• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is some worry in the Liberal/Laurentian Elites anti-Harper camps about these events forcing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to back-peddle on his promises to make Canada, once again the peaceable, peace loving and peacekeeping country some dream it was, including, even, that staunch critic of Prime Minister Harper Terry Milewski who wrote this, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CBC News, for the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277
logo-cbc-news.png

Trudeau and ISIS: Is the bombing still a bad idea?
After Paris, prime minister ponders his pledge to end the air war on Islamic State

Terry Milewski · Politics

14 November 2015


On Thursday, eight days after Justin Trudeau took office, two CF-18 fighters with laser-guided bombs screamed above the desert city of Sinjar, in northern Iraq.

Below lay a crucial artery for the so-called Islamic State: Highway 47, the main east-west route between ISIS headquarters in Raqqah, Syria, and the ISIS-held city of Mosul, Iraq.

On the ground, Kurdish forces were mounting an assault on the ISIS garrison at Sinjar in a bid to cut its supply line. The Canadian pilots' task was to take out an obstacle to the Kurdish advance: an Islamic State unit dug in to the east of Sinjar at Tal Afar. A second target was an ISIS ammunition store close to Sinjar itself.

Both targets were hit. The counteroffensive worked. With the aid of the Canadian, as well as U.S., pilots, plus Canadian special forces trainers on the ground, the Kurdish forces drove ISIS out of Sinjar. It was hailed as a "liberation" by the remaining Yazidi community, who had been massacred and enslaved by the Islamic State.

But... what happened to Justin Trudeau's pledge to bring the CF-18s home and end their participation in the war on ISIS? And will that pledge survive the massacre in Paris?

1,700 sorties, and still flying

Canada's six warplanes, with an airborne Polaris tanker and two Aurora surveillance planes, arrived at a base in Kuwait just over a year ago, on Oct. 30, 2014. Since then, their contribution to the coalition has been modest but certainly not insignificant.

As of Wednesday — Remembrance Day — Canadian planes had flown 1,731 sorties, according to the Department of National Defence. Of those, 1,109 were combat missions by CF-18 fighters, although they take a cautious approach to releasing their bombs and return without dropping them about two-thirds of the time.

In addition, the C-150 Polaris tanker flew 302 sorties, pouring nearly 8,160 tonnes of jet fuel into coalition aircraft. The two Auroras conducted a further 320 reconnaissance missions, gathering intelligence on ISIS movements.

So they've been busy. Their mission was laid out by the Conservative government in a resolution authorizing it in October 2014. "Unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow," it said, using an alternate acronym for ISIS.

Since then, has the threat diminished? The bloodbath in Paris says no.

An easy solution?

Upon his departure from Canada for the G20 summit in Turkey, Justin Trudeau ducked the question of whether he would reconsider his plan to bring the CF-18s home.

"It's too soon to jump to any conclusions," he told reporters at the Ottawa airport.

Previously, though, he has struggled to explain just why he opposed the bombing mission. In an interview on CBC's Power and Politics on June 23, he said the Harper government had failed "miserably" to show why it was the right mission for Canada. Instead, he preferred to enhance humanitarian efforts and to beef up the training mission by Canadian special forces in Iraq.

Trudeau was asked, ​"If you don't want to bomb a group as ghastly as ISIS, when would you ever support real military action as opposed to just training?"

Trudeau dismissed the question.

"That's a nonsensical question and you know that very well," he said. "The Liberal Party has always — and I have always — been supportive of Canada standing up for its values and taking action when necessary."

Trudeau went on, "The question I have for this government, which has failed miserably to do this, is to demonstrate why the best mission for Canada is to participate in a bombing mission."

He also noted that Western military intervention often doesn't end well. "Whether it's Libya or whether it's Iraq, it doesn't necessarily contribute to the kind of outcomes that people would responsibly like to see, and what I've committed to stay away from is the kind of easy solutions in a very complex area that this [Conservative] government has specialized in."

