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

Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rifleman62 said:
Dairy products are at least double the US prices.

Don't even need to go that far. Look at the price difference between a 4L of milk in BC (just over $4) and a 4L of milk in NS (just over $7).

Don't even have to look outside Canada to know someone is getting screwed.
 
Yes, I agree.  We're getting screwed, blued and tattooed six ways from Sunday.  Milk, power etc etc
 
http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

14 Nov 2011 - National Post - JASON FEKETE

HARPER PUTS IT ALL ON TABLE

Applies to join trade pact, supply management up for negotiation

HONOLULU • Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Sunday Canada will apply to join a new free trade agreement with the United States and the Asia-pacific region, and suggested that Canada’s farm supply management systems could be on the table for negotiation.

Mr. Harper also said Canada will look further into selling its oil and gas to Asian countries due to U.S. delays in approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. Harper, who met U.S. President Barack Obama over lunch on the fringes of the Asia-pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Honolulu, said Canada will formally ask to join the emerging Trans-pacific Partnership trade group of nine Asia-pacific countries.

A handful of countries in the TPP negotiations — including possibly New Zealand and the United States — have been resisting Canada’s entry into the group because of the Canadian supply management system that protects fewer than 20,000 dairy and poultry farmers behind a tariff wall and hands them production quotas.

The Conservative government has repeatedly said it will strongly defend Canada’s supply management system and that it wasn’t yet in the country’s interest to join the trade group — something reaffirmed Saturday by International Trade Minister Ed Fast.

But Sunday, Mr. Harper stressed his government now wants into the TPP, currently being negotiated among the United States, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. He said he was informed that Mr. Obama has asked for Canada to join the trade agreement.

The Prime Minister said Canada can “easily meet” the broad strokes of the agreement unveiled Saturday by Mr. Obama, even if it means throwing into the mix a supply management system that forces Canadians to pay higher prices for products like milk, cheese, chicken and eggs.

“It has been told to me that President Obama, in fact, was very strong indicating that he would like to see Canada join the Trans-pacific Partnership. We are indicating today our formal intention, we’re expressing formally our willingness to join the Trans-pacific Partnership,” Mr. Harper said.

“We will make an application and I am optimistic we will participate in the future,” he added. “Whenever we enter negotiations, as we’ve done in the past with other countries, as we’re doing right now with Europe, we always say that all matters are on the table. But of course Canada will seek to defend and promote our specific interests in every single sector of the economy.”

Japan announced Friday it was entering negotiations into the TPP and appears willing to dismantle some of its tariff walls for rice and grain farmers.

The Prime Minister met Mr. Obama amid a growing number of cross-border irritants, including Keystone XL, Buy American provisions, the Beyond the Border initiative and new $5.50 travel surcharge to the United States.

Mr. Harper said he is disappointed with the Obama administration’s decision to delay a ruling on the TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline and consider rerouting it, but he says he believes the project will proceed because it is critical for both the Canadian and American economies.

“We are disappointed. Nonetheless, I remain optimistic that the project will eventually go ahead because it makes eminent sense, and I would also point out, I think it’s important to note that there has been extremely negative reaction to this decision in the United States because this pipeline and this project is obviously what’s in the best interests of not just the Canadian economy but also the American economy,” Mr. Harper said Sunday.

“I do think as well though — and I think this is important to say — this does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we’re able to access Asian markets for our energy products and that will be an important priority of this government going forward and I indicated that [Saturday] to President Hu of China.”

The Obama administration announced last week it is delaying a final ruling on the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline until after the November 2012 presidential election while the government looks to reroute it. The $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline would carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from northern Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

The U.S. State Department said it’s ordering a new review of the project aimed at rerouting Keystone XL around sensitive ecosystems along its proposed path through Nebraska.

Canada’s ticket to selling its petroleum to Asia is Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship oil sands bitumen from northern Alberta to a marine facility in Kitimat, B.C., where oil would be unloaded onto tankers for export.

The broader goal of the TPP is to create a tariff-free region and members view it as a critical multilateral agreement, especially with the ongoing troubles from the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations.

Mr. Obama said Saturday he’s “confident” the TPP members can complete the free-trade agreement, hopefully within a year, and have it serve as a model for future pacts.

