The Geopolitics of it all

[Kirkhill]

Military power struggle deepens between Germany and France​

Both countries have differing views on how to fund the project and who the jets should be sold to

ByHoward Mustoe30 August 2023 • 9:00am

The Système de Combat Aérien du Futur is likely to cost billions of euros CREDIT: YOAN VALAT/AFP
Fighter jets are among the most expensive weapons a nation can build, with costs running into tens of billions. Each new model costs more than the last.
No wonder, then, that Europe’s superpowers are squabbling over money when it comes to the latest jet project.
Development of the Système de Combat Aérien du Futur (SCAF) – or the Future Combat Air System in England – is increasingly opening up a rift between Paris and Berlin.
Germany and France, who together with Spain are developing the SCAF, are increasingly at odds over how to fund the project, where it should be built and who the jets should be sold to.
“One or two of these issues on their own is fine,” says Rym Momtaz, a fellow of European Foreign Policy and Security at the IISS think tank. “But all of these combined are just making for a difficult moment and the Franco German relationship.”
The SCAF project has its roots in a 2001 effort to find a successor to todays’ fighter technology but it began in earnest in 2017. SCAF aims to have a working warplane by 2040.
The forthcoming jets will be more like a flying supercomputer than the flying gunners of the past. As well as carrying munitions, they will capture pictures, radar data and radio traffic, interpreting it at a thousand miles per hour. As a result, development costs are high.
There is no set budget yet, but the cost is likely to be comparable to the £72bn Anglo-Italia Tempest project, meaning it will be in the tens of billions of euros. The budget for the prototype alone is €3.2bn. France, the EU’s only nuclear-armed power, has typically taken the lead on military projects such as these.
Yet the war in Ukraine has prompted Germany to reassess its long-standing pessimism. Berlin has vowed to up its defence spending to meet the NATO target of 2pc of GDP.
This has put noses out of joint. Berlin’s decision to launch a new missile defence programme last year took France by surprise and became “one of the major points of contention between Paris and Berlin since the beginning of the war in Ukraine,” according to Le Monde.
Now, Germany is reportedly wavering on its plan to legally commit itself to the NATO military spending target, which would be worth about €77bn annually based on last year’s economic output.
Instead it may commit to a 2pc average over five years, offering more wiggle room, according to Reuters, but also raising the possibility of less weapons spending in the near term.
However, the biggest bone of contention between Paris and Berlin is who to sell the future fighter jets to.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told reporters at a NATO summit last month that its block on the export to Saudi Arabia of Eurofighter Typhoon jets would not end “anytime soon”.

Germany continues to oppose sale of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia CREDIT: Cpl Cathy Sharples/614 Squadron Royal Air Force
The comments are “a very bad signal for future exports of the European SCAF programme,” financial newspaper La Tribune bemoaned.
Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest defence spenders in the world and France has typically built its defence industry around exports.
However, “Germany is more gung ho about issues of human rights,” says Momtaz.
Francis Tusa, an independent defence expert, says: “I am a SCAF pessimist.”

An underlying theme is the shift in the balance of military power in Europe, which France is struggling to deal with, he says.
Another long-running source of tensions is French insistence that a home-grown European defence industry must be cultivated.
“France is a country for which exporting big military systems is an important part of its economy,” says Momtaz. “It’s an important part of its diplomacy.”
Belgium is currently trying to join the SCAF project but the chief of France’s lead contractor on it, Dassault, has publicly objected to Brussel’s involvement.
“I don’t see why I would give work to the Belgians today,” Dassault boss Eric Trappier told the French Senate in a hearing about the project in May.


French President Emmanuel Macron has been more diplomatic but just as clear. He said in a recent speech: “What Ukraine shows is that we can only give Kyiv what we have and produce.
What comes from non-European countries is less manageable. It is subject to timetables, priorities and sometimes even authorisations from third countries.”


Berlin takes a different view. Germany’s European Sky Shield initiative, the missile defence project of which the UK is a member, will use US and Israeli-made Patriot and Arrow missiles.
Edit: (This is the programme on to which Germany signed Austria and Switzerland - and the systems are common to the UK, Poland and Ukraine. To me this suggests Germany leaning away from France and Eurodefence and towards JEF and NATO).

Other rifts include strategy. Germany has been cautious on making supportive statements on Ukraine’s Nato membership to avoid antagonising Russia.
Momtaz says: “The French thought it important strategically to send a different message to Russia, that Ukraine’s path to NATO was a credible one.”

These differing views on defence manufacture, sales and political approaches are starting to pile up.


However, there are reasons for optimism about Franco-German relations in general and SCAF in particular, insists Lucie Béraud-Sudreau, programme director of the Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme at the SIPRI think tank.
While a number of projects between the nations have been fraught with delays and rows, some have borne fruit.


He points to the A400M transport plane made by Airbus and, more broadly, the success of Airbus, which is largely a German and French enterprise.
There is also plenty of time to iron out any problems, she adds, since the SCAF jet is not expected to take to the skies for almost two decades.
“It’s a long timeline,” she says. “Things can change, things can evolve.”
And while Germany is sceptical about selling to Saudi Arabia, it is not a shy arms dealer. Béraud-Sudreau says: “If you look at the outcome, the level of arms exports, they still are one of the biggest arms exporters in the world.”
Germany exported €9.35bn worth of arms in 2021, led by sales to Egypt. It is the fifth-biggest seller of weapons in the world after the United States, Russia, France and China.
In the end, necessity is likely to mean Scholz and Macron will find a compromise on SCAF and weapons-buying in general, says IISS’s Momtaz.
“There can’t be this kind of division and difficulty between Germany and France, which are, by far, the most important two powers in the EU, given the war in Ukraine.”

Military power struggle deepens between Germany and France

Both countries have differing views on how to fund the project and who the jets should be sold to

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

Summary -

Brexit has had minimal effect economically, neither positive or negative.
States, no matter what clubs they belong to are still states.
Power centres will still exploit the levers they have to hand to achieve their ends and to ensure their opinions prevail.
The state is a powerful lever.

NATO - Washington
EU - Paris
JEF - London

Berlin trying to find a home.
Moscow was a play.
Beijing is a play.

Macron may be the most powerful man in Europe, or perhaps more correctly, the European Union. But if feels as if the European Union is shrinking. The words on paper haven't changed but the influence of Brussels has.

And if France, which has been exploiting Brussels to make the EU into a French project, isn't prepared to "give business to Belgians" one can only wonder if the center can hold. After all Belgium is still a forced marriage of expat Frenchmen and expat Dutchmen.

