Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

[Brad Sallows]

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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.

Its disdain for the UN in general, and some of its programs — we are the only country in the world to pull out of a UN convention that combats drought in Africa — and the sudden severing of ties with Iran has been noted globally and this week, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird bluntly stated the country has better things to do than seek a seat on the UN Security Council, the seat denied to them in 2010.

It has rolled CIDA into the foreign affairs department, aligning our trade and foreign policy with our aid objectives.

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]

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]

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.

About three dozen placard-waving foreign service workers marched in front of the famed Capitol Hill building in an "information picket" aimed at shining the spotlight on stalled negotiations between the federal government and the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers.

The union has been in a legal strike position since talks with the Treasury Board broke down a month ago. The workers say they are underpaid compared to other public servants with similar qualifications and experience.

The 1,350 union members have already taken part in work-to-rule campaigns that have included refusing to work overtime or to respond to work-related emails after hours.

Though hitting the bricks might go against the discreet, generally well-behaved nature of diplomats, the picket was necessary to highlight significant wage gaps that have been "festering" for years, said union president Tim Edwards.

"We're coming here simply because the U.S. is Canada's most important trading partner and ally, this is our largest mission abroad, and this is one of our largest complements of foreign service officers abroad," Edwards said.

"This was a logical place to raise the profile of our issues abroad, which is equal pay for equal work."

A week ago, foreign service workers in Ottawa held similar pickets at Foreign Affairs headquarters. Edwards said there may be information pickets at other foreign embassies in the weeks to come if negotiations remain at a stalemate.

At Friday's picket, the diplomats were impeccably dressed — both men and women, including some aides to Ambassador Gary Doer, walked the line in conservative business suits. But that could change: the union is asking diplomats to start a "creative dress" campaign, including wearing sweatpants to work.

"I'd go there," said one picketing worker who asked not to be identified.

Other diplomats in D.C. have been responding to the "creative dress" dictum by wearing lapel buttons to raise awareness about their cause.

"That has the advantage of prompting contacts to ask us what they're about, and then we can explain about the job action," said an embassy employee.

The picketing diplomats received an unintended bit of moral support Friday from a busload of high-school students from Cambridge, Ont., who were exploring the outdoor echo chamber at the embassy.

As the workers made their way down the embassy's front steps to begin their job action, the students simultaneously — and coincidentally — began singing "O Canada."

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]

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

May 7, 2013

In 1968, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau created the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).  The mission of CIDA is to lead Canada’s international effort to help people living in poverty. The mandate was to use resources to increase Canada’s voice in the world and to help countries meet their development objectives.

CIDA’s gender equality framework is a model to the world. CIDA has funded organizations like Desjardins International which exports cooperative assistance and contests the current neoliberal shareholder model. I have learned from my many years in the field that complex issues like poverty and inequality takes investments and growth alone does not resolve socially embedded issues.

Because CIDA’s focus was to fund alternative ways to humanize our world it had meaning for many Canadians and in particular for first and second generation Canadians. And yet we should, perhaps, have seen writing on the wall that change from social justice and humanitarian work to a commercial model of development was coming under the Conservatives.

Their gradual shift away from Africa to middle-income countries, for example, was striking. With the release of the 2013 Federal budget, Minister Jim Flaherty announced that CIDA’s activities will now be under Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), a ministry focused on political relations and trade. The new department will be called Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFTD).

Prime Minister Harper’s adding the “D” for “development” is gimmicky, and it is unclear whether this new agency will support alternative models from the third sector. The third sector is made up of an array of organizations such as non-profits, cooperatives, self-help groups, microfinance institutions, women’s associations, faith-based organizations and advocacy organizations looking at business and social issues in new ways. Now that CIDA is submerged into DFAIT, it is doubtful that CIDA will retain its autonomy as the missions of the two agencies are fundamentally different. In other words, DFAIT’s core areas of interest are diplomacy, politics and trade.  Poverty alleviation is a distant second. Maurice Strong, the first President of CIDA, publicly lamented the loss of an agency whose mandate centred on poverty alleviation for 45 years.

Yet the folding of CIDA into DFAIT, surprisingly, has not generated much public debate. The Harper government has cast CIDA as an ineffective aid agency unable to carry out its mandate, and has argued that DFAIT is a more effective way of channelling funds. The decision of the Harper government to abolish CIDA by effectively folding it into DFAIT is arguably less a cost saving measure than it is a political move. We need to ask, what purpose does this new change serve?

