Decide Foriegn Policy

[Edward Campbell]

Canadian politicians, particulary the for life natural governing Party, define "policy" by what appears in Canadian media. The Liberal Party, with the notable exception of the Trudeau years has no real intellectual depth ...

I disagree â “ this generation has some good, solid people.   I don't agree with most of what most of them espouse but I respect a good many of them.   I think Trudeau had an exceptionally shallow cabinet and party.   He disliked deep people â “ even those who agreed with him and he drove them away, out of politics.   Mulroney's front bench was very strong, by comparison.

... the net result, shallow foreign policies, designed to maintain
the liberal media's preception of Canada, as a kindly, do gooder type of society, epitomiized by the various voices of CBC reporters and commentators - one known in our offices as "ms. menopause" Twenty plus years ago, Canada was a better country - my rant for today. MacLeod

That kindly, do gooder type of society is precisely what Trudeau and Ivan Head espoused.   I agree with MacLeod that the mainstream media is shallow â “ because it is a reflection of its shallow hero: Pierre Trudeau.

The 'rot' lies in the deeply flawed 1969 foreign policy White Paper which is still much loved by the commentariat and large parts of the foreign policy establishment.   It entrenches a Little Canada position which has weakened Canada and continues to do so to this day.   Tony Blair's recent snub just highlights the point: he is trying hard to drum up support for his Africa position at the forthcoming G8 meeting, trying everywhere except in Ottawa because he knows that, despite all the rhetoric, Canada will not â “ because it cannot â “ play any useful role.   We are a faded, toothless cheerleader with a weak, off-key voice.   Trudeau did that to us; Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin helped, but Trudeau did it because he was too intellectually vacuous to think things through.

I think Trudeau was a puffed up petty little provincial â “ he had a good education but he preferred the very, very small pond of Québec where is pretensions passed for depth.   He had charisma and that, his handlers learned from Theodore H White's Making of the President (1960), was all that one needed to win elections in Canada.   We, Canadians, were desperate for a Kennedy of our own in the mid '60s (we always want a Canadian ______ - fill in the blank with whatever celebrity the Americans worship this week);   we had Dief the Chief and boring old Mike Pearson.   Coutts and Davey et al could, and did, run a fool and win so long as they ran a young, hip, photogenic, TV savvy, charismatic fool. Trudeaumania was and, I guess, still is real and few, way too few Canadians ever looked at the man.   Those who did saw a lightweight and a poltroon but that didn't matter: he had charisma.

 

[a_majoor]

Slightly off key here, but ideas like R2P and intervening in "failed states" is really a not so subtle return to Imperialism. It is also amazingly hypocritical coming from the mouths of Canadian politicians; they certainly are not too eager to follow the Americans into the fray when they choose to take action against a "failed state" or enforce the "R2P".

OF course, the desire to take action and intervene also seems pretty proportional to the desire to "take action" and "intervene" at home as well. The slew of intrusive taxes, laws and regulations aimed at us is also symptomatic of an Imperial state (a very small and petty empire, to be sure), so it should be no surprise that they are starting to look outwards as well.

The analogy is not exact. Empires require "legions", and generally the Legion is loyal to the state or the Imperator, not "the people". We have no legions, and our professional soldiers, by and large, are either apolitical or not very fond of the ruling party. (A sub digression; what would happen if a future government actually came through with their promises and showered the CF with tangible support? I can think of one historical example where a military was rehabilitated, and became a very loyal tool for the Party in power....). Republics with civil militias are not aggressive as a rule (Madison's plans to invade Canada during the war of 1812 came to repeated grief as the various State militias refused to go, or even leave their state boundaries, and one of the key problems for Lincoln in the American Civil War was the difficulty in raising and keeping troops for the duration of the war. Many Union troops enlisted for a limited term, and were quite adamant about going home at the end of the term. A lot of manpower was also tied up in State Militias which were reluctant to leave their states.)

