# Acting Nice for Politics Sake (HMCS Calgary in Brunei)



## Lumber (28 Mar 2021)

HMCS Calgary just arrived un Brunei for a port visit, and their ship's Facebook page posted about 30 pictures with the captions: "HMCS Calgary just arrived in Brunei! We’re so honoured to be welcomed here. Onward!" (colour mine)

Does anyone else see an issue with this? That we're saying we are "honoured" to be welcomed into a country where it is illegal to be gay, so much so that (despite a moratorium on the practice), the punishment for homosexuality is death? How can we be "honoured" to be welcomed somewhere who's values run so counter to our own?


----------



## Kilted (28 Mar 2021)

I think that that is pretty much standard procedure. It's not up to the military to make political based decisions about which ports to make Facebook posts about.


----------



## Lumber (28 Mar 2021)

Kilted said:


> I think that that is pretty much standard procedure. It's not up to the military to make political based decisions about which ports to make Facebook posts about.


It's not so much about having a post at all, it's about what's in the post.


----------



## Weinie (28 Mar 2021)

Lumber said:


> It's not so much about having a post at all, it's about what's in the post.


Noted.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Mar 2021)

Lumber said:


> HMCS Calgary just arrived un Brunei for a port visit, and their ship's Facebook page posted about 30 pictures with the captions: "HMCS Calgary just arrived in Brunei! We’re so honoured to be welcomed here. Onward!" (colour mine)
> 
> Does anyone else see an issue with this? That we're saying we are "honoured" to be welcomed into a country where it is illegal to be gay, so much so that (despite a moratorium on the practice), the punishment for homosexuality is death? How can we be "honoured" to be welcomed somewhere who's values run so counter to our own?



If we applied those type of ethical criteria to where our ships were allowed to go they'd wind up condemned to doing circuits around Vancouver Island... avoiding places like Salt Spring Island of course


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Mar 2021)

Perhaps you're confusing "politics" (as per the topic title) and "diplomacy".  The military shouldn't get mixed up in politics (_how a state, theirs or another, decides to run its own affairs or how they will interact with another state_) but the military, unless in foreign territory without the permission or desire of that foreign power (i.e. there to break things), should always be aware that they must practise good diplomacy (_the activities that an agent of a state engages in with foreign entities on behalf of their state_).


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2021)

I'm with Blackadder1916. Diplomacy is very, Very, VERY much part of the CF's mission and no one can do it better than the RCN.

I can tell you, with 99% certainty, that an international deal that had a value in the tens, likely hundreds of billions, over the years, was 'sealed and delivered' (for eventual signature) by one of our warships after what my Navy friends called a 'banyan' in which officials from an important country that was in the process of derailing an agreement were entertained on the flight deck (after a quite in-depth tour of the most technical bits of the ship) and went home persuaded that we were good people with whom to do business and with whom to make a good, honest, mutually beneficial deal. 

Saying we are "honoured" to visit is just polite; it's good, diplomatic language. And we are, formally, allied with some nations that are far less _honourable_ than is Brunei. Being honest in expressing our feelings about countries that are not our enemies is not the CF's job.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Mar 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> I'm with Blackadder1916. Diplomacy is very, Very, VERY much part of the CF's mission and no one can do it better than the RCN.
> 
> I can tell you, with 99% certainty, that an international deal that had a value in the tens, likely hundreds of billions, over the years, was 'sealed and delivered' (for eventual signature) by one of our warships after what my Navy friends called a 'banyan' in which officials from an important country that was in the process of derailing an agreement were entertained on the flight deck (after a quite in-depth tour of the most technical bits of the ship) and went home persuaded that we were good people with whom to do business and with whom to make a good, honest, mutually beneficial deal.
> 
> Saying we are "honoured" to visit is just polite; it's good, diplomatic language. And we are, formally, allied with some nations that are far less _honourable_ than is Brunei. Being honest in expressing our feelings about countries that are not our enemies is not the CF's job.


Similarly, have been at a diplomatic event hosted by the ship while alongside Cairo; we were specifically there to represent Canada and NATO at a period where both China and Russia were heavily courting Egypt.

This was around when they were taking delivery of the Mistrals and were looking at a frigate design. No idea if that visit helped, but it didn't hurt anything and they subsequently ordered some more FREMM variants.

