestic political reasons. Our "role" in the Middle East was always exaggerated: it began in the 1956 when Lester Pearson played an important role in defusing tensions between Britain (Anthony Eden's government) (and France), on one hand and America (the Eisenhower administration), on the other, that really did threaten the unity of the West. The Middle East was merely a _theatre_, a stage on which Pearson played a vital role as a _peacemaker_ between allies ~ UN _peacekeeping_ was, then as now, a sideshow.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... Mr Akin suggests, in his column that Prime Minister Harper may have gone too far, is breaking new ground, in how he defines anti-Semitism in his speech (today) in the Israeli Knesset ....


In case you're interested, the text of the speech is attached.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jan 2014)

_The understanding that it is right to support Israel, because after generations of persecution, the Jewish people
deserve their own homeland and deserve to live safely and peacefully in that homeland.
“Let me repeat that: Canada supports Israel fundamentally because it is right to do so._

That must be the part that gets the left choking.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> _The understanding that it is right to support Israel, because after generations of persecution, the Jewish people
> deserve their own homeland and deserve to live safely and peacefully in that homeland.
> “Let me repeat that: Canada supports Israel fundamentally because it is right to do so._
> 
> That must be the part that gets the left choking.




And it is problematic because the Zionist claim to a Jewish homeland, a Jewish state in _Eretz Yisrael_ can, was, accomplished only at the expense of the *rights*, including the right to property which I claim is a fundamental right, of the people, Muslim people, who already lived there.

The Jews could and did give shape to their claim by purchase, in the first half of the 20th century, aided, often, by corrupt Ottoman officials and, later, by sympathetic Brits. The rest was accomplished in three "just," defensive, wars in 1948 and 1967 and in 1973. But the word "accomplished" is not good ... the Arabs have not acquiesced to the new _status quo_, in fact the Arabs, supported by much of the US led West, wants Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, the so-called Green Line.

Most people of even moderately good will accept that Israel needs some adjustments of the Green Line to provide a modicum of security; few, even amongst Israelis, agree with all that the Israeli _settlers_ claim. 

Prime Minister Harper's claim that we, Canadians, agree that "the Jewish people deserve their own homeland and deserve to live safely and peacefully in that homeland," is, I believe correct. He, somewhat pointedly, did not specify which borders are necessary to secure that deserved safety and peace. My guess (and I'm not any sort of expert on the Middle East) is that President Obama is asking too much, knowing he will not get it, as a way to demonstrate his good will towards the Arabs and the Iranians. I'm also guessing that Israel will "hold out," knowing that the Americans are playing a "mid term" game. My last guess is that the exiting "wall" will stay but, eventually, Israel will, fairly happily, give up most settlements, even the large ones in the West Bank. It seems to me, maybe I'm dreaming, that one of the solutions to Israel's internal Arab demographic time bomb is a successful, prosperous Palestinian state.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> UN _peacekeeping_ was, then as now, a sideshow.


   Heresy!  Obviously you haven't read Ian McKay's Warrior Nation: Rebranding Canada in an Age of Anxiety.  We _are_ peacekeepers dammit! :tempertantrum:
...although even our peacekeeping was as handmaiden to imperialist empires.


OK, I _hope_ you haven't wasted time reading this revisionist clap-trap by the Queen's Professor of "Canadian Left-Wing Movements."


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, I _hope_ you haven't wasted time reading this revisionist clap-trap by the Queen's Professor of "Canadian Left-Wing Movements."



Thank God I haven't even heard of him.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jan 2014)

There is no doubt that Palestinians lived in the area. What is interesting is the amount of Arab immigration under the British Mandate to the area, so a significant number have about as much historical rights to the land as the Jewish post war immigrants. One can argue the historical grievances but the reality is that in about 20 years there will be no one left alive that lived in a settlement taken over in the 1948 war. My reading of the history is that the Jew took the 2 state solution as better than Nada, the Arabs rejected it outright and decided that force of arms would purge the Jews from the region once and for all, they did an awful job of it and lost. Atrocities happened on both sides, funny enough the British trained Arab Armies were not part of those events and even went so far as to protect captured Israelis from local Palestinian Mobs. the problem of arguing historical rights is that there is clear evidence that the Jews were forcibly expelled from the region in roman times and remaining one persecuted by Muslim rulers who invaded the area. So where does one stop on the Historical highway? Do we give the land back to the Philistines? 
Plus to bring the issue closer to home, we all live on "stolen land" At least the Arabs-Israelis fought an open war with a clear winner and loser. Here for the most part we took the land by deceit and guile. In fact 130% of BC is claimed land.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2014)

Some peculiarities....

If Harper (or Mulroney) bends to the Americans he is toadying.

In this instance he is not bending to the Americans.  He is defying them.  

He has stepped up from the merely irritating Anti-American stance he is taking on the Keystone pipeline, declaring he won't take no for an answer.

If Trudeau (or Chretien) defied the Americans Hosannas were sung.

Since singing hosannas for Harper is impolitic then it is good that Harper is seen as toadying to the only satan greater than America.


WRT the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex

The Generals split on Iraq with Shinsecki notably declaring he needed more troops for the job before being removed from the scene.

The Generals declared against Vietnam.  MacNamara was a civilian and universally loathed by the folks in uniform.

The Generals wanted a  "go big or go home" commitment on Cuba.  The civilians delivered the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile crisis, a fifty seven year embargo and a constant threat to the US just off its shores.

Eisenhower railed against the Military-Industrial Complex,  that peculiar form of corporatism specific to the commercial barons that make their living from selling goods to the Generals and the Generals that buy them. 

That is not the same as the Pentagon in its proper sphere of expertise: Wars and winning them.

Back to the Keystone and the pollution laws - approve Keystone, enact the pollution laws.

Don't approve Keystone, with its benefits to the Canadian exchequer and we will refrain from further endangering our exchequer by enacting another punitive tax.

Quid pro something or other....


Lawrence Martin and I are seldom of a mind.


WRT the Zionist claim on land in Israel

The previous governing authority (prior to the League of Nations / United Nations) was the Ottoman empire.  Now I don't know what Ottoman laws were on holding title and working the land but I would be surprised to learn that all the farmers of the region, let alone all the other residents, were fee simple tenants.

Given that, and despite the fact that some faction or other over there, relocated a mine that detonated under the Bedford carrying my old man in 1947, I really am not bothered by the Arabs doing what they can/could to keep out the DPs.  Equally I am not bothered by the DPs doing what they can to secure themselves.  Both parties are acting in a rational manner.  