This willingness to throw our weight around in the outside world is most likely going to get us in trouble, since we cannot do this in any realistic fashion, and the motivations for doing this are suspect to begin with. Certainly we need a force with the capabilities to deal with any clear and present danger to Canada and her interests, and I am in favor of assisting people when possible, but not at a disproportionate cost in blood and treasure, and certainly not if there is no compelling national interest for doing so.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Slightly off key here, but ideas like R2P and intervening in "failed states" is really a not so subtle return to Imperialism. It is also amazingly hypocritical coming from the mouths of Canadian politicians; they certainly are not too eager to follow the Americans into the fray when they choose to take action against a "failed state" or enforce the "R2P".
...
This willingness to throw our weight around in the outside world is most likely going to get us in trouble, since we cannot do this in any realistic fashion, and the motivations for doing this are suspect to begin with. Certainly we need a force with the capabilities to deal with any clear and present danger to Canada and her interests, and I am in favor of assisting people when possible, but not at a disproportionate cost in blood and treasure, and certainly not if there is no compelling national interest for doing so.

Spot on, a_majoor.

I have ranted and raved a bit about this at "Next up for the CF? Sudan?â ? - see, especially: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30415/post-222824.html#msg222824

A couple of points:

"¢ Canadians, in general and the commentariat and chattering classes in particular want to talk about doing something but they almost all sputter and stall whenever there is a real, concrete proposal to spend money on anything except 'free' healthcare at home.

"¢ As a general rule, my general rule anyway: the louder and more strident the Canadian voice, the less practical the proposal.

"¢ There is a huge domestic concern here.  There is a perceived need to talk and talk and talk with all the various ethnic groups in Canada about doing something for their failed or failing state old countries but it is politically dangerous to actually promise, much less do something - helping group A will alienate group B. Unless you know the voting patterns for certain then actions must be feared as they will likely backfire.  (e.g. most Canadians of Tamil descent will continue to vote Liberal so long as the Tigers are not declared to be terrorists but no one will switch from Tory to Liberal if the Tigers are properly identified (as murdering terrorists)).

"¢ By and large the Canadian media will interpret a â ?this is very important, a high priority for my governmentâ ? from Paul Martin as an action completed and they will move on to the real 'news' like spotting American celebrities in Toronto.

 

[jmacleod]

Canada is in fact shallow - probably coould not avoid it. The Canada I see out the front door was created for the most part in the media - both previous posts are substantillay correct in most areas
and agreed - but I must take exception to the preception to PM Pierre E Trudeau - a close friend
and relative, himself a PhD in law, was an EA to PET - was, and remains in awe of his massive
intellect. Trudeau's main focus was on creating a Canada which opened the entire country to
French (Quebec) Canadians - which he did. The former President of the Liberal Party and Senator
Keith Davey were not Trudeau's "handlers" - they were, most days intimidated by him - knew them
both well. When I was a teenager in Halifax, during WWII, I did'nt realize the fact until later in my
lfe that there were no Naval Officers (RCN/RCNVR) serving from Quebec - at least not, in my fathers
house, a gathering place for Navy types (commissioned and otherwise) - a house of many parties
never to my recollection, had a visitor serving in the Navy from Quebec - learned in later life that
the Navy of the era did not want them. Trudeau changed that. MacLeod

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

When sending troops to intervene, Canada needs to change the way they are employed.  We should only contribute troops if they are to be committed in whole integrated formations.  There should be no penny-packet deployments of Canadian troops relying on third world Sepoy's to defend their positions.  Canadian troops should only be employed under UN leadership either drawn from Canada, or other NATO nations who can be trusted to allow the troops the freedom to do their job properly, not hamstrung by the kind of civilian oversight we saw in Rwanda, and dozens of similar missions.  Lastly, if ROE's cannot be agreed to that will allow Canadian troops to seek out and eliminate threats to the mission, then they should not be sent.  It does no good to have patrols and recce elements identify insurgent elements, and the buildup of arms and troops preparatory to attack or "ethnic cleansing" if they are unable to act preventively.  Canada is committed to too many missions, with too few resources.  If we restrict ourselves to fewer missions with more forces and resources, we can make a real difference.  We have to take a look at the success in Afghanistan, and realize that our peacekeeping may not always be done under the UN blue beret, and may be done more effectively (as during the pre-League of Nations era) by NATO or other ad-hoc coalitions of first world powers stepping in to restore order.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm going to use the article, below, by Lewis MacKenzie, from today's Globe and Mail to ride an old hobby horse of mine.

