Author Topic: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)  (Read 117312 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,814
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #400 on: August 17, 2016, 18:20:06 »
You have double plus words there, Chris.

You have to use the latest Newspeak dictionary.

For instance it's peace is non peace, or if in Africa: double plus non peace.

So says Minitruth.

 [:D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,507
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #401 on: September 29, 2016, 16:48:48 »
Good piece by Prof. Steve Saideman of Carleton U. on defence policy review:

Reviewing the summer of the defence review
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cdfai/pages/97/attachments/original/1475163657/Dispatch_-_Fall_2016.pdf?1475163657#page=20

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,196
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #402 on: January 11, 2017, 06:52:15 »
Bumped with the latest - a pretty detailed listing from the CF Ombudsman on what needs to be done as part of his submission to the Defence Policy Review sausage machine.  Here's his conclusion (highlights mine):
Quote
The Ombudsman Office is a resource for those who find themselves frustrated by failures in the system. When we point out those shortcomings, and they are addressed, the Department of National Defence and/or the Canadian Armed Forces become better and more effective employers for it. However, as I have noted throughout this submission, the systemic failures are too often not corrected.

With that in mind I want to emphasize that everything in this submission is based on calls, complaints and expressions of frustration and anger that pour into our office on a regular basis.

I am not suggesting there are malicious, uncaring people in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces – the contrary is true. I am stating there is an absolute need for modern innovative thinking that flips the paradigm from the rules and regulations controlling the people to the people controlling the rules and regulations. It is always easy to find a rule or regulation that allows for inaction. It is always easier to review or study than take action and right a wrong.

In this submission, I have deliberately avoided recommending studies or reviews and the myriad of others words and phrases that have become euphemisms for lets-announce-a-study-and-hope-it-goes-away when the heat is on from the public, politicians and journalists who have glommed on to some injustice.

Yes, the media, politicians and public will inevitably move on to other matters and the lack of public scrutiny might bring temporary comfort to a few people; but under the rug the problems live on and continue to gather dust.

    Mentally ill members unable to get help will continue to take drastic steps and bring a lifetime of sorrow to their families.
    Indigenous Youth in need of role models will continue to miss the opportunity.
    Our Reservists will continue to wait for parity with Regular Force members and the compensation, care and respect parity represents.
    Those attempting to negotiate the bureaucratic end-of-career maze will not be helped by another study when they know that the phrase “seamless transition” is in stark contrast to reality.
    Many military spouses and children will not be placated by claims of ‘caring for our families’ when they know from experience that whether meaningless or well meaning, it’s an empty slogan.


None of the issues addressed in this submission need another prolonged study or review and none require the expenditure of vast amounts of money.  What we need now is leadership with the will to right the wrongs before the credibility and image of this treasured institution is further eroded. No matter what position or stance we take at home or abroad, a well-supported military force will be the factor in determining success.

So let me end as I began: This is about the future. It is about our national security and our ability to attract future generations of great army, navy and air force members. It is about getting back to a place where the Canadian military regularly had pools of highly motivated, talented people knocking on the recruiting office door. Today, far too many of those talented Canadians are walking past that door with neither a second thought nor a backward glance.
Well put, Mr. Walbourne!

More from the CF 'Budman here.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,196
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #403 on: February 07, 2017, 06:21:13 »
Two takes of Monday's (6 Feb 2017) meeting between DefMin Sajjan & SecDef Mattis: the U.S. Info-machine's ...
Quote
Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis provided the following readout:

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis hosted the Canadian Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan at the Pentagon today, his first time hosting a defense counterpart as secretary of defense.

Secretary Mattis and Minister Sajjan reaffirmed the U.S.-Canada defense relationship, emphasizing their commitments to NORAD and continental defense, and agreeing to deepen cooperation to protect North America, noting that 2018 will be the 60th anniversary of NORAD. Secretary Mattis addressed enhancing North American defense relations and the North American Defense Ministerial, which he offered to host this spring in Washington, D.C.

The secretary and minister discussed international priorities and operations, as well as the upcoming NATO Defense Ministerial. The secretary and minister discussed U.S. and Canadian leadership as Framework Nations for Enhanced Forward Presence, members of the international counter-ISIL coalition, and support for United Nations peacekeeping. Secretary Mattis thanked Canada for its commitments to NATO and the counter-ISIL campaign, and agreed to continued discussions with Canada and other coalition members on the progress of the U.S. counter-ISIL strategy review.

The secretary and minister also discussed the importance of defense investments and modernization to ensure continued cooperation.