Mr. Harper, meanwhile, downplayed perceived strains in the Canada-u.s. relationship — be it on Keystone, Beyond the Border or Buy American — blaming domestic American politics for the decisions.

“Remember, not all these things are final decisions. I think Canadians would be wrong to interpret any of these decisions as against Canada,” Mr. Harper said. “This is simply the political season in the United States and decisions are being made for domestic political reasons that often have little or nothing to do with what other countries may think.”

He said negotiations on Beyond the Border — a bilateral trade and security agreement designed to better co-ordinate intelligence sharing and streamline cross-border trade — are going well and that he’s optimistic “a very strong program” will come out of it, with an “announcement in the very near future.”

A working group conducted public consultations on the measures and has completed a 30-point action plan. The Harper government originally said the plan would be ready by the end of summer, but details still haven’t been unveiled.

Other cross-border issues include the new $5.50 surcharge on Canadians and Mexicans travelling by air or boat to the United States — a move Mr. Harper has attacked as a bad policy designed to bail the United States out of a huge debt on the backs of Canadians and other visitors.

There has also been some tension between Canada and the United States in recent weeks after the White House included new Buy American provisions in Mr. Obama’s $447-billion job creation bill that could prevent Canadian companies from bidding on billions of dollars of infrastructure contracts.

The Harper government’s push into Asia-pacific faces some stiff competition, though, especially from the United States.


 
I think there is both more and less on the table than Prime Minister Harper suggests.

The "more" is that we offer the USA potential, future concessions on supply management plus we give Obama a "win" (getting a supply management 'concession" from Canada) in return for a better border deal. The "less" is that the TPP (the Pacific trade deal) is not especially important, except as a model for the future, and we need not give much any time soon.

The big "more" is the Northern Gateway pipeline and all it implies about the direction (West) Canada will look for its economic future.

But everyone must remember that the USA is, for the near and medium terms, our best friend, the guarantor of our security, a (generally) fair, friendly and HUGE market for our goods and services. Asia is, in the medium to long terms, potentially most of those things: full of fair to good friends and non-threats, and, generally again, fair, friendly and GIGANTIC markets for our goods and services. We are not, and must not look at one or the other: we need to cultivate both America and Asia, even as we plod along trying to sell more and more to other, less important regions (Europe, Africa and the Middle East and West Asia).

 
we need to cultivate both America and Asia, even as we plod along trying to sell more and more to other, less important regions (Europe, Africa and the Middle East and West Asia).

As a counter balance both America and Asia work, although I have more faith in a fair deal with the US and the prospect of fair trading with Asia, but that seems to me to be more cultural than anything else.....we are used to the rules within the US, because the are the same/similar to ours....that is not the case with Asia....

Europe, Africa and the Middle East and West Asia for us are dead ends....maintain markets, open new ones if we can, but don't try to get too involved in their problems...

my  :2c:
 
It will be interesting to see how the PM handles his own domestic environmental lobby on the West Coast.

The same players that are determined to scuttle the Keystone pipeline are equally determined to scuttle the Northern Gateway.

It seems it would be difficult to berate Obama for "caving" to environmental politics and then have to "cave" in Canada.

Does this mean that the PM is going to approve Northern Gateway this mandate regardless of BC politics?  If so, and the thing were done, then twere best done quickly.
 
Kirkhill said:
It will be interesting to see how the PM handles his own domestic environmental lobby on the West Coast.

The same players that are determined to scuttle the Keystone pipeline are equally determined to scuttle the Northern Gateway.

It seems it would be difficult to berate Obama for "caving" to environmental politics and then have to "cave" in Canada.

Does this mean that the PM is going to approve Northern Gateway this mandate regardless of BC politics?  If so, and the thing were done, then twere best done quickly.


I agree ... decide it will be done. Buy off the aboriginal bands, they can all be bought. BC wants this as much as Ottawa does. Do it quickly; bulldoze the opposition.
 