 

[Kirkhill]

China is taking revenge for the opium wars

Beijing is pouring poison into the West

www.telegraph.co.uk

China is taking revenge for the opium wars​

Beijing is pouring poison into the West
SEBASTIAN MILBANK6 September 2023 • 2:23pm

Arising great power fills the ports of a decaying empire with its merchants and goods. Its ambassadors mock the diplomatic and political traditions of their hosts and refuse to be bound by them. Soon, the great power is openly allowing poisonous drugs to be pushed on the old empire’s streets, refusing to do anything to stop their spread. China in 1839? Or Britain and America in 2023?
A century and a half on from Britain’s wicked traffic in soul-destroying drugs, ruthless imperial commerce is wreaking its revenge on the West. Britain’s primary motive in the Opium Wars was of course profit, but one can wonder if British leaders were happy to pump sedatives into Chinese veins, rendering a once formidable civilisation easy prey for economic exploitation.
The modern version of this grim imperial politics is played out in many of the old ways of course — China’s always lacklustre cooperation with US counter-narcotic operations ceased in 2020 — and China has been a major source of the synthetic opioid fentanyl in America, contributing to 80,000 opioid overdose deaths in 2021 alone.
But as well as more prosaic poisons, China has been happy for the social media platform TikTok to explode into the Western internet — even as it remains inaccessible within China itself. Although TikTok (like many Chinese-based tech services) is seen by some, including US Cyber Command, as a cybersecurity risk, it is the content, not the potential snooping, that poses the greatest danger.
TikTok takes all the most destructive tendencies of social media and pushes them to the extreme. Heavily targeted at children, it has created an audience that reports experiencing stress at videos longer than a minute in length. One third of users watch TikTok videos at double speed. The algorithm operates on an especially marked feedback model — the “garbage in, garbage out” approach.
Start to watch highly sexualised content, videos featuring self harm, suicide, eating disorders or gender dysphoria, and you will soon be fed more videos on these topics. The process is also highly memetic, playing on our most basic instinct to copy what we see.
Last month, tourists and shoppers were horrified by the sudden appearance of hundreds of teenagers attempting to loot businesses on Oxford Street. The mystery was soon solved — the robbery was inspired by messages on TikTok. This was civil disorder by flashmob. Organising hundreds of people to break the law at once is an effective way to get away with theft, but it’s often just as much about performativity. Mizzy rose to notoriety in his pursuit of social media stardom.
But more disturbing than the destruction is the self-destruction inspired via TikTok. Apart from spreading eating disorders and depression by social contagion, it has spread far more improbable mental illnesses. Thanks to “awareness-rasing” content and influencers, there are now thousands of teenagers self-diagnosing with ADHD, autism, Tourettes, multiple-personality disorder and other rare conditions. Other TikTok influencers promote the “child-free” lifestyle, turning the choice not to reproduce into a mix of political movement and spiritual ideal. Proponents range from the idiotic but innocuous (one woman went viral boasting about being able to sleep in) to the sinister and anti-social — with one user celebrated in the leftwing press for promoting “child-free” public spaces.
TikTok may not be snorted, smoked or injected, but it’s just as spiritually lethal to Western culture as any drug. Especially targeted at children, it promotes mental illness, self-harm, infertility, triviality and despair. It makes us victims of our worst instincts. If Western countries don’t want our own century of humiliation, it’s time we chucked the whole horrible platform into the sea — or its nearest digital equivalent.

 

[Kirkhill]

The author is a favourite of mine. He was one of the guest speakers at the CPC convention.

Capitalism not slavery made Britain rich. It’s time we stopped apologising for our past​

The UK did play its part in the Atlantic slave trade, but so did many other kingdoms. Where we are unique is in our role towards ending it
DANIEL HANNAN8 April 2023 • 4:00pm