The secretary commended the minister for his consistent leadership, noting the need for both the U.S. and Canada to continue to represent our shared values and advance security, prosperity, and freedom. The two leaders noted the long relationship between the U.S. military and Canadian armed forces and stated they looked forward to deepening the U.S.-Canada relationship and continuing to work closely together.
...vs. the Canadian info-machine:
Quote
Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan today issued the following readout after his first meeting with new U.S. Secretary of Defense, James Mattis:

    "Today I had the pleasure of meeting with U.S. Secretary of Defence James Mattis. The warm, cordial tone of the discussion reflects the long-standing, close partnership between Canada and the United States, particularly when it comes to defence and security. "The close defence relationship between our two nations provides both countries with greater security in North America and contributes to peace and stability in the world in increasingly complex and uncertain times.

    "With 2018 marking the 60th anniversary of NORAD, I was pleased to highlight the importance of this unique partnership and its success in protecting North America, and we looked forward to working together on its modernization. Secretary Mattis and I also discussed multilateral issues, including our pledges to lead battle groups in support of NATO's enhanced forward presence in Eastern Europe, our commitments to the United Nations and the Summit of Defence Ministers that Canada will host later this year. We discussed our training missions in both Ukraine and Iraq and the work being done by the Global Coalition to degrade and defeat Daesh. I also took the opportunity to discuss Canada's Defence Policy Review.

    "We discussed Canada’s decision to launch an open and transparent competition to replace our legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft, and to explore the immediate acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet fighter aircraft as an interim capability. I expressed my appreciation to the secretary for the support and cooperation of the US Government in these processes.

    "Secretary Mattis and I pledged to work closely together and look forward to our next meeting at the upcoming NATO defence ministerial later this month. "I want to thank Secretary Mattis and Pentagon officials for the warm welcome in Washington and look forward to hosting Secretary Mattis in Canada."
More from the Pentagon here.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,507
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #404 on: February 07, 2017, 15:08:26 »
Telling what the Canadian statement does not mention:

Quote
The secretary and minister also discussed the importance of defense investments and modernization to ensure continued cooperation [emphasis added--rather a message, eh?].

Hmm.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 20,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,127
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #405 on: February 07, 2017, 15:11:06 »
What that seems to say to me - the Trump administration feels the 2% target is less meaningful than then 20% equipment investment.  Canada could get to that number with an extra $1-2B per year.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,814
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #406 on: February 07, 2017, 16:29:07 »
Nudder possible play....

Finance Operations out of the 0.7% of GDP pledged to Foreign Aid (nominally).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 237
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #407 on: February 07, 2017, 19:54:48 »
What that seems to say to me - the Trump administration feels the 2% target is less meaningful than then 20% equipment investment.  Canada could get to that number with an extra $1-2B per year.

So just buy a couple extra Super Hornets and park them,eh!? [lol:

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,196
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #408 on: May 03, 2017, 16:37:23 »
Aaaaaaand, the short & sweet version after the speech ...
Quote
Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan issued the following statement today after addressing the Conference of Defence Associations Institute on the state of Canada’s defence:

“Over the last year and a half, the Government of Canada has worked hard to address the complex challenges facing the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Our comprehensive review of Canada’s defence policy has shown that successive governments have not delivered the stability of predictable, sustainable, long-term funding for Defence.

“Years of inadequate funding have left the CAF lacking the resources they need. From the Army to the Navy to the Air Force – our women and men have not received the equipment and support they need. A prime example is our Cormorant search and rescue helicopters.  These helicopters provide a vital service that Canadians rely on.  Yet the previous Government did not make any provisions for the needed upcoming mid-life upgrades.

“But the resourcing problems that I have found the most troubling are the ones that have directly affected our members. Canada’s governments have failed to properly equip our Reserve Force. Not only is there not enough equipment, but the training to use what equipment they have is lacking. Like our Regular Force, our Reserve Force are tremendously resourceful, and they perform extremely well, despite having been under-funded for so long.

“Governments have a responsibility to care for their militaries, resource them properly, and fund them in a responsible way that meets their needs. Canada’s new defence policy will be a plan to build an even stronger military. Most of all, it will be a plan to care for the women and men who put on the uniform. It will be a plan to care for their families. I look forward to doing right – now and for the long term – by those who defend Canada, our people, and our way of life.”
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 129,257
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,367
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #409 on: May 03, 2017, 16:53:37 »
Ah, so the cheque, so to speak, is in the mail.  We're all good then, phew.  :sarcasm:   I've heard this same song and dance by many more before him.

Why does this come to mind... truth in advertising commercial

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 363,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,569
Defence policy review to be announced after the NATO summit, according to CBC news.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-policy-review-brussels-1.4113720?cmp=rss

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Spectrum

  • I'm from the government; I'm here to help you
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,256
Announcement after NATO summit = no good news for defence $$$.

 :2c:

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,391
Announcement after NATO summit = no good news for defence $$$.