This, in the report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a significant foreign policy issue and President Obama's response to it will go a long way to shaping the direction of Canada's foreign policy for a generation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/border-deal-a-hard-barrier-for-harpers-critics-to-cross/article2251266/
Border deal a hard barrier for Harper’s critics to cross

JOHN IBBITSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
From Monday's Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Nov. 27, 2011

The new Canada-U.S. border agreement will be unveiled at the White House by Barack Obama and Stephen Harper in early December. When they read it, some people will go ballistic.

That’s because the Beyond the Border action plan, according to those who have watched the negotiations closely, is expected to include a new entry-exit system that will track everyone coming into or leaving Canada by land, sea or air. It will be part of the continental security perimeter that is one of the key elements of the accord.

Colin Robertson, the former trade diplomat, argues in an article to be published next month in Policy Options magazine that an entry-exit system will enable the federal government to, among other things, ensure that landed immigrants are actually living in Canada.

But the proposal will play to fears that the Conservatives are selling out this country’s sovereignty and undermining privacy rights in exchange for some illusory access to American markets.

The anti-American crowd will be looking for something to bash. This should do nicely.

Those who worked on hammering out the agreement over the past nine months are proud of it. They say it lives up to the mandate the President and Prime Minister gave them last February to make the continent safer and the border easier to cross.

A planned September rollout was delayed in part because of a hitch negotiating a pre-clearance agreement, which will make it possible to inspect some trucks at the factory rather than at the border.

But the problems were sorted out and the final agreement is robust. It will harmonize a plethora of regulations and safety standards in the automobile, food and other industries. It will make it easier to obtain temporary work permits and a trusted-traveller document that will allow frequent crossers to skip the lineup at Customs.

Air, land and maritime inspections will be more fully integrated, and both sides will be able to more easily detect and deter cyber threats.

Though it will begin more with pilots than with full programs, the accord will offer both countries a blueprint for greater economic and security integration.

If, that is, it ever sees the light of day. The Americans are much distracted with economic woes and next year’s elections.

Up here, many will balk at the iris scans or other biometric measures that doubtless will come with the new entry-exit controls, while others will fight the idea of sharing more data on Canadian citizens with the Americans.

At the root of much of the criticism will lie the notion, common to far too many Canadians, that the United States is an empire in decline – and good riddance – and that the faster this country forges new ties with Asia and elsewhere, the better.

But those who would write off the United States should remember that, Buy American and pipeline cancellations notwithstanding, it remains a great power and a great economy. Canada's security and prosperity will always depend on America's, however much we increase trade with the Asian tigers.

Beyond the Border is the indispensible next step in a long, complex but richly rewarding relationship. We know Mr. Harper is solidly behind it. Here’s hoping Mr. Obama also finds the will and the way to see it through.


Ibbitson is correct when he says "Buy American and pipeline cancellations notwithstanding, it remains a great power and a great economy. Canada's security and prosperity will always depend on America's, however much we increase trade with the Asian tigers." ("Always" being understood as a flexible term that means for the life of your grandchildren.)

Canada will turn, more and more, towards Asia, simply because the US market is not big enough for us and for its own manufacturers and hewers of wood, who will be increasingly (albeit often illegally) protected in the next decades. But we do not want, not in the lifespans of your grandchildren, to replace America with China, as we replaced Britain with America during the lifespans of my parents.

But the rate at which we embrace Asia, the rate of policy change, and the degree of that change will be set by Obama's enthusiasm for this deal. If he spurns Canada, America's best friend, then the Asian proponents, people like me, will have won. Obama, in my opinion is stupid enough and greedy enough (to hold on to power) to make a strategic error of great magnitude: "losing" Canada.

But there is a hidden threat, to the USA, in this deal: Canada will insist that the US devote more and more and more attention to its Southern border which, if this deal goes through, will be a threat to us, too. That's a political problem for both parties in the USA ~ both of which are courting the Hispanic vote. We want, as a matter of US policy a 95:5% ratio of effort Mexican border vs Canadian border.

obama+clown.jpg


 
Canada has be lax and lackadaisical in monitoring who is coming in and out of our country...

The US concerns aside, I have to shake my head when I hear of groups of passengers getting off planes and promply claiming refugee status with no ID's/fake ID's....and we just blithely set them up with the basic amenities and let them go their way....with lots of stern warnings I am sure...