Reforming, trying to reform the UN, especially the UNSC, is a mugs' game.  There are many, many good and valid reasons to keep the UN in being - things which involve helping people are, broadly, within the UN's competence.  Matters dealing with security, it seems to me, are beyond the UN's ken because:

"¢ It has no dispute resolution mechanism; and

"¢ The entry bar is set too low - the one nation-state (no matter how failed)/one vote concept guarantees paralysis and failure.

Anyway, here is Uncle Lew:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050629.wxcolew29/BNStory/National/

Lewis MacKenzie
UN reform takes two steps back

BY LEWIS MACKENZIE

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005 UPDATED AT 3:58 AM EDT
FROM WEDNESDAY'S GLOBE AND MAIL

Three months ago on this page, I suggested there would be continuing frustration and ultimate failure for those advocating meaningful United Nations Security Council reform in their lifetime. Recent events have only reinforced that opinion.

While it's possible to reform various UN agencies (Unicef, UNESCO, WHO, UNHCR etc) -- since that can occur without the unanimous agreement of the five permanent Security Council members -- the council itself is destined to perpetuate its own irrelevance.

Mind you, there's no shortage of ideas put forward by those who still hope to pull off the impossible. There are the recommendations from the Secretary-General's Eminent Persons group that called for the council's expansion to 24 or 25 members from the current 15. This reform would increase the number of permanent members, but not give new ones the power of veto enjoyed by Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

More recently, Japan, Germany, India and Brazil, strong contenders for those new permanent seats, issued their own recommendations. The P4, as they call themselves, want the council expanded to 25, adding six new permanent members and four non-permanent, rotational ones.

At first, the P4 argued that the new permanent members should be given veto-wielding authority. But a sobering dose of reality soon set in as they lobbied the international community and, particularly, the P5 nations. Their most recent proposal calls for new permanent members to have "the same responsibilities and obligations" as the P5, but any idea of achieving veto-holding status would only be considered 15 years after the reforms took effect.

As the momentum for Security Council reform takes two steps to the rear for every tentative step forward, the U.S. itself has re-entered the debate. A bipartisan task force headed by former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former senator George Mitchell made several recommendations earlier this month on such issues as UN corruption, the abuse of local populations by UN peacekeepers, and the pathetic inclusion of human-rights abusers such as Libya on the UN's Human Rights Commission. Notable by its absence was any serious consideration of Security Council reform.

The House of Representatives then passed the Henry Hyde UN Reform Act that promotes UN reform of such matters as the voting procedure in the General Assembly to give more weight to a country's vote proportional to its financial contribution to the UN, and the allotment of the UN's budget for running conferences -- which just happens to be the largest item in the entire budget, eclipsing peacekeeping, refugees and health. Weighty items to be sure but, absent again, is any consideration of Security Council reform.

The reality is that the rules governing the voting procedures within the Security Council combined with the national self-interest of the P5 will continue to preclude any change in the use of the veto. China will never roll over and tolerate Japan as a veto-holding member. The U.S. backs Japan's bid for membership, but Japan is aligned with Germany in the P4 and the U.S. will not endorse Germany's membership. Nuclear armed Pakistan is not receptive to India's membership, and all of Brazil's neighbours would protest its membership. Add the fact that, in accordance with the UN Charter, any P5 member can veto the admission of any new member to the P5 club and you get the picture.

In the end, it all boils down to this: Should the Security Council's debating club expand to 25 from 15 nations without any changes to the rule governing the veto that ultimately dictates what actions the council will approve in the interests of international peace and security? It hardly seems worth the effort.