Less than five months later, what now? Is the bombing still just an "easy solution"? Asked repeatedly when the CF-18s will come home, Trudeau has sidestepped the question, saying he will withdraw them sometime, but "responsibly" and in consultation with Canada's allies. He never says when.

Does that mean Trudeau will break his promise? Not necessarily.

Oddly enough, he could keep it by sticking with Stephen Harper's plan. As it stands, the deployment ordered by the Conservative government extends to the end of March 2016. Trudeau, then, could honour his pledge by simply saying they will come home after that.

And after Paris, who will complain that it's not soon enough?

Not packing yet

Canada's pilots, and 600 supporting troops based in Kuwait, sure don't sound like they're packing up. The mission "continues for the time being under the mandate previously directed by government," says a statement by National Defence spokesman Capt. Kirk Sullivan.

The Armed Forces, Sullivan goes on, "stand ready to implement government of Canada direction when it comes and will liaise with coalition partners to investigate options and transition our military operations in the region."

So we're not going to leave our allies in the lurch. We're integrated into a coalition and we're not going to bail out suddenly.

"We are part of an alliance," the statement concludes, "and we will want to ensure this is done in a co-ordinated manner."

Bugging out — or stepping up?

But it's hard to imagine that the alliance, under U.S. leadership, will scale back its assault on ISIS in the wake of the Paris massacre.

Already, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House intelligence committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, has told the New York Times that, "If this doesn't create in the world a fierce determination to rid ourselves of this scourge, I don't know what will."

Nor does it seem that ISIS is in retreat after the defeat at Sinjar. Rather, it's going global, bragging that worse is to come.

"This attack is the first of the storm," said an Islamic State statement hailing the Paris horror, "and a warning to those who wish to learn. Allahu Akbar!"

Trudeau, then, has an out. Withdrawing the planes now won't look good. But, for at least another four months, he can keep them flying — and still keep a promise that now seems like a liability.

And in March? A lot can change by then.

So the hope ~ and, yes, boys and girls, hope is a viable COA for political analysts ~ is that those "events" will only pressure the prime minister to see this "roto" of the mission through, for a few more months, and that other "events" will occur that will give him reasons to return to the days of yore, from ...

Canadian.jpg
 
PeacekeepingMonument.jpg

                                                          This                                                                                          to                                                            this
                    Which has been a staple of Canadian foreign policy                                              which is what Canadians imagine their foreign policy might have been
                          since Jean Chrétien was prime minister
 
But, Bill Curry, writing in the Globe and Mail, says, quite categorically that: "The deadly terror attacks in Paris will not lead Canada to change course on its two main policies in relation to Syria: welcoming 25,000 refugees this year and ending Canada’s bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria." He quotes a "senior official" from the PMO as saying that "the government stands by its refugee plan and its position on the role Canada should play in the Syrian conflict."
 
E.R. Campbell said:
He quotes a "senior official" from the PMO as saying that "the government stands by its refugee plan and its position on the role Canada should play in the Syrian conflict."
But that's what PMO's will say until The Boss decides otherwise - wait & see ....
 
milnews.ca said:
But that's what PMO's will say until The Boss decides otherwise - wait & see ....


Yes, but as I said elsewhere:

    The promise was and remains politically important: it's about hope and change ... the reason so many people voted for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; but

    Keeping the promise could unleash a political disaster ~ a terrorist admitted under the programme sets off a bomb in Montreal, killing Canadians ~ which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government cannot hope to survive.

If I had to guess, at this very moment, I would suspect that he might (can I be any less indefinite?) delay the refugee thing (maybe for quite a long time, hoping that the fickle public will forget the promise) and blame the security services but, still, pull the CF-18s out when this "roto" is finished.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
If I had to guess, at this very moment, I would suspect that he might (can I be any less indefinite?) delay the refugee thing (maybe for quite a long time, hoping that the fickle public will forget the promise) and blame the security services but, still, pull the CF-18s out when this "roto" is finished.
And for maxiumum "we're not walking away effect," have plans firmly in place (and shared w/the public) about cranking up the training part of the mission against ISIS, also as promised:
.... We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces ....
Meanwhile, David Akin has this from on the road w/PMJT:
We’d love to ask him that but 2nd day in a row: Trudeau not talking to travelling press here.
New boss, same as the old boss(es), when it's convenient?
 