CIDA ministers Bev Oda and Julian Fantino have both misused their power as ministers. Harper’s appointment of two Ministers – Oda and Fantino–not knowledgeable about international development was part of a Conservative plan.

A few examples: As many recall, Minister Oda raised a few eyebrows when she revoked funding from faith-based Kairos through a non-transparent process (e.g. the infamous “not” scrawled on the funding form).  Ms Oda also shamed herself by staying at London’s posh Savoy Hotel at $665 a night and being chauffeured around town. She clearly misused tax-payers money and by using resources from an agency committed to reducing poverty. This behaviour was appalling and she apologized for it only after getting caught.

Upon taking up his new post, the new CIDA minister Julian Fantino spent $25k on a lavish meeting with CIDA staffers. Other issues with executives and appointees using CIDA as a slush fund have been uncovered. Despite the fact that all of these wrong-doings were perpetrated by Conservative ministers and their appointees based in Ottawa, it is CIDA and its partners in the field who have been blamed for their lack of accountability.  It is not the NGOs or the professional staffers who have wasted resources but Mr Harper’s own appointees.

My question is this: Why not make reforms to CIDA? Folding CIDA into DFAIT has serious consequences for poor countries that depend on CIDA-type programming. To terminate Canada’s only state agency that cares about humanity, in arenas of inequality and social injustice says something about the kind of politics we have seen under Prime Minister Harper’s mandate. The current model of DFAIT is market fundamentalism that reinforces exclusion and inequality.  And, the fact that DFAIT subscribes to this neoliberal model means that it favours certain types of organizations. A focus on income alone cannot cure the world of its problems.

Ireland’s Bono, a rock star fighting for humanitarian causes, has repeatedly said at concerts that the world needs more Canada. I would agree that political manoeuvring and commerce alone cannot build relationships with the world but international co-operation can. CIDA’s role was one that piloted social innovations in dozens of countries in their struggles for democracy and social justice. As an Assistant Professor in Business and Society and someone who has worked inside development for fifteen years in more than 30 countries, the Conservatives decision to merge CIDA into DFAIT is questionable to me from a professional perspective.

If this is Canada’s approach to world issues under Mr Harper’s government, corporate models over poverty alleviation and humanitarianism, then this is not the same country my family first settled in because Canada has always cared about the developing world. I would also bet millions of Canadians who are connected to their homelands are also concerned about this political move.

Dr. Caroline Shenaz Hossein is an Assistant Professor of Business and Society in the Department of Social Sciences at York University.

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]

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

Published Wednesday, May. 08 2013

The Harper government is pushing hard to secure a trade deal with the European Union before the Commons adjourns in June, an achievement the Conservatives sorely need to demonstrate they can ink ambitious accords that reduce Canada’s reliance on the United States.

Ottawa is in a race against the clock now that the European Union is turning its attention to a separate accord with the United States – a development that threatens to overshadow EU negotiations with Canada.

Chief Canadian negotiator Steve Verheul has been in talks with his EU counterparts in Brussels since Monday and discussions are expected to continue through Wednesday. Canada hopes to emerge with a schedule for future talks that would in turn focus on each of the obstacles to a deal.

This long-delayed deal, which was supposed to be completed by 2012, would be Canada’s biggest since the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free-Trade Agreement.

It would make it easier for Canadian companies to sell goods and services to the 27-member EU with its 500 million consumers.

In discussing the state of play of talks, Ottawa officials say they are now on a “very aggressive track to close these negotiations out” as both sides haggle over how much Canadian beef will be allowed into the EU, how much Canadian content needs to be in Europe-bound automobiles and to what extent Canada might open up its cheese market and government procurement or lengthen patent protection for brand-name drugs.

Canadians have refused to sign an accord until they get sufficient access to EU markets for beef. Officials say the amount allowed would need to significantly exceed 40,000 tons a year. Ireland, a major beef producer, is balking at big concessions for Canada. One possible solution, sources say, would see both sides agree to a phased-in quota for Canada that would enable allowed shipments to grow over time.

Canada’s heavily sheltered dairy farmers have resisted lowering Canada’s high-tariff walls to allow more European Union cheese into this country as part of a deal. But federal officials say they believe that rising Canadian demand for cheese will give them the leeway they need to offer extra access to the EU without disrupting domestic producers.