Think a lot of countries play both sides of the fence there, but in any case we were explicitly there for no reason other than to show NATO presence and host this diplomatic event onboard the ship (on the flightdeck). We followed that on with a short exercise to practice boarding operations that involved the Egyptians and some other NATO countries, which was also specifically to build relationships.

It was generally a good experience, and I think everyone that wanted to got to go to the pyramids while we were there, and did other interesting things like tour their repair facility and see the small patrol boats they design and build themselves.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2021)

> Does anyone else see an issue with this?



Nope.  Diplomatic function being fulfilled.  Ask the politicians and foreign affairs types to explain themselves: why did they permit (or required) the port visit?


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Nope.  Diplomatic function being fulfilled.  Ask the politicians and foreign affairs types to explain themselves: why did they permit (or required) the port visit?



And the Sultan of Brunei, a Sandhurst graduate who employs his own Gurkha battalion, is a big supporters of the West in general, which is rare in that (largely Indonesian influenced) part of the world. 

Canada also has a fair bit of bilateral trade going on if this website is to be believed:

Canada's trade relationship with Brunei includes commerce across a number of sectors. For example, Canadian firms are working in aerospace and simulation training, information and communication technologies and in the growing halal pharma industry. Brunei also continues to be a potential market for Canadian companies in the following sectors: oil and gas, clean technologies, agriculture and agri-food, defence and security and education. Canada’s merchandise exports to Brunei in 2018 amounted to $6.5 million, consisting mostly of machinery and mechanical appliances and vegetable products. In 2018, merchandise imports from Brunei to Canada totaled $7.5million, consisting mostly of essential oils, perfumery and cosmetics.






						Canada and Brunei Darussalam
					






					www.canadainternational.gc.ca


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Mar 2021)

Heck, Canada has sold nuclear technology to worse behaved nations than Brunei.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Mar 2021)

Navies and diplomacy, both the gun barrel and wine barrel type have long been bedfellows.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Heck, Canada has sold nuclear technology to worse behaved nations than Brunei.


The Israelis aren‘t thanking us much for that, either


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> The Israelis aren‘t thanking us much for that, either


Didn’t know they had interests in the Kashmir.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Mar 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Didn’t know they had interests in the Kashmir.



Well, Iran collaborates with China on reactor technology, and we sold CANDU to China (and India, Pakistan and and Russi... FFS), so I assume there'd be some kind of 'technology bleed over'.









						Iran Prepares To Revive Arak Nuclear Reactor, With Chinese Help Or Alone
					

In potential violation of the JCPOA, Iran will cold-test the redesigned Arak nuclear reactor in preparation for its full commissioning later in the year.




					iranintl.com


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Mar 2021)

Pak-Ind proved we’re equal-opportunity proliferators. 😉


----------



## LittleBlackDevil (29 Mar 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Nope.  Diplomatic function being fulfilled.  Ask the politicians and foreign affairs types to explain themselves: why did they permit (or required) the port visit?


This.

Pretty sure RCN ships don't just randomly stop at whatever port they feel like, whenever they feel like it. Arrangements were made at higher levels. Question is for the politicians and foreign-affairs people, not the sailors who were just following orders and exercising very basic manners/diplomacy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2021)

Lumber said:


> HMCS Calgary just arrived un Brunei for a port visit, and their ship's Facebook page posted about 30 pictures with the captions: "HMCS Calgary just arrived in Brunei! We’re so honoured to be welcomed here. Onward!" (colour mine)
> 
> Does anyone else see an issue with this? That we're saying we are "honoured" to be welcomed into a country where it is illegal to be gay, so much so that (despite a moratorium on the practice), the punishment for homosexuality is death? How can we be "honoured" to be welcomed somewhere who's values run so counter to our own?



Pretty interesting topic.

Yes this is more hypothetical but I can easily see sailors posting complaints about this on Social Media. 

We're giving troops voices. Giving them the illusion of renaming ranks. Telling them to email the admiral directly if they have a problem with the orders (paraphrasing). We're telling troops their opinions are super important, so of course they're going to voice them.

Is a gay sailor going to be honoured to work with a country who persecutes or executes gay citizens? Probably not.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Mar 2021)

"Silence in the ranks!"

"You will speak when you are spoken to!"

It seems to me that a port call is every bit as much a "parade" as "Divisions".   And as to social media.... are service people allowed to self-identify as service people on social media when offering opinions?