milnews.ca said:
And for maxiumum "we're not walking away effect," have plans firmly in place (and shared w/the public) about cranking up the training part of the mission against ISIS, also as promised:


Yes, it is politically possible to put "boots on the ground" in a low risk situation and still claim to be part of the allied coalition. My guess is that the Canadian media and public would like that solution: training and winter coats and food for refugees.
 
So, here he is at the G-20 meeting in Turkey:

CT2084mWIAADCv4.jpg:large


This G20 summit is "totally overshadowed by events in Paris, immediate security concerns and the fight against terrorism."

But, Katie Telford, the prime minister's chief of staff tweets:

    Katie Telford ‏@telfordk  42m42 minutes ago
    Proud to see @JustinTrudeau argue that climate change is a serious economic issue. #G20 #realchange cc @katepurchase
.
.
.
.
:sarcasm:
I'm just soooooo proud that Justin Trudeau is my prime minister.  :cdnsalute: 
 
E.R. Campbell said:
So, here he is at the G-20 meeting in Turkey:

CT2084mWIAADCv4.jpg:large


This G20 summit is "totally overshadowed by events in Paris, immediate security concerns and the fight against terrorism."

But, Katie Telford, the prime minister's chief of staff tweets:

    Katie Telford ‏@telfordk  42m42 minutes ago
    Proud to see @JustinTrudeau argue that climate change is a serious economic issue. #G20 #realchange cc @katepurchase
.
.
.
.
:sarcasm:
I'm just soooooo proud that Justin Trudeau is my prime minister.  :cdnsalute:

I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.

Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.

Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was experiencing the sweet joys of cognitive dissonance right now, i.e. the world isn't measuring up to his lofty ideals and expectations, and climate change isn't what's preoccupying folks.  I do hope the Canadian electorate are proud of their PM.  ::)
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.

Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.


I think I might understand the politics of it ...

The Paris attacks came just as prime Minister Trudeau was about to leave for Turkey; the G20 speech was written. His immediate remarks were drafted, very, very quickly by his staff ~ they were OK, not bad, sympathetic but non-committal.

On the airplane some staffers, maybe the prime minister himself, said "What now? Do we need to reboot our policies? Should we keep bombing IS** in Syria? Should we really take 25,000 refugees?"

Gerald Butts (my guess) said something like: "Everyone sit down and take a deep breath. We don't know what's going on ... yet. Lee Hsien Loong* and David Cameron* don't really matter; they don't vote, but Lyin' Brian Mulroney was right, you know: in politics "ya dance with the fella what brung ya." In our case, the "fellas what brung us" to power don't want to hear about bombing ~ they don't like bombs nor do they like the people who drop bombs. They do like to hear about climate change and they want us to say and do things about climate change ... that matters, not Syria or Paris. We need to stay the course on getting out of the bombing business ... maybe we need to stay there for a bit longer, but sometime after Christmas we need to bring the CF-18s home. Refugees? I don't know. I've head the security briefs given to the prime minister; it may be prudent to slow the process a bit. Our base will not like it but we can blame the security services ... we're being forced to err on the side of caution, and all that. But, for now: we press on as we planned, as we promised ~ we do not commit to any new military adventures; we can offer some aid and lots and lots of words but we don't want to actually have to do anything ... yet. Remember after 9/11? Canadians demanded that we do something, and we, Liberals, did ~ we sent troops to Afghanistan and in just a few months Canadians were disillusioned with that mission. They wanted out. Our first step is to not commit to going in ... then our second step is get what we already have 'in' out again. Global warming is good; war is bad ... keep telling yourselves that because it is what will get us re-elected. Who knows? Maybe by Christmas El Niño will be causing havoc in all sorts of places and Canadians will think we were really prescient here."