Viola Davis and John Boyega star in The Woman King, depicting the slave trading ruler of Dahomey
News that the King wants to open royal archives to historians investigating slavery has prompted quivers of anticipatory delight on the Left. And, in fairness, there are strong historical links between monarchs and the slave trade. It’s just that the monarchs most deeply implicated are not British.
In the 1750s, King Tegbesu of Dahomey, in present-day Benin, was reported to be making £250,000 a year from selling slaves. That astronomical sum, equivalent to perhaps £45 million today, was vastly more than any British aristocrat.
While Tegbesu was trafficking human beings, the future George III, who had recently become Prince of Wales, was becoming a convinced abolitionist. He wrote a monograph arguing that “slavery is equaly [sic] repugnant to the Civil Law as to the Law of Nature”. He went on, as King, to free American slaves who opposed the Revolution – the vast majority of black Americans, unsurprisingly. Later in his reign, he signed the abolition of the slave trade into law in 1807.
That act prompted incredulous rage among West African chiefs. A Liverpool slave captain was told by the ruler of Bonny, now in Nigeria, “This trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”
Those Africans who sold other human beings were not bandits or pirates. They were, in most cases, kings. Slavery was enforced by the coercive power of the state – right up to the moment when it was snuffed out under British pressure.
In the 1840s, King Ghezo of Dahomey, played by John Boyega in the 2022 film, The Woman King, fiercely resisted such pressure.
“The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth,” he complained. “The mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery.”
Contrast his attitude with that of his British fellow-monarchs. Although Victoria, as Queen, was expected to refrain from expressing political opinions, her husband was under less constraint. Albert made his very first speech as Prince Consort to the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and for the Civilization of Africa. His words are a reminder of how determined Britain was to ensure that ending the Atlantic slave trade did not simply push the commerce eastwards.
“I deeply regret that the benevolent and persevering exertions of England to abolish that atrocious traffic in human beings (at once the desolation of Africa and the blackest stain upon civilized Europe) have not as yet led to any satisfactory conclusion. But I sincerely trust that this great country will not relax in its efforts until it has finally, and for ever, put an end to a state of things so repugnant.”
How bizarre that, in a world where slavery was near-universal, we should train our ire almost exclusively on the country that distinguished itself by its abolitionism. It is true that, during the eighteenth century, Britain had been heavily involved with the slave trade. At that time, human bondage was taken for granted almost everywhere. It had been practised by Aztecs and Incas, Arabs and Persians, Chinese and Koreans, Polynesians and Maori. Barbary slavers had seized more than a million Europeans, raiding as far as Cork and Cornwall. Some 17 million Africans were sold in the Arab world, a trade that continued well into the twentieth century.
What made Britain unusual was not that it had engaged in slavery, but that it went on to pour its blood and treasure into eradicating the foul business, diverting ships to hunt down the slavers even while it was engaged in a life-and-death struggle against Bonaparte.
Yes, the Stuart dynasty can be linked to the Atlantic trade. But Britain afterwards began to diverge from the rest of the world in its commitment to emancipation – partly as a result of religious fervour, partly in response to Enlightenment thinking and partly because it was the first country to industrialise, making slavery obsolete.
The difference between the British Crown and other monarchies can be glimpsed in the story of Aina, a young Yoruba girl owned by King Ghezo. In 1850, a naval captain called Frederick Forbes came to Dahomey to try to convince Ghezo to stop selling slaves. He was unsuccessful but, during his visit, he was offered Aina as a gift.
Forbes knew that such slaves were generally destined for human sacrifice, so he accepted the child, naming her Sara Forbes Bonetta. When Sara arrived in Britain, Queen Victoria became her godmother, paid for her education and arranged for her to marry a wealthy Yoruba businessman. Are the British really the baddies here?
The oddest thing about our public discourse is that those who like to portray our history as a hateful chronicle of racism and exploitation seem genuinely to imagine that they are bravely challenging the consensus.
“Britain’s past, or a glorious version of it, is so central to maintaining the status quo that to question our history is to invite dramatic charges of vandalism and erasure,” writes Nesrine Malik in The Guardian. “If a country has owned, traded in, and profited from slavery and colonialism, it cannot escape or outrun the legacies of these foundational exploitations.”
Does Britain strike you as a country where we refuse to discuss slavery? A country, to remind you, where even a chair in a self-portrait of Hogarth at his easel can be labelled by Tate Britain as a symbol of “unnamed black and brown enslaved people”?
You can find references to Tegbesu and Ghezo, but you will struggle to find new content about this pair of kings on any mainstream news website after 2014, when the Great Awokening gathered pace. Our public version of history is now a morality tale in which the villains are white British men.
Critics talk of telling our nation’s story “warts and all”; but they rarely get around to the “and all”. The “and all” surely includes the vast sums devoted to stamping out slavery, calculated by Chaim Kaufmann and Robert Pape as 1.8 per cent annually of GDP between 1808 and 1867, the most expensive moral foreign policy in human history. Even if there were a case for reparations in principle (which there is not) that sum alone – not counting the billions given in aid – would surely have covered any debt.
The “and all” might even include the effort to eradicate slavery in Malik’s native Sudan, where the repression of the trade was one of the grievances of the Mahdist war against Britain, and where slavery made a significant come-back in the late twentieth century. That strikes me as a rather more overlooked story than the Atlantic trade, which is taught in every school.
What we are seeing is not a debate about history, but an argument about contemporary politics. Critics want to convince us that Britain became rich through exploitation rather than, as was actually the case, through private property, free contracts and independent courts.
Imperial expansion happened haphazardly, and was usually resisted by London officials, who saw colonies as a fiscal burden and an administrative headache. A constant theme of Colonial Office memos throughout the nineteenth century is frustration at the missionaries and abolitionists who kept dragging Britain into unwanted responsibilities. Those running Britain knew that their taxes were higher than in the colonies.
Consciously or not, critics are parroting the line taken by Lenin in his 1917 work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. The Bolshevist tyrant argued that, in order to stave off the proletarian revolution, capitalists had had to go further and further afield in search of resources. Every other aspect of Leninist economics has been discredited; but this one somehow retains its hold.
In fact, it was capitalism that did for slavery, by emphasising the sanctity of contract and by unleashing such technological innovation that human bondage became redundant. Why would anyone pay to feed and house fifty labourers when a barrel of oil could do their work?
The easiest way to demonstrate the negative correlation between capitalism and slavery is to look at the places where human bondage is most prevalent today – in order, North Korea, Eritrea, Burundi, the Central African Republic and Mauritania. If William III owning shares in the Royal African Company bothers you more than the continuing abomination of slavery in those places, you need to ask yourself some hard questions about your motives.

Britain's past is Canada's past.

 

[Kirkhill]

The author is a favourite of mine. He was one of the guest speakers at the CPC convention.



Britain's past is Canada's past.

Capitalism is about property and cash is property.

A person paid in cash has complete autonomy on how to spend it. They can buy food and shelter. They can waste it on drugs and sex. They can support a family. They can keep it to themselves. They can save it, invest it or squander it. They can give it away. They can pool it with others to buy services like insurance and protection.

They have freedom.

Being compelled to pay taxes, being compelled to supply service, is the opposite of freedom.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Britain's past is Canada's past.

No it ain't.

Canada is a mish-mash of the past of Britons ( from French Brittany), often doing the bidding of Scottish bankers and Irish catholics who came to escape English dominion by exploring and opening for business the West, at least East of the Rockies, by trading with natives as equals, until the English colonizers came and screwed everything up with their arrogant ways and ended up abusing everyone - French, Scottish, Irish and especially natives - ignorantly trying to "run" everything even though it was going fine without them - or without bothering to listen to the "locals".

If they had, the country today would probably be run on a more balanced basis between native and European settlers and Canada would probably include most of Washington state and the coast of Alaska to about even with the BC interior border with Yukon, and a good half of Nova Scotia (the most productive farming wise) would still be predominantly French (language - not nationality), while New Brunswick wouldn't.

 

[Kirkhill]

No it ain't.

Canada is a mish-mash of the past of Britons ( from French Brittany), often doing the bidding of Scottish bankers and Irish catholics who came to escape English dominion by exploring and opening for business the West, at least East of the Rockies, by trading with natives as equals, until the English colonizers came and screwed everything up with their arrogant ways and ended up abusing everyone - French, Scottish, Irish and especially natives - ignorantly trying to "run" everything even though it was going fine without them - or without bothering to listen to the "locals".

If they had, the country today would probably be run on a more balanced basis between native and European settlers and Canada would probably include most of Washington state and the coast of Alaska to about even with the BC interior border with Yukon, and a good half of Nova Scotia (the most productive farming wise) would still be predominantly French (language - not nationality), while New Brunswick wouldn't.

I wuz waiting for that.

Britain's past is part of Canada's past. Now if only the French had learned to stay on their side of the Channel then the Brits would only have had to worry about the Danes.

PS I would note that the Northwest Company and Montreal was largely a Scottish endeavour. And our greatest problems with the natives came from missionaries of all types, from 1604 onwards, trying to improve the natives.

