Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

[Fishbone Jones]

As for atheists in foxholes, we, at least never wrote Gott Mit Uns on our belt buckles.

No, but British and, I believe, Commonwealth General Service buckles had DIEU ET MON DROIT (God and my right) on them.

Adds nothing to the discussion. Just some UFI. 8)

 

[Edward Campbell]

No, but British and, I believe, Commonwealth General Service buckles had DIEU ET MON DROIT (God and my right) on them.

Adds nothing to the discussion. Just some UFI. 8)

I forgot about that.  :-[

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Canadian war effort that was confused, somewhat amateurish, overly optimistic and, in many parts of Kandahar province, simply ineffective."

"British war effort that was confused, somewhat amateurish, overly optimistic and, in many parts of Norway/France/Greece/Crete/Hong Kong/Singapore/Burma/North Africa/Italy/Normandy, simply ineffective."

Orderly, professional, and realistic are not adjectives suited to the conduct of war by democracies.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:goodpost:

+300 Milpoints inbound, Brad!

 

[Edward Campbell]

An interesting opportunity for Prime Minister Harper emerges if Mme. Marois becomes the Premier of Quebec according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pq-is-spoiling-for-a-fight-with-harper-on-foreign-policy-issues/article4509192/

PQ is spoiling for a fight with Harper on foreign-policy issues

CAMPBELL CLARK
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Aug. 29 2012

Get ready, Stephen Harper. Pauline Marois is going to ask for a quarter of the foreign-aid budget, wants Quebec to name its own citizens and plans to tell Quebeckers that your foreign policy is a pretty good reason to separate from Canada.

Ottawa and Quebec City often bickered over international matters when the Parti Québécois was in power in the past. But Mr. Harper has never had to govern through it. And Ms. Marois, the PQ Leader and front-runner to take power in next Tuesday’s Quebec election, has a whole new set of attacks.

Ms. Marois hasn’t spent the campaign hammering home such issues, because it’s not a key election concern for Quebeckers. But if she is elected, she might well spend some time sticking spokes into the wheels of Mr. Harper’s foreign policy.

Past PQ premiers had international clashes with Ottawa. The feds worried Jacques Parizeau was seeking guarantees of France’s recognition of an independent Quebec. Bernard Landry was upset he couldn’t speak to the Summit of the Americas. But Mr. Harper agreed to give Jean Charest a place at UNESCO, listened to him on trade with Europe and there was peace.

Now, Ms. Marois has signalled foreign policy is an area where she can make political hay by making Mr. Harper a target.

In an immediate sense, Mr. Harper has to worry that Ms. Marois might oppose a free-trade agreement with the European Union that's being negotiated now. But more generally, he has to worry that his foreign policy might become fodder for national-unity disputes.

In this campaign, Mr. Charest, running on economic issues, has talked of opening foreign markets. But polls suggest his time is probably up. François Legault, leader of the Coalition Avenir Quebec, has fretted about the province’s place in the world, complaining its students don’t work as hard as Asian kids and promising public funds to protect its firms from foreign takeovers. But his focus is domestic. Ms. Marois, over the past year, has signalled she’s willing to pick fights with Ottawa on international affairs.

For one thing, she’s proposing an unprecedented approach to those who come here from abroad: creating Quebec citizenship. That would be flatly unconstitutional and would force Ottawa to contest it.

In an April speech, Ms. Marois argued international affairs are increasingly important to Quebeckers’ daily lives – and to the PQ’s sovereignty goal. “That’s happening at a time when Quebeckers recognize themselves less and less in Canadian foreign policy,” she said. “This evolution goes directly against the interests of the Quebec nation.”

In other words, she’s going to use the differences on international matters as a tool against her target: Mr. Harper. He’s changed Canada’s foreign policy to make it alien to Quebeckers, she argued. “Resting, at one time, on multiculturalism, balance and cooperation, Canadian foreign policy has become, I would say, bellicose, militant, marked by a unilateralism that is more and more flagrant,” she said.

She attacked Mr. Harper for freezing aid budgets, withdrawing aid from francophone countries and closing Montreal-based agency Rights & Democracy. She said she’d call for Ottawa to transfer to the province “the Quebec share” of the budget of the Canadian International Development Agency.

She also complained Ottawa is spending billions on fighter jets and warships, and that forces Quebeckers to pay a share. A PQ government, she said, would be obliged to defend Quebec against “a foreign policy that is against its national interests.” The withdrawal from the Kyoto accord, she said, hurt Quebec’s strategic interests. In short, Mr, Harper’s foreign policy is a PQ target.