The EU and Canada are also grappling with Ottawa’s stubborn insistence to protect its right to intervene in the Canadian financial system when it feels business activity might endanger the sector. One example, a Canadian official said, would be Ottawa’s 2008 move to shorten the maximum amortization period for mortgages to 35 years from 40.

But time could be working against Canada. Ottawa’s long-delayed trade deal with South Korea stands as a reminder of what can go wrong when Canada fails to beat the United States to the punch. “The Canada-Korea free-trade deal was absolutely in the last stages and was completely set aside when Korea started to negotiate with the U.S.And the U.S. completed and Canada still languishes,” said Ted Haney, president of the Canadian Beef Exporting Federation.

The Tories are under pressure to deliver. Almost since taking office, they have talked of signing major trade agreements that diversify commerce away from the slow-growing United States but have so far failed to land one significant accord that would underpin what has become a major pillar of the Harper economic strategy. Negotiations with India and other big economies have also made little progress.

The EU and Canada now find themselves haggling over what rate and period Canadian beef exports might grow. This gives EU farmers more time to adjust while reaching volumes that might satisfy Canadian producers. “Is there likely to be a phase-in period on this? Yes … it gets us at a bigger number, which then gets us to a package that gives stakeholders the access and predictability they need,” a Canadian official said.

Some Canadian producers say the minimum acceptable annual EU access is 40,000 tons of beef. They say anything less than that will provide insufficient incentive for Canadian producers to convert plants to hormone-free beef production required by the EU.

“Our big interest now at this stage of the negotiations is getting a number that satisfies the beef stakeholders. The deal has to serve all Canadian interests [but] if the beef guys aren’t satisfied, the provinces in the west won’t be satisfied. That’s the challenge,” an official said.

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]

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]

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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]

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

Special to The Globe and Mail

During his trip to Peru and Colombia this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will attend the Pacific Alliance Leaders’ Summit in Cali, Colombia. Launched in April, 2011, the Alliance is a free-trade bloc made up of Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru.

Last year, Canada became an observer to the Alliance. Why? Because it represents what we are trying to achieve through our Americas strategy.

The Americas strategy – announced in 2007 as a major foreign policy initiative of the ‘new’ Harper Government – is designed to revive and expand Canadian political and economic engagement in the Americas.

Interpreted by some as an effort to distinguish itself from previous governments’ focus on Africa, progress on the Americas strategy has been more tortoise than hare.

At the outset, attention to the Americas was diverted by the global economic mess that demanded all hands on deck. Then the government reopened the door to China, and public attention shifted to the Pacific.

At the same time there is the promise, still unrealized, of the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement. And, as always, there is the United States and the eternal quest around secure access for our goods, people and services.

All of this left little time for the rest of the Americas. There remains some skepticism about our ability to sustain relationships. It takes two to tango and our overtures were not always met with enthusiasm. There were problems, not all of our own making.

Mexico, with whom we should have the strongest partnership, was preoccupied with the existential war with the drug cartels.

Brazil, now the world’s seventh-largest economy, has global aspirations. Notwithstanding our long commercial ties, especially in resource development, we have had our differences over beef and Bombardier.

Canada recently began negotiations with Mercosur - Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela, but it’s complicated. Argentina doesn’t like our policy on the Falklands and we don’t like its protectionism. Cuban admission to Mercosur – the Brazillian goal – presents problems.

Still, there has been progress on the strategy.

On the democracy front, we have participated in 47 OAS electoral observation missions in 17 countries since 2009, and Canadians played a lead role in brokering the peace in Honduras. But promoting democracy is a work in progress. Even post-Chavez, populist authoritarianism continues to cast its seductive spell.

We play a growing role in security through targetted development and assistance programs aimed at strengthening policing and the judiciary. Our warships patrol the waters on both sides of the Isthmus of Panama to preserve maritime order and stem the drug trade.

In the last four years we have concluded free-trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia and Honduras.

With more than 2,500 Canadian companies active in the region, our overall trade since 2007 has increased by a third. Canadian interests account for 60 per cent of the region’s international mining investment. This map visibly demonstrates the network of our development and investment initiatives.

But we need to do more if we are to realize the opportunities for our goods and services. Latin America’s middle class now numbers 50 million – it grew by 50 per cent during the past decade.