Meantime, Canada had better prepare to live up to its obligations in other multinational organizations such as NATO, the Organization of American States and the OSCE, as they move in to help victims where a deadlocked Security Council fears to tread. Regrettably, the list grows longer each day.

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.​

The way to reform the UN is to transfer many of its functions to the WTO - beginning with several of the economic/trade oriented UN agencies like the International Telecommunications Union (which is, itself, far senior to the UN or even the old League of Nations) and the World Intellectual Property Organization.  When the WTO has been strengthened then it, too, can have a Security Council without the impediments to which people like Acheson and St. Laurent acquiesced under pressure from Molotov and Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

[Infanteer]

Wouldn't it be a curveball if Canada just up and pulled out of the UN one day.... ^-^

 

[a_majoor]

Wouldn't it be a curveball if Canada just up and pulled out of the UN one day.... ^-^

The scary and far more probable scenario is the US just stands up and leaves the UN one day.......Who gets Turtle Bay when the US revokes the lease?

 

[Reccesoldier]

I'm going to actualy try to answer the question  Hold on! :dontpanic:

Foreign policy:

First off I would advocate a Canada centric foreign policy designed around the furtherance and improvement of Canadian interest and political capital on the world stage. Years of schizophrenic foreign policy (caused by a complete lack of political will in this country to) have degraded Canada's status as a moderate voice in international politics and led to increased polarization between nations.

I would advocate continuing and increasing our international commitments to defense and economic partnerships such as WTO, WB, OAS, NAFTA, NORAD, NATO and even the UN but in each of these (and especially the UN) we would carve out a proactive role vice the prostrate one our current government advocates. This would not affect our standing for the most part, but a more vocal Canada may ruffle the feathers of those who have taken advantage of our silence in the past. As a corollary to this I would however, deny that any international body, agency or institution has the â Å“rightâ ? to overrule, usurp or trump Canada's sovereignty or the sovereignty and rights of Canadian Citizen's wherever they may be.

With particular regard to our military alliances I would increase our activity in NATO considerably. This would mostly involve our naval forces but I would also attempt to reestablish Canada as a center of aviation training for NATO in places like Gander and Cold Lake.

While we already have a substantial seat at the table with regards to NORAD I would examine the missile defense shield for utility and practicality before removing Canada from the equation. This goes for any and all defense projects for that matter.

The UN is another can of worms. As an international body made up of sovereign states the UN is hamstrung by it's inability to reach consensus between those states and therefore is more often than not paralyzed by it's own lack of legitimacy on the world stage. All the resolutions in the world are useless unless there are moderate states, like Canada, willing to stand up to this international debating team and state simply and clearly that â Å“the emperor has no clothesâ ?.

I do not believe that the UN can be immediately formed into the active and productive institution that it was supposed to be so Canada must have the will, and the ability to take a page out of our southern neighbors playbook and act in coalition with other like-minded states in the face of UN obstructionism and dithering.

With regard to foreign economic policy Canada must not be kept from developing free trade with other states by the increasingly protectionist sentiments of the USA. We must also be willing as a nation to stand up and indeed fight back against the sort of hypocritical stance taken by some in the US on the issue of Mad Cow. In addition the dispute resolution process in NAFTA is seriously flawed and we should fix it rather than just complain (again) when another challenge is launched against our softwood lumber or some other resource. If the US is bent on dominating NAFTA and dealing in an unfair manner we should also explore removing ourselves from the agreement and seek to create/join similar trade arrangements in the emerging markets of Asia, South America and even Europe.

Our disastrous foreign aid policy has forced us to forgive Billions in third world debt. This is a result of investment in failed programs in failed states. Much of our aid money never gets to those that need it because the governments of the nations in question are little more than corrupt tin-pot-dictatorships who live lavishly in palaces while the people of their nations starve in abject poverty. The solution to this conundrum is simple. Canada will not as a state provide foreign aid to any nation that has not proven itself committed to democratic reform, democratic rights, religious toleration and the dismantling of any and all groups within that nation which support, aid or advocate terrorism.