We don't have to become draconian, but we have to do better than we are....
 
GAP said:
Canada has be lax and lackadaisical in monitoring who is coming in and out of our country...

The US concerns aside, I have to shake my head when I hear of groups of passengers getting off planes and promply claiming refugee status with no ID's/fake ID's....and we just blithely set them up with the basic amenities and let them go their way....with lots of stern warnings I am sure...

We don't have to become draconian, but we have to do better than we are....


So has the USA - maybe worse than Canada. The National Tourism Association, for example, appears top believe that a platinum card is all one needs to prove that one is a good, legitimate visitor to the USA and ought to get a visa.

The US/Mexico border is a disgrace and a monument to the triumph of cheap, ward heeling partisan politics over national security. Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43) and Obama should all be ashamed - and so should 90% of Americans.


project-gunrunner-operation-gunrunner-gunwalker-fast-and-furious-barack-obama-eric-holder-janet-napolitano-atf-doj-dhs-sad-hill-news.jpg

 
Lawrence Martin has turned into a one tune orchestra on the subject of evil Stephen Harper and his abandonment of liberal values. This piece from ipolitics is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


The rise – in Canada of all places – of right-wing nationalism

Posted on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, 5:15 am by Lawrence Martin

If someone had predicted a few years ago that Canada would fall into the embrace of right-wing nationalism, they would have been sent off to the nearest home for the mentally encumbered.

A nationalism of the left, maybe. We had some of that, at least as conservatives saw it, in the Trudeau years with the National Energy Program, the Committee for an Independent Canada and the like.

Pierre Trudeau was part of a political culture that was always to the left of the Americans. At one point, the State Department labelled him a pot-smoking leftist. Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan’s defence secretary, mocked our armed forces, saying you could put our entire military on a football field and still have room for the game. In his pre prime-ministerial days Stephen Harper himself lamented how Canada had a European-styled socialist bent.

To look now however is to see the dramatic degree to which the political culture is being reshaped. Patriotism pivots on pride in a resurrected military and morality-based missions. Pride in country is now linked to our refurbished armed forces and what Harper sees as moral crusades. National security, law and order, tighter immigration standards and bumper-sticker sports populism are among the features of a new right-wing nationalism. It is an accelerating trend and many Canadians worry that Harper, the anti-Trudeau, is taking it too far.

Because there are moderate elements to his Conservative government’s policy-making, such as its work on the economy, the big shift isn’t always apparent. But the changes, as enumerated below, reveal a shakedown that sees the ideology and methodology of our governing party closely aligned with those of American Republicans.

The Glorification of the Military. This is the new cornerstone of Harper nationalism. He boasts proudly that Canada is now a warrior nation and uses every opportunity to salute the armed forces. A recent report by the National Defence Department, in contrast to other years, says the Canadian identity should be shaped in good part by the military. It is 200 years since Canada was last invaded, but safeguarding Canada, says the prime minister, is his and foremost priority.

A Strict Law and Order Regime. The government’s omnibus crime bill and jail-building program, and its hard line on drugs have pushed our criminal justice system further to the right than anyone can recall. Draconian sentencing standards that have failed in the U.S. are being instituted here. Civil liberties are down and state surveillance is up. Legislation will compel internet service providers to disclose customer information.

Message Control. Central to right-wing nationalism is information control and it is one of this government’s major priorities. A vetting system of unprecedented scope requires all communications to be filtered through central command. Much is done to limit access to information in a government often criticized for its secrecy. Fifteen hundred communications officers are at work massaging the message to fit the governing agenda. Bureaucrats, including those at the Privy Council Office are pressured into becoming propagandists.

Flag-Waving Populism. The Conservatives are melding war and sport to appeal – Don Cherry style – to the masses. They raised eyebrows by using the opening ceremonies of the Grey Cup as a chest-beating tribute to their contribution to NATO’s Libya campaign.

Anti-Democratic Instincts. Harper’s government has shown no hesitation to bully its way through democratic barriers. It’s padlocked parliament, been the first government ever to be found in contempt of parliament and, more recently, imposed closure and time limits on parliamentary debate at a record-breaking clip.