 :2c:

I'd pay good money to see the Head of NATO or any of our allies steel the governments thunder and come out criticizing our plan, because likely we will inform our allies about it at the summit.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Online Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 69,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,381
Read somewhere (can't find it now) that the PM will attend meeting and leave before the announcement/"Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver a major speech ...." and " That will be followed closely by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's policy review...."

Fearless leader if true.

Interestingly the policy was shown to US officials, so there is hope.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Editor, The Devils' Blast, the Annual Chronicle of The Royal Winnipeg Rifles

http://www.royalwinnipegrifles.com/regimental-association/the-devils-blast/

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,196
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Read somewhere (can't find it now) that the PM will attend meeting and leave before the announcement/"Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver a major speech ...." and " That will be followed closely by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's policy review...." ...
Here's the Cosmic Butterfly Corporation's take ...
Quote
Canada's long-awaited defence policy review will not be made public before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces allies at the NATO Summit in Brussels later this month, CBC News has learned.

It's a significant decision that could make the gathering of alliance leaders uncomfortable for the prime minister, especially in light of the demands and expectations of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has insisted allies boost spending on their militaries.

A senior government official tells CBC News the plan had been to release the policy before the meeting, but officials believe it is important that Canada's defence policy align with a broader set of foreign policy goals.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver a major speech shortly after the gathering of NATO leaders that will more clearly define the Liberal government's vision, said an official with direct knowledge of the plan.

That will be followed closely by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's policy review, which has been more than a year in the making and will set the future direction for the military, in terms of expectations, spending and equipment.

(...)

The Americans were given a sneak peek at the new policy and were pleased, said a pair of defence sources, who were not authorized to speak to the media ...*
... as well as The Canadian Press, via Toronto Star's ...
Quote
... Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s spokeswoman, Jordan Owens, confirmed Monday that the policy won’t be released until after the NATO summit.

The government wants to “nestle” the defence policy within a broader foreign policy context, Owens said, which will give Canadians more context on how the different pieces fit together ...
We'll have to see how our "allies" take it - not that they've likely ever shared their defence plans with Canada before they release them to the public.
Announcement after NATO summit = no good news for defence $$$.

 :2c:
Hey, let's just count like the U.K. does -- easy, peasy, lemon squeezy ...

* - We'll find out quickly enough via POTUS45's Twitter feed, right?  ;)
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 363,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,569
Canada's long-awaited new defence policy will be delivered on June 7, almost two weeks after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with allies at the NATO Summit in Brussels, the country's defence minister has acknowledged.

Harjit Sajjan announced the date in response to a friendly question posed by a fellow Liberal MP during Monday's question period.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-policy-review-brussels-1.4113720
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,814
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Canada's long-awaited new defence policy will be delivered on June 7, almost two weeks after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with allies at the NATO Summit in Brussels, the country's defence minister has acknowledged.

Harjit Sajjan announced the date in response to a friendly question posed by a fellow Liberal MP during Monday's question period.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-policy-review-brussels-1.4113720

I need an Italian interpreter.  Why do I keep hearing "Domani, Domani"  running through my head?  ;D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,196
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #417 on: June 06, 2017, 06:44:30 »
A prelude to the defence policy, coming this morning (6 Jun 2017):
Quote
The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, will deliver a major address in the House of Commons and outline the country’s foreign policy priorities.

Event: Speech
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Time: 10 a.m. ET
Location: House of Commons, Centre Block, 111 Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario ...
:pop:
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 69,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,381
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #418 on: June 06, 2017, 09:23:50 »
The G & M summary of the speech:

Quote
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is the one to keep an eye on today. Ms. Freeland was appointed to her current job in January as the Trump administration took office, but it is today that she is set to lay out her foreign policy vision in a speech in the House of Commons this morning. The speech is set to be heavy on support for multilateralism, light on “responsible conviction,” and will be followed by a motion asking MPs to commit to a foreign policy based on championing human rights and gender equality, and fighting climate change and income inequality.

"Responsible conviction" - http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/stephane-dion-gives-liberal-foreign-policy-a-brand-name-responsible-conviction

To me, more, kumbaya from a government out of touch. Unfortunately they need a very rude awakening close to home that affects them personally.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Editor, The Devils' Blast, the Annual Chronicle of The Royal Winnipeg Rifles

http://www.royalwinnipegrifles.com/regimental-association/the-devils-blast/

Offline Lightguns

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,021
  • I live for trout and deer
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #419 on: June 06, 2017, 09:37:31 »
The G & M summary of the speech:

Quote
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is the one to keep an eye on today. Ms. Freeland was appointed to her current job in January as the Trump administration took office, but it is today that she is set to lay out her foreign policy vision in a speech in the House of Commons this morning. The speech is set to be heavy on support for multilateralism, light on “responsible conviction,” and will be followed by a motion asking MPs to commit to a foreign policy based on championing human rights and gender equality, and fighting climate change and income inequality.