As a first step we need to look at how we market ourselves. Investment flows are mostly one direction – from Canada to the Americas. Latinos look askance at our closed telecommunications sector. Our labour costs are a comparative disincentive to investment in manufacturing, except as part of supply chain dynamics.

Secondly, we need to apply the creativity we have demonstrated in our immigration policy to our visitor visa program.

Having fixed the loopholes in our refugee policy, we should lift the visa requirement on Mexico that has cut visitors by more than a third since its imposition in 2009.

During a meeting with Mexican president-elect Enrique Pena Nieto in November, Mr. Harper said he’d like to see visa-free travel. Why not announce it in Cali? We could also establish a fast-track a Nexus-standard visa for Alliance members.

And, as a third step, let’s take a chance on the Pacific Alliance and seek full membership.

It would give Canada a “second NAFTA”, argues Latin scholar Carlo Dade, and complement the Trans-Pacific Partnership, currently into its 17th round of negotiations in Lima. With Japan’s inclusion, the TPP will cover nearly 40 per cent of global economic output and one-third of all world trade.

The Pacific Alliance is smaller but the degree of trade liberalization is more ambitious. It aims at an integrated stock exchange, labor mobility and a single window for all moving goods. In its look at the Pacific Alliance, the Economist sensed a “hard-nosed business deal, rather than the usual gassy rhetoric of Latin American summitry.”

Its member countries are four of the fastest growing economies representing one-third of the population of Latin America. Collectively it constitutes the world’s ninth biggest economy.

We have FTAs with each member. We risk losing the advantage of those agreements if we continue to sit as an observer.

Importantly, they want us. “Canada is a natural fit” said Mexico’s Foreign Affairs vice-minister Sergio Alcocer last week.

They recognize in us a like-minded country with a deep democratic tradition that is serious about liberalizing trade and investment. From our perspective, we have more pull with them than alone.

Built around western-style free markets, the rule of law and democratic politics – the essence of our America’s strategy – it’s time to move beyond observer status in the Pacific Alliance. Our place should be at the main table.

A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is vice president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and a senior policy advisor to McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

13/05/31

JERUSALEM — Mark Regev leans forward in his chair at a sunny outdoor cafe in Jerusalem’s botanical gardens, eager to make the point clear.

His boss, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is not just a colleague of Stephen Harper, he says.

“My prime minister considers Prime Minister Harper to be a close friend … no doubt about it,” said Mr. Regev, the Israeli PM’s international spokesman. “There is a special connection between the two leaders.”

That personal warmth mirrors the extraordinarily strong support the Harper government has lent to Israel in the last few years.

From vigorously opposing the Palestinian bid for non-voting state status at the United Nations, to paying a controversial visit to an Israeli cabinet minister in east Jerusalem, the Conservatives have arguably become the Jewish state’s most steadfast international ally.

The government has also shown interest in helping advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Whether that is now in the cards is debatable. Some commentators here say Canada has lost any influence it might have had with the Palestinians and Arab nations, others say its new-found position of trust with Israel will make its advice — even if uncomfortable — more likely to be heard by Mr. Netanyahu.

One fact seems clear: Canada has got itself noticed in this region like rarely before.

“When Canada went with the crowd, voted with the Europeans, it failed to have any significant role,” said Einat Wilf, a foreign policy advisor and former Knesset member, first with Labor, then the centrist Independence party.

“You only have a role when you take a stand that matters. … The stature of Canada as a foreign policy player has risen as a result of the fact that it actually takes stands now.”

On the Palestinian side, the evolution of Canada’s Middle East policy has made just as much of a bang, with rather different results.

Its “fatal embrace” of Israel has dramatically alienated it from the Palestinian Authority, said Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestine Liberation Organization member and one of the Palestinians’ most recognizable faces in the West.

“All countries and people of conscience have a special place for Palestine, and Canada is making a serious strategic mistake by being dismissive of Palestinian rights,” Ms. Ashrawi said recently in the West Bank office of her peace-related non-governmental organization.

“The sounds are very jarring coming from Canada, rather than the very soothing language of reconciliation, responsibility, human rights.”

Meanwhile, Canada is involved in the region in some surprising ways, a National Post review shows:

    • Canadian soldiers have played a pivotal role in an unusual program to train and equip Palestinian security forces, despite qualms voiced by both sides.

    • Federal officials have worked to build up the fledgling Palestinian justice system, even as that system has drawn flak for prosecuting critics of the ruling PLO.