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty interesting topic.
> 
> Yes this is more hypothetical but I can easily see sailors posting complaints about this on Social Media.
> 
> ...



Professional soldiers/sailors/ air peeps go where they're told and do a great job regardless of personal opinions.

Something else I struggled with during my years in uniform


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Mar 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> Pretty interesting topic.
> 
> Yes this is more hypothetical but I can easily see sailors posting complaints about this on Social Media.
> 
> ...


Writing his MP about what Canada does and with whom and their displeasure about it, is a valid approach, if they frame it as "As a gay Canadian, I am disappointed that Canada has such contacts with X who discriminates against people like me".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Mar 2021)

I can assure you the Regime that controls Brunei doesn't give two hoots about what we think. They are very rich and don't need us.  A visit to Brunei isn't about our disdain for their laws and making it about that, while admirable, is also incredibly naive and foolish.

This is about economics, trade and China.  Brunei is a signatory of CATPP but they are being pulled in multiple directions and have options.  If we don't approach them, someone else will.

China is making massive investments in to Brunei, they just built a $14 billion dollar petrochemical plant in Brunei and have pledged to help Brunei diversify away from Oil.  A Brunei that is our ally, is still better than a Brunei under the grip of China.


----------



## Lumber (30 Mar 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can assure you the Regime that controls Brunei doesn't give two hoots about what we think. They are very rich and don't need us.  A visit to Brunei isn't about our disdain for their laws and making it about that, while admirable, is also incredibly naive and foolish.
> 
> This is about economics, trade and China.  Brunei is a signatory of CATPP but they are being pulled in multiple directions and have options.  If we don't approach them, someone else will.
> 
> China is making massive investments in to Brunei, they just built a $14 billion dollar petrochemical plant in Brunei and have pledged to help Brunei diversify away from Oil.  A Brunei that is our ally, is still better than a Brunei under the grip of China.


I get diplomacy guys, I'm just curious to ask LGBTQ members of the crew currently aboard CAL if they really felt "honoured" to be visiting Brunei.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Mar 2021)

Lumber said:


> I get diplomacy guys, I'm just curious to ask LGBTQ members of the crew currently aboard CAL if they really felt "honoured" to be visiting Brunei.


I don't think they felt honoured at all, in fact, I know they didn't.  Put it this way though:

Brunei was nice enough to let us come alongside, give us a bunch of really high quality gasoline, land our garbage, take on critical supplies and even did some exercising with our Navy.  They didn't need to do any of that and we would be SOL as we don't exactly have many real friends in that part of the World.  

It should also be noted that Brunei possesses a dual legal system with part of it being based on British common-law and the other being based on Sharia law.  There is presently a moratorium on Sharia penal code and no one in Brunei has had the laws used against them.  If you read in to Bruneian politics, many believe the Sultan brought the laws in to effect to shore up his support and deflect away of some of the excesses committed by members of his family, specifically, his brother Prince Jefri, who is a legal hand grenade.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Mar 2021)

Lumber said:


> I get diplomacy guys, I'm just curious to ask LGBTQ members of the crew currently aboard CAL if they really felt "honoured" to be visiting Brunei.



... or Alabama etc Supreme Court decision aside, some states are better – and some are worse – for LGBTQ community


----------



## CBH99 (30 Mar 2021)

While governments talk to each other, court each other, and look for reasons to invest economically in each other's countries -- we also have to remember that good diplomacy isn't just about 'formal, nice gestures' between governments and their representatives.

The message of "We're honoured to be welcomed here" is just as important to be extended to the people of the country, and not just the government in power.  While I doubt many folks in Brunei are following the RCN twitter feed, it does help foster a good image and good relations with the average citizen also.  

0.02


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Mar 2021)

Canadian have to realize there are places in the world where we do not share common beliefs.  But that does not mean we cannot be friendly.  

If we want to be players on the world stage that means remembering that our internal policies should be left internal and when conducting foreign diplomatic missions diplomacy trumps internal policy.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (31 Mar 2021)

We spent over a decade drinking tea and shaking hands with Afghan warlords who sell us down the river to the Taliban. No one batted an eye to their stance on LGBTQ2+ rights or the other atrocities they committed. 

We needed to win them over before someone else did.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 May 2021)

Meanwhile HMCS Calgary's crew is still doing positive things like saving sea turtles!