Less Tolerance. The Harperites, while not xenophobic, are less inclined toward multiculturalism and inclusivity than previous governments. They have imposed tighter immigration requirements, narrowed the definition of citizenship and blocked entry to war resisters and other unsavoury types. Their less than favourable take on the United Nations resulted in their being denied a seat on the Security Council.

Anti-Intellectualism. In appealing to their populist base, the Conservatives boast of going by gut instead of erudition. They reject and sometimes suppress research and empirical data. Moves against the long-form census and the Justice Department’s handling of crime legislation and the muzzling of government scientists are foremost examples.

The Smearing of Opponents. A favorite Republican Party tactic, Harper Conservatives make frequent use of it with manslayer attack ads and demonization of critics, the latest example being their accusing NDPer Megan Leslie of treachery for opposing, on a Washington visit, the Keystone XL Pipeline. Demagogery is a favoured tactic of right-wing nationalists. Harperites impugn critics of the military as being unpatriotic.

Anti-Labour Bent. Union-bashing, particularly since the NDP has become the official opposition, is a mainstay of the Tory way. The government has used heavy-handed tactics to prevent strikes by postal workers and Air Canada flight attendants. It is considering changing the Labour Code so as to define the economy as an essential service, a move which would give the government extraordinary anti-labour powers.

Cult of the Leader. Right wing nationalism requires the elevation of the leader’s status. The Conservatives have ordered civil servants to change the nomenclature from Government of Canada to the “Harper government.” They initially denied this, only to be caught out by leaked documents.

While this is a democracy, right-wing nationalism is still a frightening prospect to many of soft-centre Canadian traditions. The change to the brash ideological style, one which has worked politically for Harper, contributes to fears of his being a dangerous reactionary. That notion is rejected by his former top strategist, Tom Flanagan. “The prime minister,” he said “has adopted the Liberal shibboleths of bilingualism and multiculturalism. He has no plans to introduce capital punishment, criminalize abortion, repeal gay marriage or repeal the Charter. He swears allegiance to the Canada Health Act. He has enriched equalization for the provinces and pogey for individuals.”

Harper is a self-defined incrementalist. While his policy-making, as Flanagan suggests, is not overly radical in many policy domains, it is his mode of operating, his command style, that has brought the system to heel and, most importantly, opened the door to bigger policy changes down the line. Having just embarked on a majority term, he has many years to build on what he has begun. With time, incrementalism defies the smallness implicit in the term.

In foreign policy, he has already moved Canada, for the first time in its history many would argue, to the right of the United States. You won’t hear anyone from the Pentagon or the State Department belittling Canada’s military any more. On domestic policy he is still handcuffed in many areas by entrenched Canadian traditions.

It will take much work to reform those. But his determination cannot be underestimated. Harper, who at root is still a Reform Party ideologue of old, is out to change the entire concept of the Canadian identity as defined by the prime minister, Trudeau, whose policies he detested.

Thus far he’s made remarkable progress. It is a long way from the politics of peacenik Pierre to today’s Harperian state.

© 2011 iPolitics Inc.
 
I his own, hyperbolic rate, Lawrence Martin is, mostly, right: Stephen Harper is trying to change Canada by changing Canadians attitudes about themselves and their national institutions - like the crown, the military, law enforcement and so on.

What Martin fails to mention is that from 1967 to 1980 Pierre Trudeau moved with equal vigor to erase the (only slightly softer) nationalism which existed under St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson. There is a pendulum effect: we were remarkably imperialistic under Laurier and Borden, far, far less so under King, pro-West and newly engaged under St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson and left leaning and downright isolationist under Trudeau; we were engaged again under, but softly, Mulroney and, although a bit less so, also under Chrétien; now we are re-engaged, firmly pro-Western and, once again, nationalistic under Harper.

pendulum-waves.jpg
 
An academic buddy of mine often cited the saw "academic battles are so vicious because they matter so little".

Lawrence, after years or "mattering", shaping the agenda as he might perhaps put it, now finds himself reduced to the impotence so common amongst academics....and so he turns vicious.