Of course, Mr. Harper can choose to ignore it, knowing that what really matters is whether Ms. Marois’s attacks resonate in public opinion. He can hope that if she is elected, she’ll only win a minority and be forced to focus on survival. But a PQ government will mean Mr. Harper will have a new factor to weigh in foreign policy.

Based on what we know about Mr. Harper I think that we can guess what his reaction is likely to be: he will politely ignore Mme. Marois' demands for powers in areas which are in the exclusive federal domain. With specific regard to a formal proposition: creating Quebec citizenship. I think Campbell Clark is right: "that would be flatly unconstitutional and ... Ottawa [would]  contest it."

In a broader context I suspect that Harper may send a (not too subtle) message to Quebec: elect a federalist and I will meet you part way, I'll talk to a federalist Quebec premier and I'll let that premier have a voice on the world stage; elect a separatist and I'll just ignore her or him.

Even further, I believe that Prime Minister Harper will speak out, saying something like: "I want to clarify powers and responsibilities; I want the federal government to intrude less and less in areas of provincial jurisdiction but that means I want the provinces, including Quebec, to step back from powers that, Constitutionally, are reserved, exclusively, for the federal government."

Looking at foreign policy, per se: Campbell Clark and Mme. Marois are both correct ~ Harper has been "governing without Quebec." Many of his foreign and defence policy initiatives are opposed to Quebec's expressed wishes and policies.

In the future it will be both possible and, perhaps, even necessary to "govern without Quebec," not against Quebec, just by ignoring its interests, policies and demands.

 

[Remius]

However, what I see, is that Mdme Marois is going to play PM Harper's game.  I don't think for a second that she expects that the Prime Minister will agree to any of her (outrageous in my mind) demands.  I think she hopes that Harper will ignore or challenge Quebec.  She wants to rock the boat and get the Quebec population upset and she'll be the one that starts it all but will lay blame on Ottawa.  Especially now that the BQ is gone (the BQ ironically showed that the system works).

We might be in store for a perfect storm.  A seperatist Quebec government with someone aching for a fight and federal government unwilling to cave or compromise to them. Compromise was achievable with a federalist party.  Interesting times.  We just have to hiope that the PQ ends up in minority territory and implodes from within.

 

[Edward Campbell]

However, what I see, is that Mdme Marois is going to play PM Harper's game.  I don't think for a second that she expects that the Prime Minister will agree to any of her (outrageous in my mind) demands.  I think she hopes that Harper will ignore or challenge Quebec.  She wants to rock the boat and get the Quebec population upset and she'll be the one that starts it all but will lay blame on Ottawa.  Especially now that the BQ is gone (the BQ ironically showed that the system works).

We might be in store for a perfect storm.  A seperatist Quebec government with someone aching for a fight and federal government unwilling to cave or compromise to them. Compromise was achievable with a federalist party.  Interesting times.  We just have to hiope that the PQ ends up in minority territory and implodes from within.

My  :2c: : the more Quebec wants to fight the less Canada, and the Government of Canada, will care. I doubt there will be any storm, not matter how imperfect, at all - but I think Prime Minister Harper will be pleased.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All PM Harper has to do is chip away, bit by bit, at Quebec's overblown sense of self entitlement. Take a little here, take a little there, ignore their howls and protestations. Eventually, hopefully, they'll be on par with the rest of the provinces and realize that the temper tantrums they threw as spoiled and belligerent children, no longer work with the rest of Canadian society. They can fall in line and be welcomed or they can saddle up and head off into the sunset.

They have to be taught, probably with tough love as appeasement hasn't worked, that there is nothing special about them and their 'Belle Province'.

Their once great stick, that they were needed to elect a majority government, has gone up the chimney like a wisp of smoke. They no longer have the relevance they used to have in order to bargain for special rights not afforded to other Canadians.

That's just my  :2c: and not anything based on academics though.

For some reason I'm hearing Goodbye Yellow Brick Road in my head all of a sudden.

 

[Old Sweat]

And this will provide a convenient petard for the NDP to use to hoist itself. Do the dippers back the Federalist or the Quebec nationalist position? If it is the former, they could enrage their base in the province. The party has advocated a number of positions including applying Bill 101 to Federally regulated firms in Quebec and adopting the 50% plus one rule for a referendum on independence that hints they might opt to back the PQ position. If so, then their place as the replacement for the Liberals across the country is not so certain.