    • A famously activist Palestinian village has filed a UN human rights complaint against the government over work by Canadian companies, underscoring the crucial debate on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Of course, Canada has always played at least a bit part in the Israeli-Arab drama, starting when it sat on the 1947 UN Special Committee on Palestine that first recommended slicing up the region into separate Jewish and Arab states.

Liberal Lester Pearson later won the Nobel Peace prize for helping end the 1956 Suez crisis that pitted Israel, Britain and France against Egypt. Canada contributed peacekeepers after Arab-Israeli wars and was the first Western country to criticize Israel’s 1982 invasion of south Lebanon.

Conservative Joe Clark caused an uproar when he promised in the 1979 election to move Canada’s Israel embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, although as foreign minister in the 1990s he would chastise Israel for alleged human rights abuses.

Accurately or not, Canada has often been portrayed as a neutral “honest broker” in the dispute, at least until Mr. Harper appeared.

After a string of diplomatic nods toward Israel, the prime minister cemented his pro-Israel credentials last month, chastising other countries for failing to champion what he called the region’s most democratic, stable nation.

That kind of message has transformed Canada’s role as a rather irrelevant part of a “politically correct” European-led bloc, said Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO Monitor, a conservative think-tank based in Jerusalem.

“What Canada has done now is very different. Under the Harper government, Canada has staked out a unique position. When you have a unique position, you’re independent, then you can actually have an impact.”

Ms. Ashrawi, though, argued Canada has taken on the unseemly role of a lobbyist and spokesman for another nation, one Palestinians believe is guilty of serious human rights abuses.

She said she would not “openly” reveal whether her government has lobbied Arab and other Muslim countries against Canada. But this country’s lost bid for a UN Security Council seat and an attempt by Qatar to move the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization from Canada to the Gulf state, are seen as fallouts from Mr. Harper’s Israeli stand.

“Whatever Canada does in relation to Palestine will have an impact on Canada’s standing,” Ms. Ashrawi said. “People ask our opinions.”

And yet, rhetoric aside, the Harper government’s official position on key issues remains remarkably close to that of the rest of the international community.

It supports both a UN resolution calling for Israel to give back land it occupied in the 1967 war and the Arab Peace Initiative’s similar recommendations, according to the Foreign Affairs department’s website. It believes Israeli settlements in the occupied territories violate the Geneva Convention and pose a “serious obstacle to peace.”

Israel’s contentious security wall, built to curb a wave of suicide bombings, also violates international law where it veers into the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, the position statement says.

Mr. Harper and John Baird, the Foreign Affairs Minister, have not exactly trumpeted those policies.

But Canada could use its apparent new-found influence with Mr. Netanyahu to advance such ideas, says the leading voice of Israel’s peace movement.

“I think Canada has a major role to play because it is friendly to Israel,” said Yariv Oppenheimer, head of the organization Peace Now.

“If you are a friend of someone and you are a friend of Israel, not only do you have a right to criticize polices, but you have an obligation to criticize.”

The United States continues to be the biggest international player in the arena, and Canada is willing to give room to John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, to try to bring the parties together, said Mr. Regev.

But the Harper government also “gets” that Israel’s security and future existence must be guaranteed definitively in any peace deal, and that matters in Jerusalem, said the Netanyahu aide.

“There’s no doubt that the very forthright moral leadership chosen by Canada gives it, I would say, extra clout. People sit up and take notice. It gives Canada a much stronger footprint.”

National Post
tblackwell@nationalpost.com

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

Colin Robertson
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jun. 05 2013

Despite other Ottawa distractions, Foreign Minister John Baird’s ‘dignity agenda’ is slowly taking shape. It might just become one of the Harper government’s lasting contributions to Canadian foreign policy.

Framed last fall in speeches delivered in Montreal, in the United Nations General Assembly in New York and in Quebec City, the message is clear and tweetable: people deserve the “dignity to live in freedom, in peace and to provide for one’s family.” It specifically defends women, children and gay people. Its simplicity recalls, not without coincidence, Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.

It neatly avoids the tiresome argument between values and interests by underlining that “doing what is morally right is in our national interest.”

Its roots are bipartisan, openly acknowledging both Louis St. Laurent, who laid the foundations for modern Canadian foreign policy, and Brian Mulroney for his work in Africa, especially South Africa. The dignity divide is not left versus right but rather between open and closed.