The HBC and the NWC, like the HEIC, were adamantly opposed to settlers at all. The NWC in particular were not kind to Selkirk's Red River settlers.

Red River Colony

The Red River Colony, a key part of Manitoba's rich history, was a settlement on the Red and Assiniboine rivers whose boundaries crosse...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

All of which makes me wonder again if the HBC actually sold what Canada thought it was buying. HBC had a trade monopoly.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I tend to agree with you, Kirkhill, with one small caveat: While the businessmen who ran the North west company and Montreal were mostly Scottish (and were crewed by the English like everybody else), they could only operate and manage what they did because the rank and file who did most of the work and land exploring and exploiting hard core were the French (by then "Canadiens" who had no loyalty to the French crown) "coureur des bois" that made up 95% of the work force and were the ones with the connections and language skills to deal with the natives As equals.

 

[Kirkhill]

I tend to agree with you, Kirkhill, with one small caveat: While the businessmen who ran the North west company and Montreal were mostly Scottish (and were crewed by the English like everybody else), they could only operate and manage what they did because the rank and file who did most of the work and land exploring and exploiting hard core were the French (by then "Canadiens" who had no loyalty to the French crown) "coureur des bois" that made up 95% of the work force and were the ones with the connections and language skills to deal with the natives As equals.

Dead right on the Canadiens and the coureur des bois.

Speaking of disloyal Canadiens: there would have been no Hudson's Bay Company without those two coureur des bois Radisson and Grosseilliers. Although the HBC got a lot of its brawn from the Orkneys which shows in the family names found among the northern metis and the Cree.

 

[Kirkhill]

We must be willing to act unilaterally....

Couple this article with this

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700872794672676871

(courtesy of @KevinB )

The West can no longer rely on the global South​

Institutions like the G20 are increasingly coming under Russian and Chinese influence. We must be willing to act unilaterally
ROBERT CLARK11 September 2023 • 1:20pm

This weekend three things occurred simultaneously. The first is Ukrainians dying in battle, in their own fields and villages, as massed Russian artillery and rockets continue to make their offensive painstakingly difficult.
Second, as Ukrainian soldiers were being killed defending their own country, the leaders of their invaders were being back-slapped by world leaders from across the Global South. Pictures emerged from this weekend’s disappointing G20 summit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi grasping Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in a warm embrace, both laughing, while other notable world leaders waited patiently for their turn to court Russia’s top diplomat.
The third event was the despotic North Korean leader Kim Yong-un packing his bags, his generals, and his military’s ballistic missiles catalogues, ready to board their armoured train for the long journey west from Pyongyang to Moscow in what will likely be a defence agreement of systemic portions – and cause immense damage to Ukraine.
As the North Korean delegation travel west through Siberia this lunchtime, the Kremlin is adding the finishing touches to hosting such an important meeting, one critical for its continued war in Europe.
This week’s meeting between Kim Yong-un and Vladimir Putin – almost certainly to sell out-dated yet still capable Soviet-era North Korean weapons in exchange for desperately needed Siberian crude oil – is the perfect example of the wider shift in the increasingly fragmented international order, as the Global South increasingly look to Beijing and its junior partner Moscow for influence, trade, and security.
While Pyongyang has long been dependent on its fellow authoritarian and despotic communist allies to the west, far more leaders than ever before across the south appear to be cultivating both Xi and Putin.
Take Brazil’s Lula da Silva, who, on receipt of the rotating G20’s Presidency from India’s Modi this weekend declared that Putin would be welcome to the G20’s 2024 summit in Rio, and would not be subjected to the international arrest warrant for his war crimes against Ukraine.
Lula da Silva has also repeatedly supported the Chinese intention of “de-dollarisation” among developing nations, as Beijing hopes to replace the dollar with the renminbi with trade across the Global South.
Brazil is ranked increasingly highly among geopolitical indicators; as the world’s seventh most populous country and eighth largest economy, it is one of the world giants of mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and it has a strong and rapidly growing service sector.
Like Brazil, South Africa is becoming just as important to global affairs, and is a long-standing British ally. However, when pressed on the likelihood of Putin attending the annual Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) meeting in Pretoria this summer, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa stated his support for Russia’s leader to attend, in defiance of the International Criminal Court, of which South Africa is a member.
In the end Putin did not attend, but this did not stop all members welcoming Lavrov to attend in Putin’s place – the thought of a Brics summit absent the Kremlin incomprehensible to the increasingly powerful bloc.
Just as the G20 has now welcomed the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member, at the insistence of Modi to increase the voices of the Global South (the vast majority of the population of the G20 are already located outside of the west), so too the Brics are to increase – demonstrably so. Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are all set to join by January 2024.
Again, just as the African Union is largely a collection of states vehemently silent on Russia’s war against Ukraine, whilst also increasing trade and security dependencies to Beijing, the new Brics – Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE – are all largely supporters of Moscow, with varying defence agreements, pacts, weapons sales and strategic agreements already long established.
Thus both the recently enlarged G20 and the Brics are no longer representing the shared values many in the west hold – the respect of the rule of law; human rights; and liberal democracy. These institutions are increasingly coming under Russian and Chinese influence, and as such, the west must start to relearn how to act unilaterally of these institutions when its shared values and interests are being threatened.
Robert Clark is the director of the defence and security unit at Civitas. Prior to this he served in the British military

The West can no longer rely on the global South

Institutions like the G20 are increasingly coming under Russian and Chinese influence. We must be willing to act unilaterally

www.telegraph.co.uk

one of the world giants of mining, agriculture, and manufacturing

Is that going to be Brazil or Canada?