 

[Remius]

My concern is that a PQ government will try and succeed to set the conditions for success.  Harper isn't popular in Quebec.  That won't likely change.  And you can bet the PQ will capitalise on that and will make big deals out of nothing.  I'm not saying that they should be treated differently than any other province or that Harper should.  But marois and the PQ cronies will play that card.  They want Quebec to seem like it is being ignored and alienated.  Perception is everything and if Marois is able to convince Quebecers that they aren't getting a fair shake, that can spell trouble. 

Quebec/Fed relations have been fairly docile, with 10 years of federalists at the helm and minority governments where the BQ was able to get concessions.  Quebecers essentially were kept more or less content.  Now we have a real possibility of seeing a seperatist party at the helm of Quebec looking for trouble and a Federal Government unwilling to bend to demands.

So we are seing some of those conditions they need. 

1) Dislike of the federal government in power.
2) Seperatist Government heading Quebec (with very nebulous conditions for a referendum)
3) Apathetic pro-fed/anglo voters
4) Fragile/sinking economy

Ultimately I'd like to see a Liberal return, even a minority.  But even a minority PQ propped up by CAQ is not giving me a good a feeling.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My concern is that a PQ government will try and succeed to set the conditions for success.  Harper isn't popular in Quebec.  That won't likely change.  And you can bet the PQ will capitalise on that and will make big deals out of nothing.  I'm not saying that they should be treated differently than any other province or that Harper should.  But marois and the PQ cronies will play that card.  They want Quebec to seem like it is being ignored and alienated.  Perception is everything and if Marois is able to convince Quebecers that they aren't getting a fair shake, that can spell trouble. 

Quebec/Fed relations have been fairly docile, with 10 years of federalists at the helm and minority governments where the BQ was able to get concessions.  Quebecers essentially were kept more or less content.  Now we have a real possibility of seeing a seperatist party at the helm of Quebec looking for trouble and a Federal Government unwilling to bend to demands.

So we are seing some of those conditions they need. 

1) Dislike of the federal government in power.
2) Seperatist Government heading Quebec (with very nebulous conditions for a referendum)
3) Apathetic pro-fed/anglo voters
4) Fragile/sinking economy

Ultimately I'd like to see a Liberal return, even a minority.  But even a minority PQ propped up by CAQ is not giving me a good a feeling.

So ignore them. Let them holler and bellyache about it, but again, ignore them. The worst thing we can do is acknowledge their constant bleating and baiting. Ignore them as you would a child that's holding their breath or laying on the floor screaming.

I don't see the problem. :dunno:

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Ultimately I'd like to see a Liberal return, even a minority.  But even a minority PQ propped up by CAQ is not giving me a good a feeling.

I know politics makes strange bedfellows, but I think a more likely scenario is a Liberal/CAQ coalition.

 

[Remius]

So ignore them. Let them holler and bellyache about it, but again, ignore them. The worst thing we can do is acknowledge their constant bleating and baiting. Ignore them as you would a child that's holding their breath or laying on the floor screaming.

I don't see the problem. :dunno:

Because that is exactly what they want.  Western alienation led to seperatist feelings in some western provinces.  Imagine a  province where it is much more prevalent with many many more fence sitters that could be swayed to one side.

What I would rather see is pre-emptive things like legislation or motions or whatever that would take the wind out of their sails.  Like the Conservatives did to the Bloc by premptively acknowledging in the house that Quebec was distinct before the bloc could table their own motion. Or things like the clarity act. 

Sure, ignore them but don't take your eye off them.

 

[Remius]

I know politics makes strange bedfellows, but I think a more likely scenario is a Liberal/CAQ coalition.

Possible but i think improbable unless either of those parties gets a minority.  And then probably not even a coalition. 

But hey, who knows.

 

[Remius]

But back to the topic, I think a PQ government will indeed target the Conservatives foreign policy.  But I wonder how that would resonate with the population given that there really isn't a war to pick on any more and only jets that we actually haven't purchased yet?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prime Minister Harper has, already, done "pre-emptive things" in areas where the feds intrude on provincial jurisdiction - like: Here's your health care funding, no federal-provincial conferences required, no negotiations needed. And that's fine, as far as it goes, in those areas - although I, personally would prefer that the feds vacate (almost all of) the health care field and give the responsibility plus the tax points to the provinces - but Mme. Marois is reported to want to intrude into areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction: foreign affairs and citizenship.

My sense of Mr. Harper is that, no matter what the issue, he doesn't like to deal with the provinces; he especially doesn't like negotiating with them; he remembers Pierre Trudeau's famous quip that the provinces are always "willing to trade rights for fish." Thus, I expect that he will, categorically, refuse to deal with any of Mme. Marois' issues that intrude into the federal domain - in fact I expect that he will be reluctant to deal with legitimate grievances so long as a separatist is in power ... in hopes that Quebecrs will get the message.