"Responsible conviction" - http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/stephane-dion-gives-liberal-foreign-policy-a-brand-name-responsible-conviction

To me, more, kumbaya from a government out of touch. Unfortunately they need a very rude awakening close to home that affects them personally.

Not going to happen they are all well insulated from the world around them. 
Done, 34 years, 43 days complete, got's me damn pension!

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,391
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #420 on: June 06, 2017, 12:07:55 »
I feel like I must still be alseep.

Quote
Canada can no longer rely on U.S. for global leadership, Freeland says

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said the Liberal government will make a “substantial investment” in the military, saying Canada can no longer rely on Washington for global leadership in the face of threats of Russian adventurism and the need to combat the “monstrous extremism” of Islamic State.

In a major speech setting the table for Wednesday’s release of a new blueprint for Canada’s military, Ms. Freeland did not mention U.S. President Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy, but she said many Americans cast their votes to “shrug off the burden of world leadership.”

“The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts in sharp focus for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,” she told the House of Commons Tuesday. “To say this is not controversial: it is a fact.”

Ms. Freeland said Canada has been able to count on the powerful U.S. military to provide a protective shield since 1945 as she argued this country needs to significantly build up the Canadian military with “a substantial investment” to help confront strategic threats to liberal democracies.

“To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state,” she said. “To put it plainly: Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes requires the backing of hard power.”

Ms. Freeland listed North Korea, the civil war in Syria, Islamic State, Russian aggression in the Ukraine and Baltic states and climate change as major threats to the global order.

“We will make the necessary investments in our military, to not only address years of neglect and underfunding, but also to place the Canadian Armed Forces on a new footing – with new equipment, training, resources and consistent and predictable funding,” she said.

Wednesday’s defence policy review is expected to lay out the military’s priorities for future overseas deployments, and outline Ottawa’s 20-year plan for spending billions of dollars to upgrade warships and fighter jets, among other things.

Ms. Freeland expressed the Liberal government’s deep disappointment in President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate treaty, calling on the world to show “renewed, uncommon resolve” to combat global warming.

“Turning aside from our responsibilities is not an option. Instead we must think carefully and deeply about what is happening, and find a way forward,” she told MPs.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made the same criticism, saying last week that Europe could no longer rely on the United States for world leadership and that the continent must take on a larger diplomatic role on the world stage.

Ms. Freeland also championed the benefits of free trade, now under challenge by the rise of protectionism in the U.S., led by the Trump White House. Free trade hasn’t been the cause of the gap between the rich and the poor in more developed nations of the word, she said.

“It’s true that the system is flawed. But international trade is the wrong target,” she said. “The real culprit is domestic policy that fails to appreciate that continued growth, and political stability, depend on domestic measures that share the wealth.”

The minister described how and why Canada’s role in the Second World War allowed the country to help shape the post-1945 multilateral order.

Canada has continued to play a large role in promoting multculturalism and diversity and providing a home to the downtrodden – refugees fleeing persecution, famine or wars, she said. It has taken a strong stand on the world stage, promoting gender equality and a rule-based international order.

“Canadian liberalism is a precious idea,” Ms. Freeland said. “We are safer and more prosperous, Mr. Speaker, when more of the world shares Canadian values.”


Okay so again either I'm still asleep or due to the Trump administration's posturing a Canadian government now believes we can't rely on the American umbrella.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,196
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #421 on: June 06, 2017, 12:17:55 »
Part 1 of 2, (almost) straight from the horse's mouth, via the Global Affairs Canada info-machine - also attached in case link doesn't work for you:
Quote
Address by Minister Freeland on Canada’s foreign policy priorities
From Global Affairs Canada
June 6, 2017 – Ottawa, Canada

Check against delivery. This speech has been translated in accordance with the Government of Canada’s official languages policy and edited for posting and distribution in accordance with its communications policy.


Mr. Speaker,

Here is a question: Is Canada an essential country, at this time in the life of our planet?

Most of us here would agree that it is. But if we assert this, we are called to explain why. And we are called to consider the specifics of what we must do as a consequence.

International relationships that had seemed immutable for 70 years are being called into question. From Europe, to Asia, to our own North American home, long-standing pacts that have formed the bedrock of our security and prosperity for generations are being tested.

And new shared human imperatives—the fight against climate change first among them—call for renewed, uncommon resolve.

Turning aside from our responsibilities is not an option. Instead we must think carefully and deeply about what is happening, and find a way forward.

By definition, the path we choose must be one that serves the interests of all Canadians and upholds our broadly held national values; that preserves and nurtures Canadian prosperity and security; and that contributes to our collective goal of a better, safer, more just, more prosperous, and sustainable world. One we can pass onto our children and grandchildren, with a sense of having done the right thing.