 

[Kirkhill]

Joe Biden says ‘I’m going to bed’ before being cut off in press conference

US president stumbles over his words during Asia trip and press secretary halts him mid-sentence

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

China’s threats must be challenged robustly​

Britain must become increasingly attuned to the difficulties posed by the Beijing regime’s ambitions
TELEGRAPH VIEW10 September 2023 • 10:00pm

Rishi Sunak took Chinese premier Li Qiang to task over the latest spying allegations
The arrest of a parliamentary researcher on suspicion of spying for China appears to represent a significant escalation in Beijing’s attempts to interfere with British democracy. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in New Delhi for the G20 summit, confronted Chinese premier Li Qiang over this deeply worrying incident.
While this latest provocation is the most worrying to date, it is also just that: the latest in a series of incidents signalling considerable effort on the part of Beijing to compromise this country’s security. It was just two months ago that Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee issued a report stating that China has managed to “successfully penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy”. The head of MI5 has previously described threats emanating from the Chinese Communist Party as representing a “game-changing strategic challenge”.
The Chinese regime under Xi Jinping’s leadership has ratcheted up the oppression of the Uyghur and Tibetan peoples, systematically undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy, and raised the threat to Taiwan to an unprecedented level.
As Mr Sunak returns home, he does so to a country where the full import of this threat has yet to sink in. At the core of our current defence strategy is the tilt towards the Indo-Pacific, where London has expended a great deal of effort building military and economic partnerships through accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Aukus pact.
Mr Sunak used his first foreign-policy speech as Prime Minister to declare that the “golden era” of Anglo-Chinese relations was “over”, and described the country at a G7 meeting as the “biggest challenge of our age to global security and prosperity”. But he has nevertheless proved unwilling to label the country a threat.
This confusion has consequences. The Government has set a deadline to remove Huawei components from Britain’s 5G networks: from its core by the end of this year and throughout the system by the end of 2027. It is now in the process of removing Chinese-made surveillance equipment from “sensitive” sites. A country more attuned to the difficulties posed by Beijing’s ambitions may well not have found itself in this situation.
It is vital that this latest incident serves to wake the Government from its slumber. It is time for admirable rhetoric to be backed by action.

 

[Kirkhill]

From November of last year.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/11/19/why_america_loses_wars_865793.html

 

[Kirkhill]

And Britain again.

Chinese spies in parliament and interference in trade and politics.
A suppliant Prime Minister
Bolshie unions - particularly the pacifists of the Fire Brigades. I haven't heard the "a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends" line for a couple of generations. When I say Bolshie unions I am speaking literally not figuratively. The Internationale is still a real thing.

Trade unions refuse to back motion condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine​

Space for debate 'has been shut down', says representative for Fire Brigade body, as conference also warned of imperialism 'on both sides'

ByAmy Gibbons12 September 2023 • 8:57pm

Two unions have refused to back a motion to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with one warning imperialism exists on “both sides of the conflict”.
The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) voted against the proposals at the Trades Union Congress conference, insisting space for workers to discuss the issue has been “shut down” while criticising Britain’s involvement in the war.
The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union abstained on the motion, titled “Solidarity with Ukraine”, but refused to comment further.
Speaking at the conference in Liverpool, Jamie Newell, an FBU representative, said the invasion by Moscow was a “crime”, and his union condemned it.
But he spoke out against the motion because he claimed it was “one of UK military intervention”.
“We are proud of our history of internationalism, we oppose this composite,” he said. “The space for workers to debate this has been shut down.”
He said the FBU supported “elements” of the motion, but criticised Britain’s provision of military aid, insisting “we do not believe that the escalation of war offers anything to the working class in Russia or Ukraine”.
“Remember that a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends,” he said.

‘The composite stays silent’​

Mr Newell claimed elements of the far-Right existed in “both Russia and Ukraine”, adding: “We oppose these groups and we do not support arming them now only for them to become a threat in the future. And yet the composite stays silent on this issue.”
The motion, which passed regardless, stated: “As trade unionists we are inherently anti-imperialistic, and our job is to fight imperialism and tyranny at every opportunity. We recognise that a victory for Putin in Ukraine will be a success for reactionary authoritarian politics across the world.”
But Mr Newell said: “Whilst the motion mentions opposition to imperialism and imperialist interests, they exist in both sides of this conflict.
“Anyone who reviews the military interventions of the past 20 years must recognise that – you only have to look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.”
He argued “the first duty of any anti-imperialist is to oppose the imperialism of your own government”.
“That does not mean endorsing Nato, the escalation of war with Nato weapons, Nato funds or Nato advisers,” he added.
The RMT has said publicly that it condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces and has called for their immediate withdrawal.

Trade unions refuse to back motion condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Space for debate 'has been shut down', says representative for Fire Brigade body, as conference also warned of imperialism 'on both sides'

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

Another compare and contrast moment -

British Indians are the key to our geopolitical future

It would be a mistake to ignore India, the new kid on the block with huge economic potential and unique ties to London

www.telegraph.co.uk

Michael Higgins: Trudeau outdoes himself with another disastrous India trip

There seems to be no end to the embarrassment Trudeau can cause Canada

nationalpost.com

Sorry for the lack of highlights. I might as well have coloured the whole thing orange.

Michael Higgins: Trudeau outdoes himself with another disastrous India trip​

There seems to be no end to the embarrassment Trudeau can cause Canada
Author of the article:
Michael Higgins
Published Sep 13, 2023 • Last updated 6 hours ago • 4 minute read

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, left, takes part in a bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the G20 Summit in New Delhi, on Sept. 10. PHOTO BY SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The best that can be said after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s gaffe-prone trip to India is: thank God that’s over.

The one thing that the prime minister is truly masterful at is the grip-and-grin: shake hands with world leader, smile for camera, fake sincerity. The fact that Trudeau couldn’t even accomplish that single task reveals what an absolute shambles his visit was.

The Canadian Press reported that during a wreath-laying ceremony at Mahatma Gandhi’s cremation site, Trudeau deliberately avoided a close encounter with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

“Modi tried to grasp Trudeau’s hand during a wreath laying ceremony, but Trudeau pulled away,” reported CP. “Trudeau, who shook Modi’s hand, was the only leader to pull away from the longer handhold.”

What accounted for this extraordinary behaviour? “I’ll let you read into it what you like,” was all Trudeau would say at a press conference at the end of his visit.

In a similar mistake-laden trip in 2018, commentators noticed that Modi failed to give Trudeau one of his customary bear-hug greetings until seven days into the Canadian leader’s visit. “Trudeau finally received an all-important hug,” reported CNN.

There were no bear hugs this time. In fact, an official photo of Trudeau and Modi sitting together after a brief meeting revealed a frosty distance and sullen looks.

The whole trip was characterized by Trudeau’s apparent determination to be undiplomatic and positively petulant.

Trudeau failed to attend the official G20 gala dinner and missed the launch of the Global Biofuels Alliance, an initiative of the Indian prime minister. Why? Trudeau won’t say, but his bizarre antics led to the Indian media having a field day.

The Tribune of India described Trudeau as “a slightly forlorn figure,” and talked of “his loneliness.”

“Trudeau is overstaying his tepid welcome,” read a piece in India Today.

The Hindustan Times said Trudeau had been given the “cold shoulder,” and reported that after his plane had broken down, the prime minister chose to stay in his hotel room rather than seek other official engagements with Indian officials.