Beyond that one can only wish them luck and wave them a fond farewell.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ....  My reading of the history is that the Jew took the 2 state solution as better than Nada, the Arabs rejected it outright and decided that force of arms would purge the Jews from the region once and for all, they did an awful job of it and *lost* ....


More than once, in fact ....

I read it the same way - funny how those calling for those U.N. resolutions to be respected don't often mention this one.


----------



## Kamikaze1655 (27 Jan 2014)

This Pro-Isreali makes me sick. Hopefully It will wane when the Liberals take power, but then again I don't think it will be much different. ( I am a Palestinian)


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jan 2014)

Kamikaze1655 said:
			
		

> This Pro-Isreali makes me sick. Hopefully It will wane when the Liberals take power, but then again I don't think it will be much different. ( I am a Palestinian)


Welcome to Canada.  We'd prefer people leave their squabbles back in the 'home country.'


.....and driving without texting....oh, and shoulder-checking _before_ changing lanes; those would be nice too.


----------



## missing1 (27 Jan 2014)

:ditto:


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2014)

Kamikaze1655 said:
			
		

> This Pro-Isreali makes me sick. Hopefully It will wane when the Liberals take power, but then again I don't think it will be much different. ( I am a Palestinian)


Perhaps you would feel more at home in Nazi Germany or an anti Semetic nation.

Have YOU EVER read about WW2 and what happened to six million Jews?

Shake your head


----------



## Remius (27 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Welcome to Canada.  We'd prefer people leave their squabbles back in the 'home country.'
> 
> 
> .....and driving without texting....oh, and shoulder-checking _before_ changing lanes; those would be nice too.



And yet here we are discussing it in this very thread.


----------



## Remius (27 Jan 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Perhaps you would feel more at home in Nazi Germany or an anti Semetic nation.
> 
> Have YOU EVER read about WW2 and what happened to six million Jews?
> 
> Shake your head



Well that's the strongest use of Godwin's Law I've seen in a while.  Being opposed to Israeli policy does not make one anti-Semetic.  

Also note he's a 15 year old kid who likely needs a bit more life experience and education.  

Not agreeing with him but your response was a bit over the top.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well that's the strongest use of Godwin's Law I've seen in a while.  Being opposed to Israeli policy does not make one anti-Semetic.
> 
> Also note he's a 15 year old kid who likely needs a bit more life experience and education.
> 
> Not agreeing with him but your response was a bit over the top.



As noted in his post; he is Palestinian.  If he is 15 and so indoctrinated here in Canada, we have a problem.


----------



## Remius (27 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As noted in his post; he is Palestinian.  If he is 15 and so indoctrinated here in Canada, we have a problem.



And?  He's Palestinian.  So I would gather that he isn't too much in favour of Israeli policies.  It's not like he's the only one.  The Irish aren't too fond of the English for their policies either.  I doubt you would find too many Tibetans that are fondf of Chinese policies or Aboriginal's here in Canada that are fond of Canadian policies.

Tell me what the problem is George.  Is it because he's pro Palestinian?  Palastinian in Canada who is pro-Palestinian?  Does that make one indoctrinated?

I'm not sure I'm a fan of what I think you might be insinuating.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I'm a fan of what I think you might be insinuating.



Don't be a fan.  That is your choice.  If, however, this kid is so indoctrinated, there is a problem and sticking your head in the sand is not going to make it go away.

This is not just a problem with Palestinians and Israelis.  It is a problem with many other cultures and nationalities who have emigrated here.  There are some Croats who harbour strong prejudices and hatred towards Serbs and vis versa.  Sheiks who harbour ill will against other religions.  The examples can go on and on.  To ignore these problems does not make them go away.  Or, is that the Canada you want to live in; one of continuing hatred and violence against a segment of our society who emigrated here to escape such violence?  If you want to ignore it, again, that is your choice.


----------



## Remius (27 Jan 2014)

No George, I'd also like to live in a country where one can disagree without being called a Nazi or be labelled indoctrinated just because they disagree with your point of view.   That certainy does not make things better.

I'm betting many non-palestinians agree with him.  That doesn't make them (or him) indoctrinated.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm betting many non-palestinians agree with him.  That doesn't make them (or him) indoctrinated.



Yeah, but claiming to get sick when you hear Pro-Israel policies smacks of intolerance and just adds fuel to the fire.

There's a solution to the whole Israel/Palestine mess, but it won't be found by hurling rockets at civilians or by bombing a city block as a suspected launch site.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The Irish aren't too fond of the English for their policies either.  I doubt you would find too many Tibetans that are fondf of Chinese policies.......


Not to belabour your logical disconnect, but this isn't Ireland or Tibet, it's Canada.  Why should we be tolerant of other people importing old world hatreds?

If this kid thinks he's got a sufficient grasp of geo-politics to come here and spout his bigoted clap-trap, then he should be mature enough to deal with the responses -- let him speak for himself.  

If he can cobble together a rational explanation of why Canada's foreign policy 'makes him sick,' I'd be more than happy to listen.  I don't hold out any great hopes though; I suspect it will merely be the shallow ramblings of a 15-year old, (likely Canadian-born) living a good life in Calgary, who thinks it's cool to have a cause because he's 'been oppressed for decades, if not hundreds of years' -- without the remotest clue of the knock-on effect, on himself and others around him, of his unthinkingly spouting hatred.


There are opinions, and there are _informed_ opinions; they're not equal, and they're not entitled to equal respect.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jan 2014)

Many people have jumped in ahead of me, so my only point to the poster is that if he is living in Canada and enjoying all the benefits and privileges being in such a country brings, why self identify as being other than a Canadian? I will buy an exception if the poster is here on a student visa, or is a landed immigrant who has not yet applied for citizenship (although if that is the case, he better park those old world attitudes at the door in a hurry). Self identifying as "x" will simply colour the way we view and respond to these posts.

As an incidental, although both my wife and I are from multi national/ethnic backgrounds, we always self identify as Canadian. Personally, I see these attempts to have us "self identify" as something hyphenated is simply a means to divide us into categories for various pressure and grievance groups to push their agendas, rather than allow us to consolidate as Canadians and forge our own identity and destiny. </soapbox>


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> There are opinions, and there are _informed_ opinions; they're not equal, and they're not entitled to equal respect.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY


----------



## Remius (27 Jan 2014)

Well, Journeyman, this thread is dealing with Canada's foreign policy.  And recently about Canada's stance on Israel.  Yep, it's Canada all right.  Where we have been talking about this exact stance in the media and even here.  I guess only non-palestinian and non-Israeli types should not be left to comment since it might be interpreted as old world hatred.  Plenty of others here have voiced their opinions so I guess that's ok then.