I am still looking for a video clip from a documentary on CBC at the end of the 2006 campaign where Martin and a couple of other journalists from other papers, were caught discussing how Harper had handled a potentially embarassing situation - but they saw opportunity to spin it negatively in any event:  "What can WE say about that?"
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a survey of Canadian foreign policy in the Harper-Baird view:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-baird-crafts-canadian-foreign-policy-with-a-hard-edge/article2284834/
John Baird crafts Canadian foreign policy with a hard edge

CAMPBELL CLARK

OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011

The man rewriting Stephen Harper’s foreign policy for majority-government times makes no apologies for stepping on a few toes. From climate change to Israel, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is willing to shrug off the gripes.

After five years of minority government, when a focus on short-term politics meant leaving relations with some parts of the world untended, Mr. Baird now has the task of broadening Conservative foreign policy and planning for the longer term.

But it’s not a mandate to please all. The image of Canada seeking to play honest broker and likable conciliator on the world stage is being changed by a deliberate edge to Conservative foreign policy. There’s a willingness to send the military, a high priority on economics and less qualms about raising hackles.

“Stephen Harper said it and I’ve said it: ‘We don’t just go along to get along,’ ” Mr. Baird said in a year-end interview. “There’s 194 countries in the world. I don’t agree with their foreign policy on everything,” he said. “You know the Russian Foreign Minister? His job is to stand up for Russia. My job is to stand up for Canadian values and Canadian interests.”

In a year when the world shook from financial crises and Arab uprisings, Canada’s place in it was shifting, too.

Even before Canada pulled out of a ground war in Afghanistan in July, it joined an air war in Libya. When it was over, Mr. Harper touted victory, and promised a military ready for more. He blocked part of a G8 leaders’ statement urging peace talks on Israel, and bucked the UN majority in vocally opposing a Palestinian bid for statehood. The Harper government closed a deal to harmonize security with the U.S. in return for projects to speed border traffic. And Canada made itself a symbol by withdrawing from the Kyoto climate-change accord.

Mr. Baird’s public image as a partisan pit-bull might make it seem that he was chosen to make foreign policy combative. But that’s a stage persona for a politician who is affable in person. As Foreign Minister, he worked to build all-party support for the Canadian mission in Libya. Foreign diplomats give him high marks for being more accessible and engaged than his predecessors.

But he is a thick-skinned politician who doesn’t wince over disagreements or worry about a little blowback. Canada was once alone on climate change for demanding all major emitters join a new treaty, but it’s a common view now, he said, and Canada’s pro-Israel stand at the United Nations has hardly affected its relations with others.

“I don’t have many foreign ministers or many foreign governments who raise climate change with me. In eight months, maybe two or three times,” he said. “I went to the Middle East for five days. No one raised our voting record at the UN.”

In the big events of 2011, Mr. Harper’s government kept a cold, calculating eye. It reacted with caution to Arab Spring protests in Egypt, but sent fighter jets to Libya.

Mr. Baird’s first trip as Foreign Minister, to meet rebel leaders in Benghazi, marked him the most – meeting professionals and public servants risking their futures in a struggle to oust Moammar Gadhafi. Ottawa went in big with a substantial military contribution, but Mr. Baird admitted that before the stunning collapse of Gadhafi forces, he feared a long war, and a death toll of 100,000 or 250,000.

The Tories’ cooler response to uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia remains marked by the view that a “big chunk” of the revolts were protests against unemployment and cronyism, not purely a call for Western-style democracy. Amid the election of Islamists in Egypt, Mr. Baird said the goal should be to move the region to more civil society, for intellectual freedom, and less corruption – and caution is still warranted.

The harder edge isn’t universal. On a trip to Beijing, Mr. Baird looked like a man trying to get along, calling China a “friend,” as the Harper government seals a new era after a chilly start in ties – but that, too, is a function of hard-edged economic interests with a major trading partner.

Now, Mr. Baird’s task is to broaden Canada’s foreign policy beyond the few priorities of minority years, like the United States, Afghanistan, China and Israel. A foreign-policy review is quietly under way, and Mr. Baird has signalled efforts to renew ties with untended regions such as Southeast Asia.