*The interconnected nature of Foreign Relations and Defense Policy requires that these two disciplines be considered not in isolation, but in conjunction with one another.  The aim should be to produce coherent and viable solutions to the operational, administrative and monetary concerns of both departments simultaneously. But that is another topic completely*

Fire away, Zip

 

[Edward Campbell]

I shot my wad on page 1 but I will take issue with just one of your points: NATO.

I think NATO is yesterday's alliance â “ we should not abandon it, not just yet, anyway, but it is not, in my view, that 'answer.'  NATO is too big and bureaucratic and too political.

I think we want a role in a leaner, meaner global alliance which, I believe, should start with the existing, loosely tied together but highly interoperable anglosphere (America, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore) plus a few (like Fiji, Iceland (for political reason), Malaysia, maybe, and  Netherlands and Norway).  Such a grouping â “ let's not call it an alliance and let's avoid a treaty if we can â “ can be highly responsive to political direction and the requisite political direction can be achieved if the grouping is fairly small, generally like minded, and â “ being unencumbered by a treaty â “ not bound to unanimity.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Several good articles in today's papers, including two from the Globe and Mai;l re: the overexposure of Bob Geldof at al and their crusade for more and more poorly focused spending on Africa.

See here, it is not 'subscriber only' so I will not repeat it all: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050630.wxgeldof30/BNStory/National/ and here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050630.wgeldofanswer0630/BNStory/International/

The key point, it seems to me, is made by David Dodge (who is immensely smarter than Geldof and Martin, combined) from today's National Post:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ab7d01e2-8b6d-41d2-baa7-9ac9b6ca0fa0

G8 being 'hijacked': Concern grows that Live 8's Africa agenda is overtaking bigger economic hazards

Jacqueline Thorpe
National Post, with files from news services

Thursday, June 30, 2005

...

"The [Group of Eight] summit should be focusing on the issue of how in the medium-term we are going to address global imbalances and how we will work with systemically important players in other parts of the world to deal with this issue," David Dodge, governor of the Bank of Canada, said in yesterday's Financial Times, reiterating a theme of several recent speeches.

In London on Tuesday, he said the global financial system is increasingly at risk as the U.S. borrows heavily from Asia to fund consumption, while countries such as China don't do enough to spur their own consumption.

Money that could be used for investment and growth is instead being squirrelled away in banks.

"Eventually, investors will balk at increasing their exposure to the United States," Mr. Dodge said in a speech to the Canada-U.K. Chamber of Commerce. "Should that occur suddenly, we could see economic growth plummet and world financial markets become disorderly, threatening global financial stability."

A run on the U.S. dollar could result. Mr. Dodge said the G8 should be overhauled to include such emerging giants as China and India so these issues can be addressed.

The Financial Times said Mr. Dodge's remarks chime with other central bankers who privately complain about the way Britain has chaired the G8, with its focus on Africa and climate change.
...

Aurel Braun, professor of political science and international relations at the University of Toronto, said he would agree with the Africa agenda if there was hope the aid would help pull the continent out of poverty.

"This very great focus on this issue, as if there were no other issues, could only be justified if there was a truly viable plan, a kind of Africa Marshall plan. But there isn't one.... I think it is negligent not to address a variety of other issues such as high oil prices and a variety of trade disputes," Mr. Braun said.

"Therefore what I have concluded is the agenda of the G8 has been hijacked by the politically fashionable to the detriment of the politically realistic."

He said Bono and Bob Geldof, who are promoting Saturday's Live 8 concerts, should be pushing for democratic reform across the continent, and an end to corrupt dictatorships such as that of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
...

Ian Vasquez, director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty, at the Cato Institute, a Washington think-tank, agreed the focus on debt relief is misguided.