He said he was sick of "this pro-Israeli".  That equates to him being more comfortable being in a Nazi county and is indoctrinated.  Nice.  I'm sick of Pauline Marois (this pro-seperatist) but it does not mean I'm anti french or a bigot.  

You obviously read "Death to Israel" in his statement.   (Obviously the logical disconnected conclusion).

You are right though.  He can defend himself and I'll leave him to it.  

The tone of the responses obviously got my choler up and I'll leave the dogpile for him to deal with.

I'll stay out of this one. 

Cheers.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That equates to him being more comfortable being in a Nazi county and is indoctrinated.  Nice.


Not my words.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> He said he was sick of "this pro-Israeli".  That equates to him being more comfortable being in a Nazi county and is indoctrinated.  Nice.  I'm sick of Pauline Marois (this pro-seperatist) but it does not mean I'm anti french or a bigot.



Then why did he qualify his post with"( I am a Palestinian)"?   Without that, perhaps we would not be going down this rabbit hole.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then why did he qualify his post with"( I am a Palestinian)"?



Perhaps to foment dissent and bickering, as many in the ME do on such a regular basis. Allowing educated discussion to deteriorate to a level of name calling and insult. It is a means for someone with a weak or nonexistent argument to get rid of the truth, fact and detail while railing their point.

It seems to be working well here also.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2014)

Just stating that he is a Palestinian shouldn't have opened up any rabbit holes.

I am many things.  Some of them are even acceptable in polite company.


----------



## Kamikaze1655 (27 Jan 2014)

I am not indoctrinated. I do realize that there are some wrongs commited also by my people. The only real solution is the two state solution. But Isreal is not helping with those illegal settlements  and oppresion which is  quite similar to Nazi Germany. Rather than criticizing those illegal settlements which is a barrier to the two state solution, our beloved Harper whole- heartedly supports Isreal no matter what. I also do realize that  I am only 15 and still have a lot of learning to do.


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Jan 2014)

I gave up on Israel when they killed Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener(PPCLI) in an "apparently deliberate action". Not my words, that is the UN after action report. Palestine can't be occupied forever. Israel fell in AD 70. You can't leave for 1800 years and then come back and kick out the present residents and found a theocracy. No idea how people think this is alright.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I gave up on Israel when they killed Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener(PPCLI) in an "apparently deliberate action". Not my words, that is the UN after action report. Palestine can't be occupied forever. Israel fell in AD 70. You can't leave for 1800 years and then come back and kick out the present residents and found a theocracy. No idea how people think this is alright.



But Israel can be occupied for 1800 years? Didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on Genocide....Babylonian, Roman or German.  The world is a messy place.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I gave up on Israel when they killed Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener(PPCLI) in an "apparently deliberate action". Not my words, that is the UN after action report. Palestine can't be occupied forever. Israel fell in AD 70. You can't leave for 1800 years and then come back and kick out the present residents and found a theocracy. No idea how people think this is alright.



We seem pretty comfortable in using armed force to settle and secure other borders. Syria and Iraq are totally artificial constructs carved out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire (so were Paliistine and Trans Jordan, for that matter) after the Great War, and Europeans accept the reordering of the German, French and Polish borders post 1945. Lookig at my atlas, i don't see a striped area marked as "Occupied Tibet", and there are no places on the map today called "East Pakistan" or "Tamil Eelam".

So why is only one nation among all the nations on the Earth treated differently in this (and so many other) regards? Hmmmmm.......


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2014)

My apologies for opening up this can of worms. 

I shall refrain from commenting  - I blew it as I did not fully investigate the young man's post.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2014)

In a effort to drag this thread back towards the topic I offer Margaret Wente's column on "Harper's principled politics" vs "The Jewish vote" as component of Canada's foreign policy. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-and-the-jewish-vote/article16540845/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper and the Jewish vote
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Where I think Ms Wente is 100% correct is in her assertion that both Stephen Harper and Israel make a lot of people irrational. But, from a policy perspective there has *not* been a huge shift away from, say, Mike Pearson or John Diefenbaker _circa_ 1964, fifty years ago. It is true that both Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien were a bit more pro-Palestinian in their public statements (but not so much in their actions) than were (are) Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, but, again, actions speak louder than words and Canada's actions are, as always, cautious, "even handed," and in keeping with our lack of real power and influence in the region.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jan 2014)

Kamikaze1655 said:
			
		

> The only real solution is the two state solution.


You mean sorta like the one called for by the U.N. in 1948?  I see the neighbours responded well to THAT idea.  Finders keepers, losers weepers ....


And yes, I _do_ own a Sodastream machine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2014)

Funny I have found the Conservative's foreign policy one of the more lucid and well thought  out polices then some of their domestic ones.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jan 2014)

I think Scratch that ... I know that we all have socio-political "blind spots," and we need to recognize them.

I am just reading David Schmitz' relatively new (2001) biography of Henry L Stimson, one of my political heroes. I recognize in Prof Schmitz' catalogue of Colonel Stimson's several weaknesses many of my own: a closed minded, even blind faith in the righteousness of _my_ country and its causes, a small smattering of racism ~ even though I both know better and try to dress it up as a matter of culture rather than race, another closed minded faith in the superiority of a very few, quite narrowly defined cultures over all the others, and so on. I know these colour my views on policies and politics. I see only the very best in both classical, 19th century English liberalism and 2,000 year old traditional Chinese Confucian and Doaist values, and I see the worst in the values based on sundry forms of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and whatever else.

I try, I really do, to offer what I hope is _fair and balanced_ commentary here in Army.ca even as I do recognize that my views are one-sided.

_Being_ anything, an old White, Anglo-Saxon, a young Palestinian, blue eyed or left handed, means nothing. On the other hand, being open to the notion that e.g. Britain and Canada have conducted themselves in (far) less than ideal manners, that not all our wars have been "good," or "just;" and that France, for example, _might_ not be totally incapable of a moral strategic position, are important ... but the place to start is to recognize that we are all both *a)* 'informed' by views that are irrational (especially if they are communicated by a pope or an iman or almost anyone associated with an organized religion, except a _devadasi_ temple prostitute) and *b)* loaded down, usually with realizing it, with prejudices of all sorts, inherited and acquired.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....France, for example, _might_ not be totally incapable of a moral strategic position...