There are reasons for Canada and India to have tense relations, but no reason whatsoever for Trudeau to behave so rancorously.

Days before the India trip, Canada announced it was unexpectedly suspending trade talks with India.

In June, Jody Thomas, Trudeau’s national security adviser, accused India of being one of the countries behind foreign interference in Canada.

For its part, India is angry at Canada for allowing “anti-India activities of extremist elements” in the country.

An official statement from the Indian government after a meeting between Trudeau and Modi said those elements were “promoting secessionism and inciting violence against Indian diplomats, damaging diplomatic premises and threatening the Indian community in Canada and their places of worship.”

At his press conference, Trudeau responded by saying that Canada would defend freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and peaceful protests.

He added, “I think on the issue of the community, it is important to remember that the actions of the few do not represent the entire community or Canada. The flip side of it, we also highlighted the importance of respecting the rule of law and we did talk about foreign interference.”

These tensions may account for why Trudeau was not granted a bilateral meeting with Modi, unlike other world leaders. Instead, Trudeau was only allowed to meet Modi on the sidelines of the G20.

At his press conference, Trudeau was asked about his strained relationship with Modi. “There’s always a lot of work to do and we will continue to do it,” was his reply.

For Trudeau, official trips to India always seem to be troublesome.

When he visited in 2018, he was attacked for wearing Bollywood-style costumes, was avoided by senior politicians and came under fire after a convicted terrorist was invited to an official Canadian dinner.

Yet all these embarrassments are nothing compared to Trudeau’s blatant hypocrisy on foreign policy.

“This week, I continued to advocate for collective action to hold (Russian President Vladimir) Putin accountable and to secure a just and durable peace that starts with Russian’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine,” said Trudeau. “People like Putin mistake being reasonable for being weak. Well, he is dead wrong.”

These are fine words but are not matched by actions, as many of our allies supporting Ukraine have noted. Canada is nowhere near meeting its commitment to NATO of allocating two per cent of GDP to defence spending.

Pressure to meet that target has increased with the war in Ukraine. But as The Economist recently noted, “Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Canada’s position as a penny-pinching outlier has become more embarrassing for the country.”

When it comes to the world stage, there seems to be no end to the embarrassment Trudeau can cause Canada.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Another compare and contrast moment -

British Indians are the key to our geopolitical future

It would be a mistake to ignore India, the new kid on the block with huge economic potential and unique ties to London

www.telegraph.co.uk

Michael Higgins: Trudeau outdoes himself with another disastrous India trip

There seems to be no end to the embarrassment Trudeau can cause Canada

nationalpost.com

Sorry for the lack of highlights. I might as well have coloured the whole thing orange.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not all the players are on the board. Some aren't even in the same country.​

How do you spell editor? P-A-M-P-H-L-E-T-E-E-R.

Murdoch team told Sunak not to quit over partygate​

Plan to resign from Boris Johnson's cabinet shared with News Corp executives

ByBen Riley-Smith, POLITICAL EDITOR15 September 2023 • 9:20pm

Rishi Sunak drafted a resignation statement on the day he was fined by police for breaching lockdown rules, but was persuaded to stay on after an intervention by executives working for Rupert Murdoch.
On April 12 last year, Mr Sunak, then the chancellor, was fined for attending a birthday gathering for Boris Johnson, then the prime minister, who also received a fine on the same day. The gathering broke Covid lockdown laws
A new book on the Conservatives’ long run in power by Ben Riley-Smith, The Telegraph’s political editor, discloses that Mr Sunak circulated wording for his proposed resignation to allies, including some working for Mr Murdoch.
But he was talked out of resigning and remained in post until July 5, when he quit shortly after Sajid Javid had announced that he was resigning. He was quickly followed by others, eventually triggering the collapse of the Johnson administration.
According to allies of Mr Johnson, Mr Murdoch became aware of Mr Sunak’s draft resignation statement and personally intervened to ensure he remained in post.
Mr Murdoch has declined to comment. On Friday night, a Downing Street spokesman said Mr Sunak and Mr Murdoch did not talk that day, but declined to comment on other conversations that allegedly took place.
It is understood that those who discussed the potential resignation with Mr Sunak included Lord Hague and Lord Finkelstein. Both are columnists on The Times, which is owned by Mr Murdoch.
The Telegraph has also established that the former chancellor talked through his plan to resign with Mas Siddiqui, an old friend and former colleague who is a director at Mr Murdoch’s News Corp in New York.
Whether a message of advice or support directly from Mr Murdoch to Mr Sunak was passed via a third party is not known.

The revelation is contained in The Right to Rule, which details how the Conservative Party has remained in power since 2010, with more than 120 key players interviewed.
The development was significant because if Mr Sunak had quit in April last year it might have put paid to his leadership ambitions to replace Mr Johnson, as he would have been cast as a disloyal Cabinet ally plotting to bring down the prime minister.
By delaying his resignation until a point at which many others were ready to walk out, this accusation was neutered – although it still became an issue in the leadership contest.
After staying on, with later support from parts of Mr Murdoch’s media empire, Mr Sunak went on to become one of the main contenders for the leadership.
Other disclosures include:

• Mr Sunak asked MPs in the Treasury to back him in a future leadership race in February 2022, five months before Mr Johnson resigned and triggered a contest.
• Mr Johnson begged Lynton Crosby, the Australian political strategist, not to work with Mr Sunak around the start of 2022, fearing that his chancellor was on manoeuvres.
• The then prime minister was urged to step down by a Downing Street insider friendly with Mr Sunak, with sources quoting the figure as saying “they’re going to get you” or “we’re going to get you”.
• Mr Sunak did not speak to Mr Johnson, either in person, by telephone or via text, to inform him that he was quitting as chancellor before announcing it.

The revelations are set to reignite debate about last year’s events, when Mr Sunak and Mr Javid, then the health secretary, resigned within minutes of each other. Mr Johnson announced that he was quitting less than 48 hours later.
The former prime minister’s allies continue to point the finger at Mr Sunak over his downfall, but Mr Sunak’s friends and many other Tories say Mr Johnson’s flaws were to blame.