This is no small order, Mr. Speaker. It is what I would like to spend few minutes talking about today.

Since before the end of the Second World War, beginning with the international conference at Bretton Woods in 1944, Canada has been deeply engaged in, and greatly enjoyed the benefits of, a global order based on rules.

These were principles and standards that were applied, perhaps not perfectly at all times by all states, but certainly by the vast majority of democratic states, most of the time.

The system had at its heart the core notions of territorial integrity, human rights, democracy, respect for the rule of law, and an aspiration to free and friendly trade.

The common volition toward this order arose from a fervent determination not to repeat the immediate past.

Humankind had learned through the direct experience of horror and hardship, Mr. Speaker, that the narrow pursuit of national self-interest, the law of the jungle, led to nothing but carnage and poverty.

Two global conflicts and the Great Depression, all in the span of less than half a century, taught our parents and grandparents that national borders must be inviolate; that international trading relationships created not only prosperity but also peace; and that a true world community, one based on shared aspirations and standards, was not only desirable but essential to our very survival.

That deep yearning toward lasting peace led to the creation of international institutions that endure to this day—with the nations of Western Europe, together with their transatlantic allies, the United States and Canada, at their foundation

In each of these evolutions in how we humans organize ourselves, Canadians played pivotal roles.

There was Bretton Woods itself, where the Canadian delegation was instrumental in drafting provisions of the fledgling International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

A few years later in 1947, a Canadian, Dana Wilgress, played a leading role at the meetings in Geneva that led to the development of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, precursor to the WTO.

It is a Canadian, John Humphrey, who is generally credited as the principal author of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. That was the first of what became a series of declarations to set international standards in this vital area.

And let us not neglect the great Canadian perhaps best known for advancing the cause of humanitarian internationalism—Lester B. Pearson. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership during the Suez crisis in 1956, for the creation of modern peacekeeping.

These institutions may seem commonplace now, Mr. Speaker. We may take them for granted. We should not. Seventy years ago they were revolutionary. And they set the stage for the longest period of peace and prosperity in our history.

It was the same appreciation of the common interests of the human family, in caring for our common home, that led us to the acid rain treaty of the Mulroney era. It is what led us to the Montreal Protocol of 1987 to phase out CFCs and preserve the ozone layer. It is what led us to Paris, Mr. Speaker, with 194 signatories at our side. That is global co-operation.

And it is important to note that when sacrifice was required to support and strengthen the global order—military power, in defence of our principles and our alliances—Canada was there. In the Suez, in Korea, in the Congo, in Cyprus, in the First Gulf War, in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, up to and including today in Iraq, among many other places, Canada has been there.

As the Prime Minister has often said, that is what Canadians do. We step up.

Today it is worth reminding ourselves why we step up—why we devote time and resources to foreign policy, defence and development, why we have sent Canadian soldiers, sailors, aviators, diplomats, aid workers, intelligence officers, doctors, nurses, medics and engineers into situations of danger, disaster, and chaos overseas, even at times when Canadian territory was not directly at risk.

Why do we spend billions on defence, if we are not immediately threatened?

For some countries—Israel, Latvia come to mind—the answer is self-evident. Countries that face a clear and immediate existential challenge know they need to spend on military and foreign policy. And they know why.

For a few lucky countries—like Canada and the United States—that feel protected by geography and are good neighbours, the answer is less obvious. Indeed, you could easily imagine a Canadian view that says, we are safe on our continent, and we have things to do at home, so let's turn inward. Let’s say Canada first.

Here’s why that would be wrong.

First, though no foreign adversary is poised to invade us, we do face clear challenges. Climate change is by definition a shared menace, affecting every single person on this planet. Civil war, poverty, drought and natural disasters anywhere in the world threaten us as well—not least because these catastrophes spawn globally destabilizing mass migrations. The dictatorship in North Korea, crimes against humanity in Syria, the monstrous extremists of Daesh, and Russian military adventurism and expansionism also all pose clear strategic threats to the liberal democratic world, including Canada.

Our ability to act against such threats alone is limited. It requires cooperation with like-minded countries.

On the military front, Canada’s geography has meant that we have always been able to count on American self-interest to provide a protective umbrella beneath which we have found indirect shelter.

Some think, some even say, we should therefore free ride on U.S. military power. Why invest billions to maintain a capable, professional, well-funded and well-equipped Canadian military?

The answer is obvious: To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state. And although we have an incredibly good relationship with our American friends and neighbours, such a dependence would not be in Canada’s interest.

That is why doing our fair share is clearly necessary. It is why our commitment to NORAD, and to our strategic relationship with the United States, is so critical. It is by pulling our weight in this partnership, and in all our international partnerships, that we, in fact, have weight.

To put it plainly: Canadian diplomacy and development sometimes require the backing of hard power. Force is of course always a last resort. But the principled use of force, together with our allies and governed by international law, is part of our history and must be part of our future.