The short-term survival politics of successive Liberal and Conservative minorities have prevented ministers from travelling and making connections abroad, and limited planning, he said. “Governments are sometimes criticized for looking at things in four-year windows,” he said. “We’ve been looking at things in four-day, four-week and four-month windows for the last seven [years]. And that’s not healthy.’

The priority, as the United States and Europe face challenges and Canada needs to diversify trade, is economics. “That is the lens,” Mr. Baird said. With the U.S., Canada had success in reaching a border accord, but experienced a setback when the Keystone pipeline extension was delayed, he said. With China, Canada wants a foreign-investment agreement; with the EU, a trade deal.

But Canada needs to expand its foreign-policy planning beyond the biggest players, he said. “The countries that are going to be really important for Canada in the future also include Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nigeria. Those are pretty important.”


I think Baird-Harper have it about right when the focus is on economics. Remember Lord Palmerston's dictum that a nation has neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies - just permanent interests. Our interests, I suggest, can be summarized as: P2 ... Peace and Prosperity. The two are intertwined: peace is more than just the absence of war and prosperity is more than just "a chicken in every pot." Peace implies the ability to engage in lawful, usually commercial, pursuits anywhere in the world - for one's advantage; prosperity implies the capability to use one's wealth to do good so that others may prosper too and so that we all may benefit from mutual commercial intercourse ... a rising tide lifts all boats, etc.
 
More on "Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy" in an editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Toward+foreign+policy/5924804/story.html
Toward a foreign policy

The Ottawa Citizen

December 30, 2011

Early in the Conservative majority, Stephen Harper suggested some big changes were coming to foreign policy. Foreign Minister John Baird has been saying the same thing in end-of-year interviews. Canada will stand up for its principles and interests. No more being a pushover on the international stage.

This shift in attitude distinguishes the Conservatives from the Liberals, who seem to regard every international disagreement or criticism as a foreign-policy failure. When the Conservatives failed to be sufficiently obsequious to the Chinese regime in their first mandate, for example, Liberals chided them as dilettantes. The Conservatives have warmed to China since, but they have maintained a willingness to risk international disapproval — as in their decision to pull Canada out of the Kyoto protocol. The Liberal approach was to play the nice Canadian at international conferences, while doing little about emissions at home. The Conservatives are also doing little about emissions, but at least they’re a little more honest about their intentions.

Even something as minor as Harper’s stark statement on the death of Kim Jong-il suggests a relatively new willingness to tell it like it is.

This conscious effort to be a little less nice gives Canada more space to create its own foreign policy, slightly less constrained by its desire to be liked. But that only matters if Canada actually uses that space. There are hints here and there of a desire to reshape policy — the creation of an office of religious freedom, for example, or the international institute for extractive industries — but if there’s a unifying vision, the government isn’t sharing it with Canadians.

The Conservatives did want to create a new democracy-promotion agency, too, but now they seem to be considering ways to reboot the troubled Rights & Democracy instead. In all of this, it’s difficult to ascertain when the Conservatives are trying to make real changes to foreign policy, and when they’re using cosmetic tweaks to foreign policy as an easy way to placate the domestic voter base.

There are always rumours of big changes coming at the Canadian International Development Agency. Will it change the list of priority countries for bilateral aid? Will it spend less on bilateral aid and more on multilateral agencies? Will trade or security drive its priorities in the coming years, or will it focus on poverty in sub-Saharan Africa?

Organizations that apply to CIDA for funding have had to wait longer than expected for their answers this year. The government says no organization should consider itself entitled to public funds, and that’s true enough. But if it wants to defund an organization, it should have the decency to say so as quickly and straightforwardly as possible, not leave it and its partners overseas in limbo. The confusion over how funding decisions get made is reminiscent of the scribbled “not” on the KAIROS funding decision that got Development Minister Bev Oda into so much trouble. If CIDA’s goal is to become more transparent and efficient, it’s not doing very well.

It’s great that Harper and Baird share a vision of a new kind of Canadian foreign policy. But so far, the picture looks awfully blurry.

OTTAWA CITIZEN

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


I think Harper is on the right track and I don't think the "picture" is "blurry" at all . It will be much clearer when Harper disbands CIDA, a rest home for less than capable public servants who could not find useful work in e.g. DFAIT, Finance or Industry.