Naaah.  ;D

It's the French, Sir, the French...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2014)

Culture and race are often very closely associated, actually less so in the modern west than in most parts of the world. Pretending that we are not biased is a fault that our society has. Accepting that you have biases, understanding what they are and how they colour your view, allows you to adjust the "telescope" you use when viewing other regions/races and cultures. This way you can retain your cultural bias and still get an understanding of the issues in other parts of the world. It's not like they are going to be letting go of their biases any time soon either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2014)

There's a rather lengthy essay in this week's _Time magazine_ by Suketa Mehta in which he suggests that many people ~ people like me, I think he's saying ~ use culture as a euphemism for racism.

He cites one example that is pertinent to this discussion: _"Then there is Stanford University's Thomas Sowell, who in_ Migration and Cultures: A World View_ identified six model "middleman minorities" who exemplify the entrepreneurial virtues he thinks the U.S. desperately needs. Last year he took the argument to another level, writing that there are some cultures that are just incompatible with Western values, primarily (surprise!) Muslim culture."_ Some readers will note that I have, more than once, made a similar argument. *Am I a racist?* I don't think so but you may be forgiven for thinking I am.

Mr. Mehta also says, and I agree, 100%, that:

     _"Which is not to say culture is meaningless--even if "bad culture" is a convenient way to throw blame at struggling groups, as opposed to dealing with the structural causes behind those groups' disparate outcomes.
     We all have a linguistic, religious, racial, ethnic or national culture that shapes much about us. The cultural values of a group are an important part of the answer to the question of why certain groups seem to do better,
     at particular times, than others.

     But cultural values are never the whole answer--even as we've come to privilege them over all other explanations for success and failure, such as political and economic ones. And culture is rarely either an unambiguously
     good force or an unambiguously bad one. Thus, Confucian values of education and family fealty certainly are one factor in explaining why Chinese students from low-income backgrounds do better than their peers.
     But as we've seen, that's not the whole story. Meanwhile, many in China would like to see less conformity in their culture, believing that it inhibits much of the freethinking that powers creativity and innovation in America
     and that it results in a citizenry that passively tolerates suppression of dissent and censorship of the Internet."_


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Jan 2014)

What people forget is that the only way "multiculturalism" can flourish here is that the Canadian culture remains predominate and acts as the insulator and arbitrator of cultural clashes. So you can be a Canadian Muslim, a Canadian Croatian, a Canadian catholic. but all must accept they are Canadian first and uphold that cultural imperatives as preeminent over their imported culture. So when a Canadian Muslim and a Canadian Jew disagree, the Canadian culture requires they go their separate ways and write a strongly worded letter. Anyone who has immigrated here has made a pact with the rest of us to live a life acceptable to Canadian Culture. It's somewhat more murky with people born here and technically the First Nations don't have to abide by the cultural norms on the rules above, but have to accept it's the predominate culture because it is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a generally "friendly" assessment of the Conservative government's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-harper-transformed-canadas-foreign-policy/article16626348/#dashboard/follows/


> How Harper transformed Canada’s foreign policy
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree, broadly, with John Ibbitson.

He suggests that _"The army is steadily withdrawing from Afghanistan, the Conservatives have avoided several subsequent potential quagmires, and a new defence strategy blueprint is expected to refocus the Canadian military from expeditionary adventures to national defence, with special attention paid to the Far North."_ I'm not so sure I agree; that _may_ be Prime Minister Harper's aim but but his overarching aim ~ a trade/economic agenda for Canada ~ may require Canada to join with allies to protect and advance our trade relations in the world. That's the business that Eugene Lang, coauthor (with Janice Stein) of _The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar_ (cited by Mr Ibbitson about 5:30 into the video) describes as helping allies in order to secure our markets.

I think that Prime Minister Harper wants to give defence and the military less emphasis (and less money, too!) but he will, I fear, have to use it just as soon as his budget cuts have done real damage.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jan 2014)

Defense of Canada has always been preached, but never really funded in our history. For the most part we are an expeditionary force who comes home to rest, refit and train for the next expedition, depending on our big friends to back up our nominal forces to protect the homefront.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jan 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Defense of Canada has always been preached, but never really funded in our history. For the most part we are an expeditionary force who comes home to rest,(...2...3...4... wait for it!) refit and train for the next expedition, depending on our big friends to back up our nominal forces to protect the homefront.



FTFY.

We send out expeditionary forces that we train and equip out of an operational budget set for the expedition.  The next expedition may require different equipment and tactics.

The non-operational, out of action army may train for the last war, or perhaps the war that never will be, but the engaged army has to train for the need.

Which suggests to me that basic skills, small arms, man-portable gear, comms and B vehicles (including transport ships and aircraft) are more critical to the non-operational army than A vehicles.   The appropriate A vehicles might be bought to purpose and TTPs devised accordingly.  The only thing is that a heavy force is going to take some time to put together before it can join the party.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2014)

One of the real hearts of the problem (and there are several hearts) is that we haven't sat down as a nation and debated what *we* actually want our military forces to do, or what we want our national "Grand Strategy" to be. Without that foundation, everything else becomes a sand castle, which can be easily damaged or destroyed by the winds of public opinion or the tides of financial fortunes (remember the Mulrouny Government had an ambitious White Paper that was essentially scrapped within a single year due to mounting budget pressures).

To use a historical analogy, Britain was virtually dragged into the naval arms race in the rely 1900's as Germany began building a "High Seas Fleet" of battleships. The government of the day had actually voted not to build any battleships, but rising public opinion and the fact that the Navy was actually designed around the principle of being larger and more powerful than the next two largest fleets combined forced the government's hand; new ships were laid down. We on the other hand have no overriding principle to govern how our forces are organized or funded, what size is "correct" or what role they should play, so even very modest programs like buying boots or transport trucks can become derailed, with potentially horrific results down the road.

Once we have the debate on the need and role of the Armed Forces, then we can decide which of the many threats we should be oriented against, what the Order of Battle should look like and what resources we will need to carry out the mission(s) selected for us. An ad hock arrangement like Kirkhill suggests is exactly what we are doing right now, but how does that prepare us to confront Chinese Unrestricted Warfare in Asia, Russian adventurism in the "Near Abroad", trans national terrorism, Islamic radicalism at home or abroad, the scramble for resources in our far north, containing the new 30 years war in then Middle East, Mexican instability driven by narcotics gangs etc? Any of these threats _might_ be a danger to Canada of Canadian interests, but most will require specialized skill and tool sets to successfully deal with, which may require far too much time and resources to gain and integrate to deal with a crisis.