To have that capacity requires a substantial investment, which this government is committed to making. The Minister of Defence will elaborate fully on that tomorrow. I know he will make Canadians justly proud.

Whatever their politics, Canadians understand that, as a middle power living next to the world’s only super power, Canada has a huge interest in an international order based on rules. One in which might is not always right. One in which more powerful countries are constrained in their treatment of smaller ones by standards that are internationally respected, enforced and upheld.

The single most important pillar of this, which emerged following the carnage of the First and Second World Wars, is the sanctity of borders. And that principle, today, is under siege.

This is why the democratic world has united behind Ukraine. The illegal seizure of Ukrainian territory by Russia is the first time since the end of the Second World War that a European power has annexed by force the territory of another European country. This is not something we can accept or ignore.

The atrocities of Daesh directly challenge both the sanctity of borders and the liberal international order itself. They create chaos, not only because of the carnage they perpetrate on their innocent victims, but because of the humanitarian crises and migratory explosions that follow. This is why the world has united against this scourge; violent extremism challenges our way of life. We will always oppose it.

Another key benefit for Canada from an international system based on rules, is of course free trade. In this sphere as well, beggar-thy-neighbour policies hit middle powers soonest and hardest. That is the implacable lesson of the 1930s, and the Great Depression. Rising trade barriers hurt the people they are intended to help. They curb growth, stifle innovation and kill employment. This is a lesson we should learn from history. We should not need to teach it to ourselves again through painful experience.

The international order an earlier generation built faces two big challenges, both unprecedented.

The first is the rapid emergence of the global South and Asia—most prominently, China—and the need to integrate these countries into the world’s economic and political system in a way that is additive, that preserves the best of the old order that preceded their rise, and that addresses the existential threat of climate change. This is a problem that simply cannot be solved by nations working alone. We must work together.

I have focused these remarks on the development of the postwar international order—a process that was led primarily by the Atlantic powers of North America and Western Europe.

But we recognize that the global balance of power has changed greatly since then—and will continue to evolve as more nations prosper.

The G20, in whose creation Canada was instrumental, was an early acknowledgement of this emerging reality. The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and Asia are on the ascendant, delivering ever-increasing living standards to fast-growing populations bursting with innovation, creativity and enterprise.

This is not a trend anyone should fear: it is one we should embrace. Let us recognize that the peace and prosperity we in the West have enjoyed these past 70 years are desired by all, and increasingly within reach of all. And, as Canadians, let us be agents of that change.

Let us seize the great opportunity we now have to help the people of the world’s fastest-growing countries join the global middle class and the multilateral system that supports it. Peace and prosperity are every person’s birthright. The second great challenge is an exhaustion in the West of the belief among working people, the middle class, that the globalized system can help them better their lives. This is an enormous crisis of confidence. It has the potential, if we let it, to undermine global prosperity itself.

At the root of this anxiety around the world is a pervasive sense that too many people have been left behind, betrayed by a system they were promised would make them better off, but hasn’t.

Here’s the key: it’s true that the system is flawed. But international trade is the wrong target, Mr. Speaker. The real culprit is domestic policy that fails to appreciate that continued growth, and political stability, depend on domestic measures that share the wealth.

Admittedly, this is a complicated problem. If there were easy solutions everybody would be applying them ...
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 397,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,196
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #422 on: June 06, 2017, 12:19:16 »
Part 2 of 2 of Freeland's 6 June 2017 speech:
Quote
... But let’s be clear on this point: it is wrong to view the woes of our middle class as the result of fiendish behaviour by foreigners.

The truth is that the nature of work has changed because of profound, and generally benign, global economic innovation. This transformation, driven primarily by automation and the digital revolution, is broadly positive.

Managed fairly, it has the potential to increase prosperity for all—not just the global one percent. That means supporting families, supporting pensioners, and supporting education and retraining—as the Minister of Finance did in his recent budget.

By better supporting the middle class, and those working hard to join it, Canada is defining an approach to globalization that can be a model. At the same time, we strongly support the global 2030 Goals for Sustainable Development, Mr. Speaker. The world abroad and the world at home are not two solitudes. They are connected.

Likewise, by embracing multiculturalism and diversity, Canadians are embodying a way of life that works. We can say this in all humility, but also without any false self-effacement: Canadians know about living side-by side with people of diverse origins and beliefs, whose ancestors hail from the far corners of the globe, in harmony and peace. We’re good at it. Watch how we do it.

We say this in the full knowledge that we also have problems of our own to overcome—most egregiously the injustices suffered by Indigenous people in Canada. We must never flinch from acknowledging this great failure, even as we do the hard work of seeking restoration and reconciliation.