 
In another thread, about China, I said: ” And, yes, I recognize that a similar argument could be used to suggest that Canada ought to be united with the USA ~ something I do wish to see happen.” The argument is that two peoples of common ethnicity and language probably ought to be partners in the same country.

This prompted an Army.ca friend to PM me saying, ”Interested in your thoughts behind this statement.”

I thought I would answer here, rather than by PM.

There are many Canadians, and Americans, who favour deeper integration of the two nations. Most, like me, seek some small, incremental changes – I, for example, want to “erase the border” making it possible for good, services, money and people to move very easily between the two countries. This requires some further tariff reform and coordination of our immigration and refuge systems, amongst other things. I want something akin to (but less than) the EU’s Schengen Agreement.

But some people are much more ambitious. They want a currency union, which implies, just for example, a single central bank which means fully harmonized economic policies which means, de facto some form of political union.

I am prepared to concede that such a union might be possible and even desirable – in another 100 or 200 years, but now is not the time.

Relations with the USA must be at the very heart of our foreign policy. The USA is:

1. Our closest neighbor – and, thankfully, a “good neighbor, “ too;
2. Our most important trading partner;
3. A traditional ally; and
4. A The global superpower.

The USA matters. We must, constantly, decide how we deal with it. Eventually the two countries may decide that some form of political union is mutually advantageous. For now, in my opinion it is “harmonization” we need, not union.
 
Canada ought not become one nation with the US.  Each nation has its own internal cultural strains; those problems must first be solved.  Irrespective of that, the respective systems of government have strengths and weaknesses.  It is better to have two laboratories of governance and currency/fiscal management than one.  If in time the adoption of each other's best practices leads to systems so similar as to be practically indistinguishable, the two might be ready for union.
 
Any union between Canada and the US would benefit only the US.  As evidence:  years ago the citizens of Campbellville Ont. paid extremely low property taxes as the tax levies on the major industries in the neighbourhood i.e. a race track and several factories, were more than sufficient to cover the brunt of the community costs.  Enforced amalgamation put Campbellville together with Milton.  The industrial benefits were nullified by the larger population base and correspondingly greater costs and taxes more than tripled.  Canada is a relatively prosperous nation with an easily balanced budget (provided not so common, common sense is used).  The US is big but it is not nearily as prosperous.  There is just a lot of fresh paint covering the rust spots.  We would give up everything and gain what??  Their medical system, their banking laws, their foreign policy their...?  Which of our policies would be implemented in the U.S.  Answer none.  All give and no take is not a marriage or a union, it is enslavement.  Think about it.
 
Things evolve and change. The United States is wracked by division over "Obamacare", which is a warmed over copy of (or at least inspired by) the Canadian "Single Payer" healthcare regime. Canadian political parties openly court US political operatives to teach them how to win elections (two DNC operatives gave a presentation at the just concluded Liberal Party convention, and DNC operatives have addressed/advised the Liberals in the past). In the mean time, grass roots small "c" conservative parties are gaining in size and organization, the Saskatchewan Party runs Saskatchewan, and the Wild Rose Alliance party is growing in size to become a contender in Alberta politics and may become the governing party in the next few cycles.

For that matter, Canadian demographics and geography could conspire to turn Canada into a Republic around the mid century mark. As the Canadian labour force shrinks due to the demographic bust, wages will have to rise to attract workers, and the nearest source of workers is liable to be the United States (which is culturally similar and has a large and growing vice shrinking population). Americans will be more than eager to work for high Canadian wages, and enough Americans will be established in Canada to start making real changes to Canadian culture, and demanding changes to Canadian institutions. (Doubt my word? Consider that Alberta was settled by large numbers of American immigrents in the 1800's and early 1900's, and look at how Albertan culture differs from even its prarie neighbours, much less the ROC).

So the idea of a formal merger may not be on the table any time soon, but various convergences are already happening. There is always the possibility of a "Black Swan" event which could push things hard in either direction, and of course "unknown unknowns" will continue to surprise people. Close relations have been to our mutual benefit, and the overall trend will probably continue to favour close relationships for the forseeable future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top