						HMCS Calgary / NCSM Calgary
					

HMCS Calgary / NCSM Calgary. 5,927 likes · 10 talking about this. Welcome to HMCS CALGARY's Official Facebook page / Bienvenue sur la page Facebook officielle du NCSM CALGARY




					www.facebook.com


----------



## OldSolduer (9 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Canadian have to realize there are places in the world where we do not share common beliefs.  But that does not mean we cannot be friendly.
> 
> If we want to be players on the world stage that means remembering that our internal policies should be left internal and when conducting foreign diplomatic missions diplomacy trumps internal policy.


It’s also practical. Great assessment.


----------



## Weinie (9 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Canadian have to realize there are places in the world where we do not share common beliefs.  But that does not mean we cannot be friendly.
> 
> If we want to be players on the world stage that means remembering that our internal policies should be left internal and when conducting foreign diplomatic missions diplomacy trumps internal policy.


Beliefs, cultures, and ideologies all blend, from a global perspective. I agree with your approach where differences are minor.

But in a world where peace and prosperity are broadly regulated by a rules based international order, sometimes you can't be friendly. Neville Chamberlain tried.

The USSR wasn't interested in being friendly during the Cold War.

I submit that apartheid in South Africa had to be vehemently opposed (and Canada was a leader in this effort), along with attempting to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.

Those who ensured Afghan boys had sore bums weekly were not deserving of our friendship, only our contempt.

And the Uighurs in China would likely also disagree with  a friendly for diplomacies sake approach.

There are myriad other examples. China, for one, seems to be placing itself on a collision course by placing self-interest and a misguided read of history and their economic clout as their approach to diplomacy. It is garnering significant pushback.

So I would say, friendly where it makes sense, fair where logical, and firmness/force where necessary.

.02


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 May 2021)

Weinie said:


> So I would say, friendly where it makes sense, fair where logical, and firmness/force where necessary.
> 
> .02



"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow." 

Lord Palmerston


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow."
> 
> Lord Palmerston



Britain's greatest Prime Minister, next to Pitt the Elder


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 May 2021)

Weinie said:


> Beliefs, cultures, and ideologies all blend, from a global perspective. I agree with your approach where differences are minor.
> 
> But in a world where peace and prosperity are broadly regulated by a rules based international order, sometimes you can't be friendly. Neville Chamberlain tried.
> 
> ...


You make it seem as though we are always the good guys. Reality is our own actions are flawed as well, but the moral indignation we provide other countries with isn't applied with the same vigour locally.

WWII was just a continuation of 18th and 19th century politics just in the 20th century where the 'powers' of the era wanted to protect their hold well preventing others from growing theirs. 

The USA wasn't too interested in being friendly during the cold war as well, almost dragging the world into nuclear war to retain a tactical advantage (Cuban missile crisis) despite having nukes similar distances away from the USSR (Turkey). 

Canada and the USA weren't much better than apartheid was in South Africa. Until the 60s the USA was segregated and treated their black citizens terribly. Canada treated our Natives terribly until very recently, having been committing genocide on them for the last couple hundred years. 

Our modern moral stance is one based off a continually changing ideal set which we were guilty of much that we push against until very recently. Gay rights, equal treatment under law, not committing genocide, etc. are all things that we within the last 20-30 years have decided is wrong and shouldn't be done. 

Not saying we shouldn't take a stand internationally, but that our attempts to be the upright morally correct global citizen are somewhat lacking credibility when you look at our history.


----------



## Weinie (10 May 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> You make it seem as though we are always the good guys. Reality is our own actions are flawed as well, but the moral indignation we provide other countries with isn't applied with the same vigour locally.
> 
> WWII was just a continuation of 18th and 19th century politics just in the 20th century where the 'powers' of the era wanted to protect their hold well preventing others from growing theirs.
> 
> ...


Perhaps, but when I look at things, I assert that we have been, and continue to be, more on the moral side of the line than some other countries. Not looking to get into a past wrongs debate, although Canada has apologized repeatedly for those that they inflicted, and have provided reparations, and learned from many of them, including legislation. and the U.S. is currently undergoing an introspection of how they treat BPOC. I am not sure that you can say that about many of the countries, or their practices, that I currently have some degree of disdain for. Moral relativity, especially when applied on an historical basis, is a fallacious argument.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 May 2021)

Oh, so we're a 9 rather than a perfect 10.  Darn.


----------