If it is to succeed, the dignity agenda will need to demonstrate the kind of tangible accomplishments that former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy’s human security agenda achieved, notably the landmark Treaty on Land Mines and the creation of the International Criminal Court.

For now, the dignity agenda is a combination of policy instruments – such as the creation of the Ambassador for Religious Freedom – and actions, including targeted sanctions on Iran.

Then there is ‘direct diplomacy.’

Demonstrated recently at Toronto’s Munk Centre, Ottawa’s Global Dialogue on the Future of Iran used social media – Facebook and Twitter – as both amplifier and intervenor into the conversation. Designed to encourage open discussion in the lead-up to Iran’s June elections, Mr. Baird told his audience, including an estimated 350,000 in Iran, that they “have a friend in Canada.”

If foreign policy covers a spectrum from idealist to realist, Mr. Baird’s is firmly in the idealist camp. And indeed, realists can question the efficacy of the dignity agenda.

Morality and foreign policy “is a subject much wanting in thought” observed the American historian Gertrude Himmelfarb. Of necessity, international politics depends on hard power both as last resort and as first responder in time of disaster. Soft power can too easily settle into easy, ineffectual preachiness.

U.S. Secretary of Dean Acheson once likened Canadian moralizing to the “stern daughter of the voice of God.” Our own International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (Rights & Democracy) eventually ate itself – a lesson in the best of intentions going badly awry.

But experience demonstrates that, after the fact, whether in Burma, South Africa or Central Europe, dissidents say that one of the things that kept them going was knowledge that someone – somewhere – cared about their plight.

Nelson Mandela praised Canada for having maintained our “support for the forces of democracy at a critical time in a transition whose outcome was never guaranteed.”

Mr. Mandela specifically identified the Canadian International Development Agency for having given millions of South Africans access to things that most Canadians would take for granted – clean water, housing and electricity – “but which have been only a dream to the majority of South Africans.”

The government should remember this as it re-integrates CIDA into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

While putting the emphasis on trade as the economic engine for sustainable development is correct, dignity also includes a safety net for those who need a hand-up and for the sick, young and elderly. And any state that does not address the condition of women and girls can neither be prosperous nor secure.

It is still early days for the Baird dignity agenda. Skeptics will question whether the Canadian Office of Religious Freedom has more to do with appeasing the evangelical base of the Conservative Party.

It took months to find an Ambassador for Religious Freedom. The man they found, Andrew Bennett, has made pronouncements to date that have been pointed, targeted and frequent. He needs to go beyond the condemnatory and offer something with soul. His U.S. counterpart produces an annual evaluation of religious freedom. Why not a Canadian perspective?

We are, arguably, the world’s most successful pluralist society. We have faults. Look at Statistics Canada’s grim reports on the situation of First Nations women and children. But, comparatively, Canada works.

The Aga Khan established the Global Centre for Pluralism in Canada because he felt our national experience “made it a natural home for this venture.”

To see diversity as an opportunity rather than burden, observed the Aga Khan, is a permanent work in progress requiring concerted, deliberate efforts to build social institutions and cultural habits which take account of difference. The aim is not perfection but decency and mutual respect – in short, dignity for individuals and the collective.

Making the dignity agenda a Canadian export is a worthy objective, consistent with our values and interests. It should also serve to remind us that there is still much work to do at home.

A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is vice president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and a senior advisor to McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP.

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]

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

Published on Mon Jun 24 2013

Canada, like all civilized countries, needs a stable world to nourish its prosperity and civility. International turmoil drains governments of opportunities to improve the lives of their citizens. This is why intelligent, prosperous governments invest in development in less fortunate parts of the world.

When I was chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Conservative and Liberal members alike were adamant that Canada needed the military strength to both defend itself and contribute to maintaining international stability. But we also published reports arguing for an increased foreign aid budget. While wars sometimes have to be fought, they are incredibly costly in both blood and treasure. Which is why investing taxpayers’ dollars in ameliorating the conditions that breed conflict is so important.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many votes in foreign aid; more likely there are votes to lose. And Stephen Harper is a clever politician. He knows few Liberal or NDP supporters would come over to his Conservative party if he had increased Canada’s foreign aid budget. Conversely, core Conservative voters would be appalled at any increase, particularly in iffy economic times. Those are two good reasons why Canadians have witnessed the emaciation of Canada’s overseas development budget since Harper won his majority in 2011.