On April 12, both Mr Sunak and Mr Johnson received fixed penalty notices over the birthday gathering in the Cabinet Room.
The then chancellor, who often speaks about the importance of integrity, instinctively wanted to resign, according to multiple well-placed sources who recounted events.
He went as far as to draft the wording of his resignation and discussed that with trusted figures who have roles in Mr Murdoch’s media empire while weighing up his options.
One of those figures was Mr Siddiqui. He and Mr Sunak knew each other from the world of finance, both having worked at Goldman Sachs and The Children’s Investment Fund Management.
Mr Siddiqui is one of eight members on the board of News Corp, according to the company’s website. Mr Murdoch is executive chairman, and his son Lachlan is co-chairman. Mr Siddiqui is lead director.
Mr Sunak also discussed resigning that day with Lord Hague and Lord Finkelstein. Lord Hague, the former Tory leader, was the MP for Richmond directly before Mr Sunak, and Lord Finkelstein sometimes attends Mr Sunak’s preparation sessions for Prime Minister’s Questions.
It is understood Mr Sunak was warned that he was being politically naive because resigning could have led directly to Mr Johnson’s ousting, given that he had been fined over the same event.
He was also warned that being seen to have directly brought down Mr Johnson would have weakened his chances of winning the Tory leadership in the contest that would follow.

Since being forced out of Downing Street, Mr Johnson has told others that Mr Murdoch intervened that day to dissuade Mr Sunak from quitting. He has also claimed Mr Murdoch told him as much directly, and scores of Johnson allies continue to repeat similar versions of the story.
A spokesman for Mr Johnson said he did not recognise the account.
Mr Murdoch’s influence on politics since buying media titles in the UK has been well documented over the decades.
Senior Labour figures still continue to debate whether Sir Tony Blair’s decision to woo the Murdochs and their executives before the 1997 general election was the right one. The Sun, the UK tabloid owned by Mr Murdoch, publicly switched support from the Conservatives to Labour before that election.
A News UK spokesman said Mr Murdoch and Mr Siddiqui declined to comment.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/wor...y-part-ways-with-the-eu-implying-the-country/​

Erdogan says Turkey may part ways with the EU, implying the country could end membership bid

Interesting - Byzantion-Constantinople-Istanbul reinventing itself as the place where east meets west? Again?

The two competitors for that position historically were Atil of the Khazars on the Caspian and Kiev of the Rus on the Dnipro.

 

[Kirkhill]

This: “Our movement will die if it does not maintain some kind of optimistic vision of what we can achieve.”

The Norwegian prime minister said the future of the progressive movement depends on creating opportunities.

“Our movement will die if it does not maintain some kind of optimistic vision of what we can achieve.”

This is a matter of belief and faith.

Trudeau calls for better progressive messaging at summit in Montreal​

Trudeau has been facing mounting pressure at home from critics who contend he's falling short on the very goal he articulated at the panel
Author of the article:

The Canadian Press
Thomas MacDonald
Published Sep 17, 2023 • 2 minute read

161 Comments

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right, takes part in a leaders panel discussion with, from left, Jacinda Ardern, Former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jonas Gahr Store, Prime Minister of Norway and Sanna Marin, Former Prime Minister of Finland, at the Global Progress Action Summit in Montreal. PHOTO BY GRAHAM HUGHES /The Canadian Press

​

Progressive politicians hoping to triumph over right-leaning political adversaries can only succeed if they can do a better job bridging their lofty goals with people’s day-to-day struggles, Canada’s Prime Minister said Saturday.

Justin Trudeau’s remarks came during a panel discussion at the Global Progress Action Summit in Montreal, a gathering of left-leaning political figures both past and present.

“If we’re not responding to where people are, (in their) daily life, then we’re not going to be connecting with them,” Trudeau told the panel, which also included Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Støre, former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin.

The progressive promise of a better, fairer world, Trudeau continued, is too aspirational to resonate with people who may be struggling to afford their basic needs.

The goal, he said, is “getting people to be optimistic about the future but also comforted in their present challenges” by presenting progressive aims, such as an inclusive economy and fighting climate change, as solutions to affordability issues.

“That’s where we need to connect with people.”

He contrasted this approach with one he argued is more common among leaders further to the right on the political spectrum, who he said often “reflect back and amplify the very real anger and frustration and anxiety that people have and people feel like they’re being seen and heard.”

If no one is coming up with answers, he warned, people will turn to those “who are shouting the loudest and most outraged alongside them.”

Trudeau has been facing mounting pressure at home from critics who contend he’s falling short on the very goal he articulated at the panel. This week’s caucus retreat in London, Ont., saw the government pledge to both remove GST on construction of new rental apartment buildings and push the country’s largest grocery companies to find ways to stabilize sky-high food prices.

MPs attending the retreat said the three-day gathering involved frank exchanges on why the Liberals are polling at their lowest levels since taking office eight years ago.

Those polls suggest Canadians believe the Conservatives would do a better job dealing with affordability and housing concerns, while the NDP has aggressively called out corporations for the high cost of food.

But Trudeau’s co-panelists were quick to support his message on Saturday.

“We can’t stand there next to a dumpster on fire and not acknowledge that it’s on fire behind us,” Ardern said of the progressive response to mounting global challenges.

Fulfilling voters’ basic needs, the former prime minister theorized, “gives people bandwidth to then have those bigger discussions” about social and environmental issues.

Støre gave the example of climate change, saying progressives need to translate “abstract” goals to cut emissions into solutions that positively affect residents in their daily lives.

The Norwegian prime minister said the future of the progressive movement depends on creating opportunities.

“Our movement will die if it does not maintain some kind of optimistic vision of what we can achieve.”



This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2023.

Ultimately, in my opinion, these people believe that the universe can be ordered. They also believe that they can order it. Corporatism is a route to establishing that order.

But if there is to be order, there must be authority. They ascribe to liberal and democratic beliefs but only when the beliefs are modified to suit the requirement of establishing order.

It is their order that they wish to institute, secure in their belief that they are acting out of benevolence for the betterment of all mankind. The mote in their eye prevents them from recognizing that they are authoritarians.

 

[Kirkhill]

And on the subject of beliefs -

BLUF

“and then we have Minister Guilbeault saying we’re going to end industry at all costs.”
“It’s so completely out of touch with reality. I do believe in technology and emissions reduction but I don’t believe in magic,”

The anti-Guilbeault: Alberta environment minister battles Ottawa's 'activist' counterpart​

'Completely out of touch with reality,' Rebecca Schulz says on dealing with a federal minister hell-bent on shutting down the oil and gas industry
Author of the article:
Donna Kennedy-Glans, Special to National Post
Published Sep 17, 2023 • Last updated 12 minutes ago • 6 minute read

Join the conversation

“I do believe in technology and emissions reduction but I don’t believe in magic,” Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz says of federal energy policies. PHOTO BY AZIN GHAFFARI/POSTMEDIA

​

This is a conversation series by Donna Kennedy-Glans, a writer and former Alberta cabinet minister, featuring newsmakers and intriguing personalities. This week: Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz.