On an even more conceptual level, what are we preparing to fight? Naval war to keep the SLOC open for Canadian and Western trade? Fighting COIN or 4GW to ensure stability in regions we deem important? Conventional mid to high intensity war? SoF missions (and defending against enemy SoF operators)?

Until these issues are actually addressed, we will essentially be blundering from crisis to crisis, and hoping that the adaptability, skill and valour of our service members will be enough to carry us through.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One of the real hearts of the problem (and there are several hearts) is that we haven't sat down as a nation and debated what *we* actually want our military forces to do.....


....nor are we likely to.....ever.  And that's reaffirmed by your British battleship analogy.

Canada's geopolitical world has two overarching 'realities':
1) we are at arms' length from pretty much every crisis out there (yes, there is a subset of people bringing their homeland problems here, but by and large they're minimal)
2) because of US security concerns, we are under an American security umbrella -- regardless of whether we or they are happy about it; any direct threat to Canada can expect a US response.

Primarily because of those reasons (yes, there's also unthinking anti-Americanism, tree-hugging gone rampant, varying views on security policy), Canadians have had the luxury of not having to care about security/defence policy.  The overwhelming number of Canadians never think about what they want the military to "do."  The majority of that minority who actually _are_ vocal about our military utility are likely tied to the 'glorious peacekeeper' mythology -- regardless if it was true, or if present circumstances allow for its continuance

The CAF will continue to train in peer-on-peer conventional warfighting, confident that this allows us to scale back to 'lesser' COIN/peacekeeping roles. Neither Canadian citizens nor our politicians will give us very much thought -- veterans' issues and expensive equipment purchases will dominate the news -- but we will be expected to step up to the plate whenever the decision is made to 'send us in.'  _That_...is what we do.

So all that to say, I don't expect any significant changes to the military/foreign policy nexus, regardless of who is sitting on the right side of the House of Commons.


----------



## Container (2 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> On an even more conceptual level, what are we preparing to fight? Naval war to keep the SLOC open for Canadian and Western trade? Fighting COIN or 4GW to ensure stability in regions we deem important? Conventional mid to high intensity war? SoF missions (and defending against enemy SoF operators)?
> 
> Until these issues are actually addressed, we will essentially be blundering from crisis to crisis, and hoping that the adaptability, skill and valour of our service members will be enough to carry us through.



In my recent conversations with senior leaders, more listening I should expand, the conversation is pretty much over. Afghanistan is done, we re back to the backbone of soldier skills. The skills we concentrated on prior to Afghanistan. The idea being we ll "spin up" to whatever we re called to next- and we ll be able to provide as long as our basics are strong.

This of course is concentrating on skills that were on the back burner in some respects during both my careers with the forces. I can't speak to the wisdom, but I have been shown what the future looks like- and it's conventional warfare apparently.

It's could be possible that I m being fed just one side of the fight. But they all seem pretty concluded. Of course I'm junior and don't know much outside of own tiny lane currently so it's possible I misunderstand


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2014)

Container and Journeyman,

You are both correct (and I am well aware that the "new look" is indeed conventional "near peer" force on force combat), so I probably should have emphasized that my questions were somewhat rhetorical, the die is already cast.

The problem is the die has been cast without really considering what is happening out there, so when "our little army in the field" marches out again I am pretty confident that we will _not_ be facing a "near peer" competitor, but will be confronted with something we are neither trained or equipped to deal with. Even the idea of fighting a near peer competitor is a bit much, we have little in the way of modern anti air, ATGM or EW/cyberwar capability, and only a small handful of modern artillery and armoured systems to take on a "near peer" who most certainly has air power, a fleet of armoured vehicles and an artillery park. Add aggressive use of PSYOPS and media to take the battle right to the TV screens, smartphones and monitors of Canadian citizens and it is quite apparent we are going to have a very difficult time with near peers, unconventional opponents and threats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ are two articles, both by John Ibbitson, about Justin Trudeau's thoughst on foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeaus-foreign-policy-is-rooted-in-nostalgia/article18772651/#dashboard/follows/


> Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy is rooted in nostalgia
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



----- AND -----​
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-cant-ignore-domestic-concerns-in-foreign-policy/article18792207/#dashboard/follows/


> Justin Trudeau can’t ignore domestic concerns in foreign policy
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Two important points:

     1. The world has changed. Foreign Policy has changed with it. Baby blue beret type (Pearsonian) peacekeeping was Canada's policy choice for one and only one reason: it supported the West in the Cold war.
         It had *nothing[/i]*, _nada_, Sweet Fanny Adams to do with being "helpful fixers," it was initially, designed to help the Brits avoid being punished by an outraged President Dwight Eisenhower over
         the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1957. A very deep _slit_ in the West was a distinct possibility because of British arrogance and French greed and the combined stupidity of both governments.
         Our next Canadian led UN intervention was in Congo, just a year later, and its aim was to foil a Russian attempt to move into Central Africa - we never gave a damn about bringing 'peace' to Congo, just about
         keeping the Russians out ... and so it went, mission after mission: support the West, keep the USSR from gaining in the Third World. That's why we did it.

     2. The diasporas who shape Canadian policy - the domestic part of the equation - has also changed.

M. Trudeau needs to think more and talk less and he needs to start thinking fast.


----------



## Journeyman (22 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What does Mr. Trudeau think of all this? We got a pretty good answer to that question when he met the editorial board of Salam Toronto, an Iranian-Canadian newspaper, a few weeks ago


A front and centre source for clearly laying out his 'policy thinking' to Canadians.  :not-again:


I'm not sure if it speaks worse for Trudeau or for Canadian voters that playing "Where's Waldo" with bedrock political issues is considered the best bet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A front and centre source for clearly laying out his 'policy thinking' to Canadians.  :not-again:
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if it speaks worse for Trudeau or for Canadian voters that playing "Where's Waldo" with bedrock political issues is considered the best bet.




I sat through the whole half hour of his interview. It was painful; M. Trudeau is, to be charitable, _shallow_.  :


----------



## ModlrMike (23 May 2014)

I believe "out of his depth in a car park puddle" is the appropriate descriptor.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I sat through the whole half hour of his interview. It was painful; M. Trudeau is, to be charitable, _shallow_.  :



Yes but how was his hair and how can you resist those eyes.....  :boke:


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2014)

Three things caught my eye ...