_____

ap_278192844758.jpg

* Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore is at the right end (other end from Prime Minister Trudeau) of the second row; UK Prime Minister David Cameron is 3rd from the left in the middle row.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks.
Let's not rule out a case of this ....
Finger-to-the-Wind_Mbugua-Njihia.jpg
 
I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will. After all he had had a pretty good (wild understatement) three or four months and then all at once, virtually as he was getting into the limo to go to the airport, three major terrorist attacks in Paris. Any one of them would have hijacked the news cycle and demanded a major part of his attention attention for the next several days, but three!!

I'm speculating here, but he and his inner circle just got a short, sharp seminar on major crisis management. One can only hope they do better next time, and also apply some sober second thought to their response.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I think I might understand the politics of it ...

The Paris attacks came just as prime Minister Trudeau was about to leave for Turkey; the G20 speech was written. His immediate remarks were drafted, very, very quickly by his staff ~ they were OK, not bad, sympathetic but non-committal.

On the airplane some staffers, maybe the prime minister himself, said "What now? Do we need to reboot our policies? Should we keep bombing IS** in Syria? Should we really take 25,000 refugees?"

Gerald Butts (my guess) said something like: "Everyone sit down and take a deep breath. We don't know what's going on ... yet. Lee Hsien Loong* and David Cameron* don't really matter; they don't vote, but Lyin' Brian Mulroney was right, you know: in politics "ya dance with the fella what brung ya." In our case, the "fellas what brung us" to power don't want to hear about bombing ~ they don't like bombs nor do they like the people who drop bombs. They do like to hear about climate change and they want us to say and do things about climate change ... that matters, not Syria or Paris. We need to stay the course on getting out of the bombing business ... maybe we need to stay there for a bit longer, but sometime after Christmas we need to bring the CF-18s home. Refugees? I don't know. I've head the security briefs given to the prime minister; it may be prudent to slow the process a bit. Our base will not like it but we can blame the security services ... we're being forced to err on the side of caution, and all that. But, for now: we press on as we planned, as we promised ~ we do not commit to any new military adventures; we can offer some aid and lots and lots of words but we don't want to actually have to do anything ... yet. Remember after 9/11? Canadians demanded that we do something, and we, Liberals, did ~ we sent troops to Afghanistan and in just a few months Canadians were disillusioned with that mission. They wanted out. Our first step is to not commit to going in ... then our second step is get what we already have 'in' out again. Global warming is good; war is bad ... keep telling yourselves that because it is what will get us re-elected. Who knows? Maybe by Christmas El Niño will be causing havoc in all sorts of places and Canadians will think we were really prescient here."

...


It appears that I have guessed wrong. Bill Curry, reporting for the Globe and Mail from the G20 summit says:

    "Mr. Trudeau stood by the target at a leaders summit where the official agenda has been sidelined by the Paris attacks.

      “On the Syrian refugee crisis and the refugee crisis writ large, I’m pleased to say that Canada has tremendous examples of having integrated people fleeing for their lives from very difficult situations to become not only citizens but
      active contributors to Canada’s success,” Mr. Trudeau declared Sunday morning in response to an audience question following a speech to business leaders on the sidelines of the summit.

      “We will be accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees between now and January 1st and investing and ensuring that we will be empowering and integrating them into success and the paths for success that people around the world are hoping to see,” he said.

    Mr. Trudeau’s speech largely focused on his election campaign promises to boost economic growth through infrastructure spending, which he said fits with the international priorities of the G20."
 
"An argument for Mr. Trudeau sticking to his pledges is that is that by a larger engagement against IS Canada becomes a higher priority target for its terror."

IOW, feed the crocodile, lest he eat us first.
 
Old Sweat said:
I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will. After all he had had a pretty good (wild understatement) three or four months and then all at once, virtually as he was getting into the limo to go to the airport, three major terrorist attacks in Paris. Any one of them would have hijacked the news cycle and demanded a major part of his attention attention for the next several days, but three!!