Now, it is clearly not our role to impose our values around the world, Mr. Speaker. No one appointed us the world's policeman. But it is our role to clearly stand for these rights both in Canada and abroad.

It is our role to provide refuge to the persecuted and downtrodden, to the extent we are able, as we are so proud to have done for more than 40,000 Syrian refugees.

It is our role to set a standard for how states should treat women, gays and lesbians, transgendered people, racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious minorities, and Indigenous people.

We can and must play an active role in the preservation and strengthening of the global order from which we have benefited so greatly. Doing so is in our interest, because our own open society is most secure in a world of open societies‎. And it is under threat in a world where open societies are under threat.

In short, Canadian liberalism is a precious idea. It would not long survive in a world dominated by the clash of great powers and their vassals, struggling for supremacy or, at best, an uneasy détente.

Canada can work for better, Mr. Speaker. We must work for better.

Let me pause here and address the United States, directly. As the Prime Minister said last week: Canada is deeply disappointed by the decision by the U.S. federal government to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate.

That said, we will continue to seek opportunities for constructive progress on the environment, wherever we can find them, with our counterparts in Washington and across the great United States, at all levels of government and with partners in business, labour and civil society.

As I have said, we Canadians can rightly be proud of the role we played in building the postwar order, and the unprecedented peace and prosperity that followed.

Yet even as we celebrate our own part in that project, it’s only fair for us to acknowledge the larger contribution of the United States. For in blood, in treasure, in strategic vision, in leadership, America has paid the lion's share.

The United States has truly been the indispensable nation, Mr. Speaker. For their unique, seven-decades-long contribution to our shared peace ‎and prosperity, and on behalf of all Canadians, I would like to profoundly thank our American friends.

As I have argued, Canada believes strongly that this stable, predictable international order has been deeply in our national interest. And we believe it has helped foster peace and prosperity for our ‎southern neighbours, too.

Yet it would be naive or hypocritical to claim before this House that all Americans today agree. Indeed, many of the voters in last year's presidential election cast their ballots, animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership. To say this is not controversial: it is simply a fact.

Canada is grateful, and will always be grateful, to our neighbour for the outsized role it has played in the world. And we seek and will continue to seek to persuade our friends that their continued international leadership is very much in their national interest—as well as that of the rest of the free world.

Yet we also recognize that this is ultimately not our decision to make. It is a choice Americans must make for themselves.

The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course. For Canada that course must be the renewal, indeed the strengthening, of the postwar multilateral order.

We will follow this path, with open hands and open hearts extended to our American friends, seeking to make common cause as we have so often in the past. And indeed, as we continue to do now on multiple fronts—from border security, to the defence of North America through NORAD, to the fight against Daesh, to our efforts within NATO, to nurturing and improving our trading relationship, which is the strongest in the world.

And, at the same time, we will work with other like-minded people and countries who share our aims.

Mr. Speaker, to put this in sharper focus, those aims are as follows:

First, we will robustly support the rules-based international order, and all its institutions, and seek ways to strengthen and improve them.

We will strongly support the multilateral forums where such discussions are held—including the G7, the G20, the OAS, APEC, the WTO, the Commonwealth and La Francophonie, the Arctic Council, and of course NATO and the UN.

A cornerstone of our multilateral agenda is our steadfast commitment to the Transatlantic Alliance. Our bond is manifest in CETA, our historic trade agreement with the European Union—which we believe in and warmly support—and in our military deployment this summer to Latvia.

There can be no clearer sign that NATO and Article 5 are at the heart of Canada’s national security policy.

We will strive for leadership in all these multilateral forums. We are honoured to be hosting the G7 next year, and we are energetically pursuing a two-year term on the UN Security Council. We seek this UN seat because we wish to be heard. For we are safer and more prosperous, Mr. Speaker, when more of the world shares Canadian values.

Those values include feminism, and the promotion of the rights of women and girls.

It is important, and historic, that we have a prime minister and a government proud to proclaim ourselves feminists. Women’s rights are human rights. That includes sexual reproductive rights and the right to safe and accessible abortions. These rights are at the core of our foreign policy.

To that end, in the coming days, my colleague the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie will unveil Canada’s first feminist international assistance policy, which will target women’s rights and gender equality. We will put Canada at the forefront of this global effort.

This is a matter of basic justice and also basic economics. We know that empowering women, overseas and here at home, makes families and countries more prosperous. Canada’s values are informed by our historical duality of French and English; by our cooperative brand of federalism; by our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic citizenry; and by our geography—bridging Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic. Our values are informed by the traditions and aspirations of the Indigenous people in Canada. And our values include an unshakeable commitment to pluralism, human rights and the rule of law.

Second: We will make the necessary investments in our military, to not only redress years of neglect and underfunding, but also to place the Canadian Armed Forces on a new footing—with the equipment, training, resources and consistent, predictable financing they need to do their difficult, dangerous and important work.