Sparring between Ottawa and Alberta on matters of energy isn’t news, but a flurry of edicts this summer by Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s minister of the environment and climate change, turned up the heat. How do politicians in Alberta, or any other province for that matter, negotiate with a federal minister who seems hell-bent to shut down the oil and gas industry in Canada and so over-committed to this path, he doesn’t know how to change?

Rebecca Schulz is the Alberta minister tasked with collaborating with Guilbeault, her federal counterpart. Elected as part of the United Conservative Party (UCP) government in 2019, this 39-year-old Calgarian is three months into her mandate as environment minister.

She inherited a made-in-Alberta Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan that aims to achieve a carbon neutral power grid by 2050 (tabled by her predecessor, Sonya Savage, in April). On Aug. 10, Guilbeault put forward clean electricity regulations and a 2035 net-zero timeline — clearly at odds with Alberta’s plan.

And on a different, but adjacent file, there’s been ongoing disagreement between Ottawa and Alberta on the question of who has constitutional authority to regulate emissions and impose caps on oil and gas production.

Last summer, Schulz ran for the leadership of the UCP on a campaign promising less political drama. And now she’s in the thick of things, a core member of a ministerial team created to negotiate key energy issues with Ottawa.

Led by Premier Danielle Smith, this Alberta negotiating team includes the province’s ministers of environment, energy, finance and justice, with other ministers pulled in as needed. They aim to look at outstanding files with the federal government — clean electricity timelines, investment credits for carbon capture and sequestration, methane standards and so on — from all perspectives.

Schulz invites me to join her at McDougall Centre in downtown Calgary for a conversation. This historic Renaissance Revival sandstone building serves as the government’s hub in southern Alberta. As a former MLA in Calgary, I am familiar with the building but the sheriffs at the front door insist on escorting me to the Lone Pine meeting room on the third floor.

I’m caught off guard when the minister inquires about my recent minor surgery, opening up an unanticipated conversation on the merits of early cancer screening. As it happens, the minister in the next office — Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, whom I’ve never met — is then invited to our discussion to receive some of my feedback on cancer care. Our 10-minute chat about cancer concludes, much to my surprise, with a warm hug from the health minister.

Feeling quite at ease, Schulz and I continue this female-to-female exchange, talking about the day-to-day realities of parenting kids and being a politician. Her children are young — 8 and 5 — and I find myself nodding as she explains how she’s learned not to be apologetic about prioritizing family. “I did not miss dropping her (daughter) off on her first day of kindergarten. I did not miss picking her up on her first day. I left here at 2 o’clock. Picked her up at 2:30 and still went and delivered a speech later that night,” Schulz chuckles. She believes this is quite normal for working mothers.

I agree, but most working mothers I know didn’t spend the summer months figuring out how to negotiate with Guilbeault, a former Greenpeace stuntman who demonstrates an enduring embrace of anti-oil and gas ideology. So, how do you negotiate with an activist?

“Minister Guilbeault was my first call” after being named Alberta’s environment minister in early June, she says.

“It was a nice introductory call. It was polite. I offered to meet him, to fly wherever — out east, I knew he had a trip to B.C. and offered to fly to B.C.”

It wasn’t until the third week of July that Schulz met the federal minister, face-to-face, in Calgary.

Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault. PHOTO BY ARLYN MCADOREY/THE CANADIAN PRESS


In their first meeting, the politeness continued, Schulz recalls. She asked for data on the impacts of federal policies for Canadians. And she asked him to set ideology aside: “What I tried to get across was, look, in my opinion, I know we’re coming from different places but we have an opportunity right now. We missed an opportunity with LNG (liquified natural gas) and supplying what the world needs. I want history to show … we were able to put ideology aside and step up with what Alberta and Canada and the world needs right now.”

And then, in early August, with only one day’s notice, Schulz explains how Guilbeault rolled out the clean electricity regulations: “We were told by Ministers Wilkinson (federal Minister of Energy and Natural Resources) and Guilbeault, we (Alberta) would have seven to eight months to provide our feedback. We were then given the basic 75-day minimum.”

Obviously frustrated, she continues, explaining how the Alberta government heard, through the grapevine and while Guilbeault was in China, that the new emissions mandate targets are next, and then the production cap. Meanwhile, Schulz has no response from Guilbeault on his plastics policy. And she’s learning, through indirect sources, the federal government’s planned methane emissions targets are going to be unrealistic.

“Instead of setting targets that are wildly unrealistic or so prescriptive that we’re getting in the way of innovation and creativity, let’s just use common sense,” Schulz declares. The clean electricity plan, for example, requires hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent based on technology that doesn’t even exist. “We’re expected to test it (the new technology), bring it to scale, and they (the feds) haven’t made any investments to allow that to happen,” Schulz says. “And we need to do that all within the next 10 years.” Worse yet, Guilbeault has hinted non-compliance with federal clean electricity laws could be seen as a violation of Canada’s Criminal Code. “I’ve had companies say, if we turn on the power for Albertans the third week of January, who is going to be criminally responsible? It’s so impractical.”

It’s obvious Guilbeault has a green light from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but what about others in the Liberal cabinet? There are mixed messages: “Right now, we have the federal ministers on one side saying we want to see natural gas continue, we care about affordability and reliability, we want to see investment decisions made here in hydrogen and petrochemicals,” Schulz reports, “and then we have Minister Guilbeault saying we’re going to end industry at all costs.”

“It’s so completely out of touch with reality. I do believe in technology and emissions reduction but I don’t believe in magic,” the minister says, shaking her head.

Schulz’s tone is faintly reminiscent of how I felt, decades ago, when I too had to negotiate with activists — some, vehemently opposed to any and all oil and gas development.

Is Guilbeault acting alone? “I don’t know enough about federal Liberal politics to say what’s going on behind the scenes,” Schulz says, “but we sit at the table, they say they hear our concerns, we see the draft regulations for clean electricity and there was a cabinet and a prime minister who allowed that to be released. So it cannot be one person. There is a federal government who endorsed that. It’s bigger than one person.”

But, she smiles, “we’re planning for then what.”



Donna Kennedy-Glans is active in the energy business and a multi-generational family farm. Her latest book is Teaching the Dinosaur to Dance: Moving Beyond Business as Usual (2022).