I'm speculating here, but he and his inner circle just got a short, sharp seminar on major crisis management. One can only hope they do better next time, and also apply some sober second thought to their response.


Campbell Clark, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, suggests that the foreign policy path just got "darker" and "more tangled" for our "rookie PM" and his team:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/paris-violence-makes-path-darker-more-tangled-for-the-rookie-pm/article27267325/
gam-masthead.png

Paris violence makes path darker, more tangled for rookie PM

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 16, 2015

Justin Trudeau wasn’t sure Friday night if the Paris terror attacks would change his policies. “It’s too soon to jump to any conclusions,” he said. By Saturday, aides said the attacks won’t alter plans to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees or to withdraw from air strikes on Islamic State. On Sunday, at the G20 summit in Turkey, Mr. Trudeau avoided reporters, except for one shouted query.

It was, in mere hours after chilling events, an understandable reaction. It really was too soon to draw conclusions. On Monday, a new prime minister is still coming to grips with how much his world has changed in the hours since Paris.

Suddenly there’s a different test for this untested PM. Most leaders start out of their depth on foreign affairs – Stephen Harper was at first; so was Mr. Trudeau’s father, Pierre. It was almost unfair that Justin Trudeau had to begin, as a green PM, with a string of major global summits. Now, less than two weeks on the job, add a crisis that underlines a real security threat and sparks emotional reaction, that carries big risks abroad and at home, and offers many ways to go wrong.

Until now, every step his young Liberal government has taken, every signal, has been about a change in direction. Many Canadians were embracing those clear symbols. Now, rushed by harsh reality, Mr. Trudeau’s government must mix messages, too.

Think of how allies like France’s President Francois Hollande, who declared war on Islamic State, will speak to a Canadian PM who plans to withdraw from air strikes. That’s no minor matter when a close NATO ally feels under attack, and the world is moved to solidarity. Mr. Trudeau will this week meet U.S. President Barack Obama, leader of that coalition. His G20 host, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, wants to establish a secure corridor in Syria. Mr. Trudeau seems to be traveling in the opposite direction.

Politically, Mr. Trudeau cannot easily turn back on high-profile positions he took in the election campaign he just won. A leader who calls an about-face in a crisis just weeks into office is sure to spread the view his positions were ill-conceived in the first place. No wonder Liberals say plans to withdraw from air strikes and resettle refugees will go ahead. But it will be more complex now.

Mr. Trudeau’s stance on air strikes was opposition positioning, a way to show voters that he was not as gung-ho about war as Mr. Harper. He never could explain it – he favoured sending troops to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces, but not six CF-18s to bomb.

His consolation now is there’s room for interpretation. He could wait months, even until the current mission mandate ends in March, before calling the jets home. He could withdraw with one hand while committing to fighting Islamic State with another, beefing up ground-force training and military support. That might placate allies – Mr. Harper launched a training mission in Afghanistan when he withdrew combat troops.

The plan to bring in 25,000 refugees by year’s end is a more potent symbol of change. The Liberals wanted to exhibit new compassion. They planned to make a virtue of the ambitious target despite suggestions it was logistically impossible. If they failed, they figured they’d get A for effort; if they succeeded, they’d show they had will that Mr. Harper’s government lacked.

But that will be questioned anew. Reports that one Paris attacker had registered as a refugee in Greece have raised new qualms about ISIS infiltrators. Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose quickly questioned the deadline: “Canadians are asking the question, ‘Can we do it this quickly in a secure way?’” she said Saturday.

The Liberals can note it would be cruel to punish Syrian refugees who fled Islamic State because of the Paris attacks. They can note that leaving kids who fled the Assad regime to grow up in camps won’t lessen extremism. On Sunday, Public Works Minister Ralph Goodale pointed out it’s easier to conduct security checks on families selected for resettlement than on migrants arriving on your shores, as in Greece. But he conceded nothing’s foolproof. Last week, the question was whether Mr. Trudeau’s team could meet its political deadline; now the question is whether it should.

Mr. Trudeau can’t just rely on the platform of change now. He had nine sunny days, and then a crisis changed the job.