"When you talk about debt relief, what you're really talking about is the failure of past foreign aid because the majority of the debt of heavily indebted countries is due to official loans from the World Bank, the IMF and other places," Mr. Vasquez said. "These agencies have lent hundreds of billions of dollars to Africa and they got debt rather than development. That to me is a damning indictment of foreign aid and I don't see how you get to more aid and more debt relief as a solution."

Mr. Vasquez said the best rich countries can do is open their markets to poor countries' goods and the main problem for Africa is the lack of economic freedom.

© National Post 2005​

My emphasis added.

Some army.ca members will know that I favour increasing our foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP but I also insist in major overhauls in our aid programmes before any more money is sent off.  In my opinion Bob Geldof  is an ignorant man who wants to waste our money.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I found this opinion on Geldof/Live 8 interesting:

Live 8... Opportunity or moronfest?
Perry de Havilland (London)  Globalization/economics

The usual collection of fabulously rich but economically illiterate show biz twits are going to assemble for Bob Geldof's Live 8 event  ...

Live8 is going to be a freak show, that is for sure, surrounded by pro-poverty activists (by which I mean people who argue for a world structured in a way in which more people will be a great deal poorer) such as identity obsessed feminists, pro-Saddam communists, eco-luddites and all manner of other folks with very strange ideas about the nature of reality.

Yet unlike Live Aid, the objective of which was to raise money to mitigate a clear and present humanitarian disaster in Africa, Live 8 aims to raise political awareness on African poverty. Well that sounds like a splendid idea to me. Clearly the overwhelmingly largest cause of the destitution of large areas of sub-Saharan Africa is cause directly by corrupt African governments. So it would be fair to say that as the main obstacle to African prosperity and liberty is political, then the solution too will need to be political.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007608.html

when viewed in the context of these comments (from a conference call with some bloggers):

12:28 - Another concert would be pointless, Geldof says. What is needed is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a workable plan and a significant amount for the effort. He feels that Bush is more responsive than widely thought on this issue and has an opportunity to surprise the world. Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, and other evangelicals have signed a letter asking for Bush to make this a top priority ...

12:33 - Todd Zwicki wants to know about the concept of "trade justice". Geldof: The EU is a protection racket that Al Capone would love. The trade cartels exist to protect domestic production ...

12:37 - Geldof: "Read your Adam Smith." Africa has its own issues with protectionism which need reform...

12:41 - Mugabe is "a thug", but doesn't necessarily represent the entirety of African politics.

12:46 - What they want: cancel African debt, lower trade barriers, and double the direct aid to Africa.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004650.php

Calculated posturing, maybe ... but at least he seems to have some idea of what needs to be done, even if most of the show's supporters don't.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Here's an idea. If all these multi millionaire bands are so upset about the funds going to Africa, maybe they should all put in 1 million of their own money first. Personally, my gov't has already taxed me to death, taking over 50% of my earnings already. Sorry, but I just can't get behind these elitists who pressure for me to pay and all they do is sing a couple of songs and spout empty rhetoric from their soapbox. Where's their commitment?

 

[paracowboy]

pouring money into Africa at this point is like putting a Band-Aid on a cancer patient. Ask ol' Bob where the money from his grand adventure with Ethipia went. Ask him about the sacks and sacks of food that rotted on the docks. Without major overhauls to the "political system" in that continent, any money spent will be wasted. just like the money he raised back in the '80s. "Feed the World", pfffft!

Geldoff is a fool. A well-meaning fool, but a fool. Like Amnesty International. Bless 'em all for their ideals, but they're completely out of touch with the grim realities.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

He's got a long way to go, but I think he's at least starting to get the picture (which puts him a million miles ahead of most of these morons).  At the very least this time he recognizes and is drawing attention to the need for political and economic reform, rather than simply throwing money at the problem (as in Live Aid) and thinking it would be solved.  FWIW, he's got his priorities wrong: African countries (generally) need open and honest government far more urgently than *more* aid money, and the lowering of trade barriers (along with all this horsesh*t about "Fair Trade") would provide far more benefit than any amount of money, BUT he is acknowledging and drawing attention to these aspects of the problem.