In this, Harper probably is far more clever than fellow Conservative David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister. Cameron, like Harper, is likely to face his electorate in 2015. Like Harper, he has been flagging in popularity polls recently. But unlike Harper, Cameron is not playing politics with foreign aid.

Despite the fact that Britain’s economy is in a far more precarious state than Canada’s, Cameron has increased Britain’s foreign aid budget to 0.56 per cent of his country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and committed himself to hitting the UN’s international target of 0.7 per cent a year from now.

Britain is bankrolling a $4.1-billion international initiative to alleviate malnutrition in poor countries with core funding of $600 million and $446 million set aside to match contributions from other countries.

Canada signed the initiative at last week’s G8 summit, but Harper’s little nod of approval only masks what has been Canada’s appalling performance on the foreign aid front under his government, which has managed to outslash even the tight-fisted Chrétien Liberals during Paul Martin’s deficit-fighting years.

That Harper appointed Bev Oda and Julian Fantino — two ministers with little experience in international development — to administer the aid budget was predictable. The rationale for foreign aid needs to be sold to Canadians, and these people weren’t going to dazzle anybody with their sales pitches.

That Harper would pull CIDA out of some of the poorest countries in the world — like Malawi and Niger — and shift its focus to countries Canada wants to increase trade was reprehensible for a government committed to stand on firm moral principles in its international dealings.

That Canada would announce earlier this year that it was pulling out of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification — signed on to by 194 countries — fell into the same moral quagmire. Harper’s rationale was that the convention was too bureaucratic, but the strong suspicion is that this government doesn’t want anything to do with any scientific battles against climate change.

That the government would cut the last year’s foreign aid budget by 7.5 per cent — bringing it down to 0.31 per cent of GDP — was a sad step in the wrong direction. But at least there was transparency to the move.
Then things got really ugly. Minister Fantino simply stopped approving CIDA projects coming through the pipeline. Oda had been painfully slow to approve projects. Fantino simply shut them down.

At the end of the 2012-2013 fiscal year, CIDA had lapsed approximately $800 million in spending. Traditionally, departments who lapse funds approved by Parliament are considered blunderers. But this was no blunder. It was clearly done by design, at the top.

The agency effectively took the money away from the world’s unfortunate and handed it back to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who is busily working toward the government’s promise to reduce the federal budget deficit to zero by election time. After that open budget cut of 7.5 per cent, the government sneaked behind the curtains and chopped the agency’s disbursements by another 20 per cent.

All this while it was being announced that CIDA would be folded into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which once had quite a reputation for dispute solving and other world-improving activities but whose primary focus is now largely confined to promoting foreign trade.

When speaking about his initiative to fight world hunger, Cameron pointed out that more than 60 per cent of the world’s malnourished children live in fragile and conflicted states. “We understand that if we invest in countries before they get broken, we might not end up spending so much on dealing with problems — whether that’s immigration or threats to our national security.”

Cameron appears to be making a commitment to bettering the world long after he has left the political scene. That’s not the stereotypical image of what politicians do. For too many of them, it’s all about today, which is where the votes — and power — reside.

How good though, that every now and then an international statesman does step forward. There will be a time, one hopes, that it will be a Canadian.

Colin Kenny is a senator and former chair of the Senate Committee on Security and Defence. kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca

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]

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]

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

13/06/29

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. And that small group certainly does not include the United States.

The state of American policy is now beginning to transcend even the indulgence of the most tenacious believers in Barack Obama’s statesmanlike aptitudes. The “Reset” button with Russia has led to a torrent of insolences from the Kremlin, including increased intimacy with Iran in promoting the survival of the Assad regime in Syria. The corrupt Karzai regime in Afghanistan, for which thousands of Americans and their allies (including 158 Canadian Forces personnel) have died and a trillion dollars have been spent, has now embraced Tehran as a senior ally. And Washington itself has convened peace talks that include Mullah Omar’s Taliban, the host to Osama bin-Laden and his lieutenants when al-Qaeda was planning 9/11.

In the words of distinguished Wall Street Journal commentator Bret Stephens, it is “The Age of American Impotence: no peace, no peace process, no ally, no leverage and no moral standing.” President Obama still speaks of arms control while approaching what is now a high probability of an Iranian-led nuclear arms build-up in the Middle East. His strategy is bluster and threat without any follow-up, unless shamed into action (as in Libya by the French and the British).