I agree with Campbell Clark that it will be painfully difficult, practically impossible, to turn away from popular campaign promises so early in the mandate.

I also agree with many Conservative critics that those popular positions were ill-considered, even unconsidered: being designed, off the cuff, only to take progressive votes away from the NDP. But those opportunistic campaign promises worked, and now 40+% of Canadians expect Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to follow through. Let's be clear, most Canadians neither know nor care about bombing campaigns; even some members here, in a military forum, have expressed the view that our, Canadian, bombing was ineffective and will not be missed. Why should we have expected Candidate Trudeau and advisors Gerlad Butts and Katie Telford to have known differently. But, the fact is that he did promise, and a great many, arguably most Canadians want or expect him to keep his promises.

For the moment I am inclined to give Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all the possible benefits of all my many doubts; he's a smart guy with smart advisors; he now has access to expert advice which was unavailable to him prior to 4 Nov 15; I hope he and his whole team will find politically acceptable ways to square the new circle which "events" have just redrawn.
 
I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will.

Someone, anyone, needs to teach the silver pony proper diction and speachmaking.......

Standing up to the microphone like a breathless debutant, er ing and ah ing all through his speech makes him seem like a 13 year old asking for a date....it may be endearing to some of his supporters, but it does not come across as mature for a country's leader.....
 
David Akin, of Sun Media, reports, from Turkey that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."

He writes that:

    "China has welcomed Justin Trudeau into the international family of world leaders like a long-lost son.

      Trudeau and Xi Jinping, China’s president, met Monday morning on the margins of the G20 Summit being held here.

      Xi started off by saying China was grateful for what Pierre Trudeau did in 1970, when Canada became one of the first countries in the West to officially recognize the Communist government in mainland China.

      “That was an extraordinary political vision," Xi told Pierre’s son. "China will always remember that.”

      Xi’s extraordinarily warm greeting to Justin Trudeau, coming less than two weeks after he’d been sworn into the job, is in sharp contrast to Stephen Harper, who had to wait more than three years for a nice word from a Chinese president."



Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.
 
ERC, I tend to agree with Campbell Clark also, but personally, I think he missed one mark: Yes, most leaders are out of their depth in Foreign Affairs at first. But Trudeau senior never got out of this depth in my estimation.

And, I am very afraid Trudeau junior will be worse. He may have been a drama teacher, but he obviously can't act. When I saw him on TV from Ottawa just before flying out, I was dismayed: He looked  like he was smiling, happy to be in front on camera and his whole attitude seemed to be: Look I am going on this nice trip and this little Paris thing is not going to sour my mood.

Then I thought, OK, he got caught off guard - that happens -But no, he had that same look when we saw him in Ankara. Every other world leader look somber, even downcast, but here he was looking like a kid in a candy store, and being the only person there still peddling his "infrastructure for the world" economic development plan (which people who briefed him at Foreign Affairs before the trip must have told him did not interest the world, and that he should stick with what DFAIT developed for any PM in advance of this meeting).
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.

The first thing they'll insist on is probably for Canada to  stop bringing their human rights record up at every opportunity their was.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
David Akin, of Sun Media, reports, from Turkey that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."

He writes that:

    "China has welcomed Justin Trudeau into the international family of world leaders like a long-lost son.

      Trudeau and Xi Jinping, China’s president, met Monday morning on the margins of the G20 Summit being held here.

      Xi started off by saying China was grateful for what Pierre Trudeau did in 1970, when Canada became one of the first countries in the West to officially recognize the Communist government in mainland China.

      “That was an extraordinary political vision," Xi told Pierre’s son. "China will always remember that.”

      Xi’s extraordinarily warm greeting to Justin Trudeau, coming less than two weeks after he’d been sworn into the job, is in sharp contrast to Stephen Harper, who had to wait more than three years for a nice word from a Chinese president."



Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.

China reaching out is a tremendous opportunity for Canada.  But the question of what they want is one we (the royal we) need to assess and understand before launching off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top