The first is a fairly stinging, and somewhat accurate, critique of Canada's new, Conservative foreign policy which is reproduced her under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harpers-heroic-ukraine-message-does-not-reflect-reality/article18959539/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper’s heroic Ukraine message does not reflect reality
> 
> ROLAND PARIS
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




There are several points where I agree with prof Paris' analysis:

     1. Canada is, as the saying goes, "all hat and no cattle" when it comes to sharing the West's defence burden. Our defence spending is only half what our national self respect should *demand*;

     2. Our stance on Ukraine is mostly aimed at a domestic political audience - so is much, too much, of our foreign policy; and

     3. Our _diplomacy_ is weak, *BUT* this is not because Prime Minister Harper dislikes diplomacy. It is because our foreign affairs staff is weak.

The weakness in our foreign ministry is not Prime Minister Harper's fault. It goes all the way back to _circa_ 1970s when Pierre Trudeau set out, consciously, to remake then then Department of External Affairs into something acceptable to him ... and what was there, the foreign service of Hume Wrong, Lester Pearson, Norman Robertson and Arnold Heeney was everything Trudeau seemed to despise: Oxford educated Canadian _Anglos_, committed _internationalists_, personal friends of many American and British public servants and accustomed to working with them in the corridors of power, often shutting out elected people. DFAIT, as it is now, has never recovered from the 1970s. Harper mistrusts it, as did Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney because they (the foreign service staff) were, and still are, ineffective, not because they were Liberal partisans or full of _conservative_ ideas.

There are some, a few, _principles_ to our foreign policy but they are not always evident. The Conservatives want to emphasize trade and commerce but they have important constituencies that oppose free trade.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2014)

The other two items are also from the _Globe and Mail_:

     1. The first is a report on the latest variation of "Buy American" which will do damge to Canada's interests; and

     2. The second is a commentary on an old/new idea from Prof Nouriel Roubini.

I agree with Prof Roubini and Michael Babad's commentary. That, not _Keystone XL_, is why Prime Minister Harper is so impatient with president Obama: Obama is bought and paid for by the protectionists, led by Sen Harry Reid. Please listen to Michael Babad, it's only 2 minutes but he's spot on.


Edit to add:

Here is a link to the piece by Prof Roubini which I find both persuasive and frightening.

_Caveat lector_: I don't like populists; I didn't like the old, old CCF, I didn't like John Diefenbaker or Preston Manning. I may not have though much of Mike Pearson's politics but I thought he was closer to the Canadian political centre, the holy grail, than was 'Dief the Chief.' Maybe some will call me an _elitist_, maybe I am: I don't like the idea of recalling elected officials or of electing judges and i don't like putting _social_ or cultural judgments in front of coherent policies.

The one policy principle to which Prime Minister Harper has tried to adhere is: trade, freer trade, global free trade.

But there is a large wing of the Conservative Party of Canada that is _populist_, _protectionist_ and _racist_. They are an imitation of, although they may have preceded, one wing of the US _Tea Party_ movement. They have too big a voice in Canadian foreign policy.

Sadly the Liberals, the only viable choice for an alternative to the CPC, the only useful 'government in waiting' are worse on too many policy fronts - including trade, defence and foreign affairs, as far as we can see from what little M. Trudeau has said about anything.


----------



## CougarKing (9 Jun 2014)

Our PM Harper was actually described as the role model for the new Aussie PM Tony Abbott, according to the CBC National on Abbott's arrival in Ottawa today. The same report also mentioned how former Australian PM John Howard was in turn the role model for Harper when he was the leader of the opposition.

Toronto Star



> *Australian PM Tony Abbott on first visit to Canada*
> 
> Tony Abbott and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper may be far apart geographically, but ideologically they’re practically joined at the hip.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jun 2014)

Perhaps this has something to do with the Philippines being one of the larger contributors of immigrants and temporary foreign workers to Canada in recent years?

Please note the other countries highlighted below chosen as "countries of focus" for Canada's global aid program.

Interaksyon (Philippine News site)



> *Canada picks Philippines as a 'Country of Focus' for its global aid program*
> By: Pots de Leon, InterAksyon.com
> June 29, 2014 12:08 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2014)

See the second edit here, please or here for an opinion piece about Prime Minister Harper's foreign policy judgment, with which, I'm sure, Paul Heinbecker _et al_ will disagree.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2014)

I think John Ibbitson is being a tad optimistic in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Ac when he suggests that the Liberals hove, somehow, cozied up to the Conservative foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/little-daylight-between-harper-and-trudeaus-foreign-policy/article19722084/#dashboard/follows/


> Little daylight between Harper and Trudeau’s foreign policy
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




It's no secret, I hope, that I support Prime Minister Harper's foreign policy, for the most part, more than I support most CPC policies.

I agree with John Ibbitson that M. Trudeau, himself, has taken positions that are not too far away from Prime Minister Harper's, but that's a long way from suggesting that the Liberal platform will be in any way _responsible_ on foreign policy issues. The Liberals have not had a coherent foreign policy since Lester Pearson brought M. Trudeau's father into the government about 50 years ago. Even when there was a strong leader (e.g. Prime Ministers Trudeau and Chrétien) there were deep divisions within the party and, now and again (see e.g. Mitchell Sharp and John Manley), open revolts in cabinet.


*----------*

Edit to add:

And the _Ottawa Citizen_ suggests that Thomas Mulcair is shifting the NDP's policy away from knee-jerk support for the Palestinians towards a more _balanced_ view. Some NDP supporters will find this change to the "party line" hard to swallow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jul 2014)

This story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, illustrates another aspect of the Harper/Baird foreign policy approach:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/conservatives-opt-for-twitter-diplomacy-in-the-gaza-conflict/article19735604/#dashboard/follows/


> Conservatives opt for Twitter diplomacy in the Gaza conflict
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




A few points:

     Notwithstanding the views of e.g. the _Laurentian elites_ Ms. Bercovici is "in line with Canadian government policy" and she is representing the established foreign policy of Canada - that's what ambassadors do, isn't it?

     Why resort to _Twitter_? This is, I think, a John Baird innovation; he wants diplomats abroad to 'represent' the government to Canadians at home; and

     There is a touch of Goebbels in all this. He famously said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it;" I'm certainly not suggesting that diplomats are lying but the idea is that they can repeat an
     unpopular view so often that, eventually, some people will change their minds.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2014)

This 'column,' which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Ac from the _Globe and Mail_, could have gone in any number of threads but I think it belongs here as a statement of Canada's foreign policy values:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/our-duty-is-to-stand-firm-in-the-face-of-russian-aggression/article19767742/?click=sf_globe#dashboard/alerts


> Our duty is to stand firm in the face of Russian aggression
> 
> STEPHEN HARPER
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I trust that, by now, Army.ca members know that I am a Conservative Party of Canada member and supporter and that I, especially, support Canada's current, *Conservative*, foreign policy.