In Berlin last week, Obama ascribed terrorism to “instability and intolerance,” as if we had gone back to the New Frontier theory of JFK’s Best and Brightest, that Indochinese Communism could be fought by the Peace Corps, and by building schools and roads. American liberals, like the French Bourbons returning in the baggage train of the Duke of Wellington’s army in 1815, “have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.” There is now little likelihood that America will have anything to show for the mighty effort and sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan, except the evaporation of its influence in the capitals of the world.

Meanwhile, in Europe, including the United Kingdom, only Germany and its Scandinavian, Baltic, Germanic, Czech, Dutch and Polish entourage, are not gasping from the after-effects of decades of over-paying Danegeld to the working and agrarian classes. Japan has finally, after 20 years of recession and chronic ageing, embraced pell-mell inflation. (It won’t work, especially in a nation with a 20% savings rate.) The Russia of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky, and even of Solzhenitsyn, is just a gangster-state. China has falling growth, 600-million rural people living largely as they did thousands of years ago, no social safety net, and a completely corrupt system of collective dictatorship with no system of laws or public institutions that command any credence at all. It’s a remarkable developing-country story, but not the stuff of any early claim to world leadership.

This is why Canada has a chance it has never had before to be an influence in the world, not by the traditional methods of arms build-ups, economic superiority, or by being the spear of a great and proselytizing idea. The opportunity lies in Canada’s potential to be a respected guide to reform of domestic and international institutions and practices that are not now functioning well.

The United States led the world to the triumph of democracy and the free market, and the world must always be grateful for that, but is not now one of the more exemplary practitioners of either. Canada is a rich and liberal society that has spread the wealth of the country around better than most, but also has gradually become a relatively low-tax country (even if household debt is too high, and economic growth is too slow). We will not attract the world’s attention by sanguinary drama, as the French and Russian Revolutions, the U.S. and Chinese Civil Wars, or the Battle of Britain, did. But 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.

I have trod this path before in this space, and so will recapitulate just a few things that we Canadians should do and which would responsibly serve the world.

The currencies of the world are essentially worthless; they are valued only opposite each other, and all are being inflated simultaneously, even in deflationary times as followed the 2008 collapse of the housing bubble. Sixty years ago, a cup of coffee cost five cents and a hair-cut 25 cents. A return to the gold standard would put too much power in the hands of mining engineers and precious metals speculators, but Canada should lead the world in imposing some yardstick of currency value based on a combination of the prices of gold, oil, and a range of essential consumer goods. Other countries would follow, and the inflationary charge would be slowed and turned. We could put a rod on the backs of all the world’s serious treasuries and central banks to stop ruining the savers and fixed income-earners.

In the temporary vacuum created by the U.S. foreign policy establishment’s sustained malaise, Canada should take the lead in proposing that NATO be transformed into a world-wide alliance of reasonably democratic countries pledged to all-for-one collective defense and security, and in demanding withdrawal of the vote at the United Nations General Assembly from all countries that flagrantly disregard the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, until they reach a minimal level of conformity to it. When this is refused (as it will be, by China and Russia, among others), it should lead all the countries that meet that standard in the cessation of any funding to the UN, and the establishment of a parallel world organization, until the UN returns to its founding purposes.

Finally, we should re-establish our claim to being a truly liberal state by abolishing incarceration for all but violent offenders and chronic recidivists. It is a practice that continues only because it has always been done and is an easy target for politicians playing on public paranoia and the general respect for the less productive versions of vengeance. I do not believe it is necessary for me to establish my credentials as a commentator on the effects of prison; it was my good fortune to be sent to two of the highest quality prisons in the United States, where I had no difficulties with anyone, in the regime or among my fellow-residents. But I can attest that they are very corrupt, hideously expensive to the taxpayer, do almost nothing to equip people to reenter society, to deter crime, or even to impart increased hireability to the unskilled labour among the prison personnel. Contributed, supervised, community work would accomplish much more and much more cheaply. And Canada demeans itself and compounds ancient injustices with a policy that leads to the incarceration of an inordinate number of native people.

It is well-known that I generally support the present federal government, but I am concerned, and I know that many others are also, that it 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. There is much cause for pleasure and pride, but none for complacency, this July 1.

National Post

cbletters@gmail.com

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]

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]

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