We owe this to our women and men in uniform. We will not let them down, Mr. Speaker.

Canada’s broader interest in investing in a capable, professional and robust military is very clear: If middle powers do not implicate themselves in the furtherance of peace and stability around the world, that will be left to the Great Powers to settle among themselves. This would not be in Canada’s interest.

Third, we are a trading nation. Far from seeing trade as a zero-sum game, we believe in trading relationships that benefit all parties. We look forward to working with our continental partners to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement, and to making a great trading partnership even better. We will also intensify our efforts to diversify Canadian trade worldwide. We will actively seek new trade agreements that further Canadian economic interests and that reflect our values—with the Canada-EU Trade Agreement as our template.

We are proud of the role Canada has played in creating a rules-based international trading order. We believe in the WTO and will continue our work to make it stronger, and more responsive to the needs of ordinary people in Canada and around the world.

We believe in progressive trade that works for working people. That is why we are very proud that this month, Canada will ratify the last of the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization.

In summary, we will be tireless in pursing our national interest, tireless in upholding progressive Canadian values, tireless in working to create a rules-based international order for the 21st century. Seventy years ago Canada played a pivotal role in forming the postwar international order. We are now called—by virtue of our unique experience, expertise, geography, diversity and values—to do this again, for a new century.

Mr. Speaker, these are ambitious objectives. There is no guarantee of success.

We set them, not in the assumption that success will come easily, but in the certain knowledge that it will not. We will venture, in noble and good causes. We will risk. We will enjoy victories—and we will suffer defeats. But we will keep working toward a better world, Mr. Speaker, because that is what Canadians do.

Let me conclude on a personal note.

A popular criticism today of the argument I am making here, is that all such ideas are abstract, perhaps of interest to the so-called Laurentian elite, or the media, or the Ottawa bubble, but not at all relevant to “real” Canadians.

That line of reasoning is the ultimate, elite condescension; it is nonsense. And in reply, I offer the example of my grandfather, John Wilbur Freeland.

He was born in Peace River, Alberta—the son of a pioneer family. Wilbur was 24 in 1940, and making a bit of a living as a cowboy and boxer. His nickname was “Pretty Boy” Freeland.

My grandpa was the opposite of an Upper Canada elite. But in the darkest days of the Second World War, Wilbur enlisted to serve. Two of his brothers, Carleton and Warren, joined up too. Wilbur and Carleton came home. Warren did not.

My grandfather told me‎ they signed up partly for the excitement—Europe, even at war, was an exotic destination for the youths of the Peace Country.

But there was more to it than a young man’s thirst for adventure. My grandfather was one of a generation of Canadians who intuitively understood the connection between their lives, and those of people they’d never met, whose speech they couldn’t comprehend, who lived on a continent so far away as to constitute, back then, another world.

That generation of Canadians—the Greatest Generation, we call them, with good reason—had survived the Great Depression. They were born in the aftermath of the First World War. They appreciated viscerally that a world without fixed borders or rules for the global economy, was a world of strife and poverty. They sought to prevent that from ever happening again.

That is why they risked and gave their lives to fight in a European war. That is why, when they came home, they cheerfully contributed to the great project of rebuilding Europe and creating a postwar world order. That is why they counted themselves lucky to be able to do so.

They were our parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents. The challenge we face today is significant, to be sure. But it pales next to the task they faced, and met.

Our job today is to preserve their achievement, and to build on it; to use the multilateral structures they created as the foundation for planetary accords and institutions fit for the new realities of this century.

They rose to their generation’s great challenge. And so can we.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,866
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #423 on: June 06, 2017, 12:22:32 »
She's talking out of her *** at the same time as telling Trump the government will increase spending to the 2% he demanded.....as did Germany.

As for the rest of it, it's all hooey..... :(
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Online Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 470,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,852
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #424 on: June 06, 2017, 12:51:20 »
Well, if Min. Freeland is going to simply add "Canada rocked in 1946" to Merkel's cribbed speech, then maybe Min. Sajjan whoever  is speaking for Defence tomorrow will merely put a new cover on Canada First Defence Strategy  and say that's the way ahead.  After all, it didn't get much usage first time around.

Of course, if one hand is saying "investment will be more focused upon people than equipment," while the other says the government will "place the Canadian Armed Forces on a new footing – with new equipment, training, resources and consistent and predictable funding," then I'm guessing they really don't know that they're saying.

Hence, words may lie but actions will tell the truth;  they may promise a "new footing," but the boots will still be crap.  :not-again:


/today's cynicism


Edit:
ps - next time Trump mentions "Canada agreed to 2% GDP defence spending," the response is "yes, and the US agreed to the Paris Climate Agreement; go **** yourself."
« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 12:54:56 by Journeyman »