With specific regard to Russia, Mr Harper says, and I agree that, "Russia under President Vladimir Putin has demonstrated that it does not share the values of this community of nations, dedicated as we are to democracy, international security, and the rule of law."

On a broader front, with regard to Israel, for example, I agree that "there is no denying their _[Hamas]_ intent to continue waging a war on behalf of a regime that remains in violation of international law," and so "the values and principles we cherish as Canadians" require us o support Israel even as we mourn the unfortunate deaths of civilians.

I wish Canadian policy required us, in all our dealings, including with e.g. China, to give "careful consideration of _[our actions']_ potential impact on Canadian business interests abroad and at home;" instead the government listens to a small but vocal minority of racist, _socially conservative_ Sinophobes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2014)

More on Canadian (Conservative) foreign policy in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/what-is-harpers-real-interest-in-mongolia/article19800168/#dashboard/follows/


> What is Harper’s ‘real interest’ in Mongolia?
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I think Campbell Clark is right when he says, "Mr. Harper long ago turned from strident China critic to pragmatic trader with a rising economic power, but he still views its global influence darkly."

It should come as no surprise that I think Prime Minister Harper is wrong. I think that making China into an enemy would be a colossal _strategic_ blunder, but I also think it is a very popular _notion_ in a slice of the _conservative_ "movement." I do *not* think China is or is going to be our 'friend,' but it ought not to be our enemy. Russia was (and may be again) and enemy because it had aggressive designs on its region and, possibly, the whole world. (My, personal, assessment is that China wants to be the regional power in _Sinic Asia_ but it is seeking _respect_ rather than dominance. It wants, for example, US troops off the Asian mainland, but it does not object to a (strong) US Navy 'footprint' in Asia; that's power projection and China understands that the USA *a)* has _global_ power, and *b)* can and even should project it; China has similar ambitions, at least into the Western and South Pacific and the Indian Ocean.) I see China as a _competitor_ in the marketplaces of commerce and ideas: not a friend, but not an enemy, either.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2014)

I have no way of knowing if their there is a defined policy with respect to Asia in general or China and Russia in particular.

However, if I were a resource rich, population poor country like Canada I might be inclined to seek out similar countries, with similar interests and build alliances.

Also if I were concerned about sparks between Russia and China, as they compete for influence and resources, I might be inclined to contemplate assisting in the creation of a fire guard, or cut line, between them of independent trading states.

Canada can't defend its resources against a grasping US.  Fortunately the US doesn't raid. It trades.  It seems to me it is in Canada's interests, and the interests of the Stans, as well, ultimately as the interest of China and Russia, to establish a similar, mutually beneficial and symbiotic relationship.

Tibet and Xinjiang are not good models for China.  Nor are Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia good models for Russia.

An arc of independent buffer states, committed to peaceful trade, north of the Himalayas, linking Japan and South Korea to Poland and the Baltic would seem to me to the basis for a defensible foreign policy.

Is it not possible for Canada to make "friends" with countries like Mongolia and Ukraine, to demonstrate solidarity, and still maintain good relations with Russia and China?   I believe it is, Vlad notwithstanding.  

Edit - spelling error  :-[


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2014)

While a trade "cutline" across central Asia is a brilliant strategic idea, the reality is our political class thinks and moves tactically in order to keep voters happy, and most voters become concerned about the issues about a month after the election.

I doubt many voters could even point to any of these places on a map, so trying to explain why places like Mongolia or Ukraine are important to Canada from a trade, diplomacy or security perspective will be quite...challenging....


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While a trade "cutline" across central Asia is a brilliant strategic idea, the reality is our political class thinks and moves tactically in order to keep voters happy, and most voters become concerned about the issues about a month after the election.
> 
> I doubt many voters could even point to any of these places on a map, so trying to explain why places like Mongolia or Ukraine are important to Canada from a trade, diplomacy or security perspective will be quite...challenging....



Perhaps that would explain a deafening silence on policy?  It might also suggest that the absence of a stated policy is not the same as the absence of a policy.  The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office is notorious for its adherence to its own internal policies regardless of the current talking points.  And based on some informed commentary on this site by others I might suggest that Canada suffers/suffered from its own version of the same malady.

Taken together with Kim Campbell's observation about elections being a poor time to discuss policy, and the current wisdom that prescribes a perpetual election - policy will never be publicly discussed.

Look at Obama and the LPC.  Policies tomorrow, policies on Monday, but never policies today.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2014)

With apologies to GB Shaw and Rex Harrison: Why can't Canadians be more like Australians?

http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/

White Paper 2000, 2009, 2013 and now a Defense Issues Paper 2014 for public consultation prior to a new Defence White Paper 2015.

Radical questions being asked:



> Key questions and issues
> • Is the risk of conventional military conflict growing?
> • Does Australia face any immediate military risks?
> • What can Australia do to contribute to strengthening peace and
> ...





> Key questions and issues
> • What are the primary roles for the ADF?
> • Where should the ADF be expected to be able to operate, and in
> what circumstances?
> ...





> Key questions and issues
> • What Defence capabilities should the Government invest in now
> and for the long term?
> • What enabling capabilities are critical to support ADF operations
> ...





> Key questions and issues
> • Which industrial capabilities are vital for the ability of the ADF to field
> forces and must be located in Australia?
> • What are the consequences for Australian industry of international
> ...





> Key questions and issues
> • Is the priority allocated to Defence adequately explained to the
> Australian community?
> • How can the Australian community contribute to the development
> ...



Also up for debate - The US Australia Alliance

And finally - a clear, succinct statement of existing capabilities and resources to guide the discussion. 

The budget is clearly delineated as Capital, Operating and Personnel in a media friendly format.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Nov 2014)

Hangzhou, for those unaware, is not that far from Shanghai, which means that DFAIT/DFATD personnel at the Consulate General of Canada in Shanghai will have been busy for at least a couple of weeks to a month preparing for this PM visit.

CBC



> *PM Harper arrives in China hoping to increase exports*
> 
> Canadian delegation, including business representatives, lands in Hangzhou
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (7 Nov 2014)

If I can recall correctly from last night's report about the PM visit to China, the CBC seems to emphasize that a rift has grown in Harper's cabinet. It's between those who want Canada to be more vocal about human rights abuses to China, such as Jason Kenney, (who was recently photographed with the Dalai Lama), and those who want to continue pursuing trade with Beijing in spite of those abuses.

And that's all aside from the highly publicized story of that Canadian couple detained in China because they were suspected of espionage. 

Canadian Press



> *Harper talks trade with Chinese official linked to religious persecution*
> 
> HANGZHOU, China - Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed business ties on Friday with a Chinese official accused of ordering the widespread demolition of Christian churches in his province.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2014)

Sometimes you have to make the least worst choice. Trade with China is worth billions of dollars and will improve the lives of millions of Canadians, as well as millions of Chinese workers. To know and articulate your principles is one thing, to make a firm stand where it will only hurt vast numbers of people without making much of a practical difference in achieving these goals is another.

Long term, the Canadian pursuit of trade agreements around the world, such as with the EU and entering the TPP will give Canada some more leverage (we can still improve the lives of millions of Canadians without Chinese trade, so cutting or reducing ties is less liable to result in us shooting ourselves in the foot), but we have not reached that point yet.


----------



## CougarKing (8 Nov 2014)

And the PM still brings up the case of the Garrat couple while simultaneously signing multiple trade deals:

Reuters



> *Canada signs China trade deals, raises case of two detained Canadians*
> 
> By Andrea Hopkins and Megha Rajagopalan
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (12 Nov 2014)

From the APEC summit in China then back to Canada then on to the G-20 summit...seems CF-One is seeing a busy week:

Edmonton Sun



> *Stephen Harper heads to New Zealand, Australia*
> 
> OTTAWA - Fresh off a week of trade talks in China, Prime Minister Stephen Harper heads to the other side of the world again for visit to New Zealand and the annual summit of G20 leaders in Brisbane, Australia.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Nov 2014)

I hope you mean Canforce Two. I would hope Canforce One is reserved for our Head of State, who is not the PM but the Queen or her rep., the GG.

Otherwise, I think it would be an indication of the PM's delusional state of mind (thinking he runs the country  )


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Nov 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I hope you mean Canforce Two. I would hope Canforce One is reserved for our Head of State, who is not the PM but the Queen or her rep., the GG.
> 
> Otherwise, I think it would be an indication of the PM's delusional state of mind (thinking he runs the country  )



Not sure that's a particularly fair comment.

Ref: GPH-204A Flight Planning (page 62)

Royal 1 (or Rideau 1) would be for H.R.H. (or G.G.).  Canforce 1 is indeed the PM.

Regards
G2G


----------



## CougarKing (10 Mar 2015)

Ottawa's need to to balance Canada's interests in China with our belief in respect for human rights (both in Hong Kong and other parts of China) continues...

Reuters



> *Canada lawmakers hear Hong Kong democracy activist over China's objections*
> 
> By Randall Palmer
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2015)

I have said, many times, that the most important single element of Canadian foreign policy, the only overwhelmingly important element is our relationship with the USA.

Like it or not - and many, many Canadians don't - the USA _*is*_ our best friend; most trusted ally; the guarantor of our sovereignty and security; biggest trading partner; and the source of most of our socio-cultural attitudes. 

Canadians invest, directly, almost as much in the USA ($(CA)352 Billion) as the Americans, ten times our size, do in Canada ($(CA)360 Billion). (Source: Foreign Affairs,Trade and Development Canada.)

We are, in other words, inextricably linked and, as someone else said, playing on Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase, "there is no alternative," we are TINA2 (TINA Squared), we are "Trapped In North America," and, "There Is No Alternative."

But relations don't need to be good to be close as this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, explains:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-ottawa-left-us-ambassador-bruce-heyman-out-in-the-cold/article23514669/


> How Ottawa left U.S. Ambassador Bruce Heyman out in the cold
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




But there is one thing that Prime Minister Harper can do _*to*_ President Obama: Canada can, publicly, _*back out*_ of the F-35 programme. The programme is politically unpopular - merits don't matter, the _commentariat_ have made it nearly toxic. It would be good 2015 election politics ... reopen the project to look for the 'best'* fighter jet for Canada. It would take the issue off the political table and allow Prime Minister Harper to do what he likes to do: take the advice of a small team of very high level bureaucrats.

I don't know if there is another 'good'* choice; politically it probably doesn't matter if we end up giving the RCAF a 'less than best'* or just 'good enough'* airplane.

_____
* Best and good are very, very relative and, in politics, elastic terms


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Mar 2015)

> And things could get worse: Mr. Obama might make his final Keystone decision, and say no.



He already has. The minute it landed on his desk as he said he would do. The Senate Democrats stood with their "leader".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/04/obamas-keystone-veto-will-stand-after-senate-vote-fails/

*Obama’s Keystone veto will stand after Senate vote fails*



> The Senate failed to override President Obama's veto of a bill (24 Feb 15) authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, severely dimming prospects for its approval in the next two years.



I don't think cancelling the F-35 commitment will bother Obama at all. It may constrain defense of North America and US/Canada/Allies interoperability. Many other purchasers. Our 65 aircraft purchase is not that significant.

In other developments in the US under President Obama who wants a legacy deal with Iran:

http://www.newsweek.com/iran-and-hezbollah-omitted-us-terror-threat-list-amid-nuclear-talks-314073
*
U.S. Omits Iran and Hezbollah From Terror Threat List

*


> An annual security assessment presented to the U.S. Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, has excluded Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah from its list of terror threats to U.S. interests, despite both being consistently included as threats in previous years.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Apr 2015)

"Plausibly ordinary" ?  :

Yahoo Canada News



> *The dwindling power of the Canadian passport*
> By Andrew McKay | Yahoo Canada News – Thu, 16 Apr, 2015
> 
> It’s probably no surprise that when it comes to universal access, the US and UK passports are the best in the world. But you might be shocked to find out Canada’s passport isn’t as powerful as you might have thought.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Apr 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> "Plausibly ordinary" ?  :


Canadians:  the world's grey men/women  ;D


----------



## CougarKing (2 May 2015)

Mulcair gonna complain "Harper's hiding something about the Iraq mission" again in 3...2...1...  :

Reuters



> *Canada PM arrives in Iraq on surprise visit*
> 
> BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper arrived in Iraq on Saturday for a surprise visit expected to include a meeting with Canadian soldiers advising Iraqi troops fighting Islamic State militants.
> 
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Mulcair gonna complain "Harper's hiding something about the Iraq mission" again in 3...2...1...  :
> 
> Reuters



So far, nothing from Mulcair, but the Glop and Pail has an article:

 Harper defends Kurdish fighters during surprise Iraq visit


----------