Edit: format

 

[Edward Campbell]

More, in this report which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on how Prime Minister Harper is reshaping Canada's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-honoured-in-ny-as-statesman-of-the-year-aims-to-snub-un/article4536110/

Harper, honoured in N.Y. as statesman of the year, aims to snub UN

CAMPBELL CLARK
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Sep. 11 2012

Stephen Harper will go to New York this month to accept an award for statesmanship – but will snub the United Nations while he’s there.

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation, an international organization founded by New York rabbi Arthur Schneier, has picked Mr. Harper as its World Statesman of the Year for 2012. He joins a list of past recipients – also deemed promoters of human rights and freedom – that includes Jean Chrétien, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and, most recently, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

The presentation of the award to Mr. Harper is likely to spark debate at home, where his citics and admirers will face off over whether the Conservative Prime Minister ranks as a global statesman.

Mr. Harper’s critics have argued he lost a bid for the UN Security Council, has overemphasized the miltary and shifted Canada to a one-sided support of Israel. His supporters will contend he has taken strong stands – and his position on Israel was cited by the ACF’s founder as one reason he will be recognized with the award.

The timing of the award ceremony, during the week when world leaders descend on New York to address the annual opening of the UN General Assembly, underlines Mr. Harper’s distaste for the multilateral diplomatic forum. Prime ministers were offered UN speaking slots on Sept. 27 – the very day Mr. Harper will accept the award in New York – but Mr. Harper chose to skip the UN. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird will speak for Canada, but, as a mere minister, is relegated to the following week.

The soirée where Mr. Harper will be feted typically features luminaries drawn from the social and political elite of New York and the foreign-policy world. Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger will present the award to Mr. Harper. The audience will likely include former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, a member of the ACF’s board, and possibly former U.S. president Bill Clinton, its honorary chair.

Mr. Schneier, long involved in interfaith initiatives with Christian leaders, co-founded the ACF in 1965 to promote religious and human rights – notably, at that time, in the Soviet Union.

He said Mr. Harper’s promise to open an Office of Religious Freedom in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs drew the notice of the ACF. (The office is slated to open later this year.) He said Mr. Harper’s staunch support of Israel and vocal criticism of Iran were also significant factors in the foundation’s decision to honour him.

“We’re not one issue. However, this [is] a significant issue – the Middle East and Iran today. His stand, I think, is basically one of conviction. That Israel is an outpost of democracy, and he supports democracies,” Mr. Schneier said. At a meeting last week, Mr. Schneier was impressed by the Prime Minister’s “unambiguous” views.

“I met the man for the first time face-to-face, and I must say that he impressed me as a man who has a vision and doesn’t veer,” he said.

That isn’t always a characteristic Mr. Harper’s critics appreciate. By coincidence, the award was announced just a few days after his government cut off diplomatic ties with Iran – and even when it comes to dealing with a pariah regime, his opponents have accused him of going too far.

Perhaps most pointedly, his disaffection for the UN is demonstrated by his willingness to fly to New York during the so-called UN week to meet other world leaders without agreeing to speak to the General Assembly.

Mr. Harper has only addressed the General Assembly twice in his nearly seven years in power. The last time was in 2010, when he was campaigning for Canada to obtain a seat on the UN Security Council for 2011 and 2012, a period when the Security Council has debated intervention in Libya, came to a stalemate over sanctions in Syria and grappled with Iran’s nuclear program.

More on the Appeal of Conscience Foundation here.

Not speaking to the UN General Assembly is a nice snub - it will be noted in certain circles, mainly in circles (foreign and domestic) that Mr. Harper disdains.

 

[ModlrMike]

Not speaking to the UN General Assembly is a nice snub - it will be noted in certain circles, mainly in circles (foreign and domestic) that Mr. Harper disdains.

Turnabout is fair play.

 

[Journeyman]

– but Mr. Harper chose to skip the UN.

Can I give our Prime Minister MilPoints?

I'm afraid that watching global events, deploying once wearing a 'League of Nations 2' blue beret, and discussions with more than one UN Military Advisor (before the position was upgraded to "LGen" and drawn exclusively from third-world nations) has kind of soured me on any utility of the UN....let alone speaking to them during a press conference week. 

Good on Mr Harper.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I haven't read much about this extract from tory diary here, in our Canadian media:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/09/by-matthew-barrettfollow-matthew-on-twitter-eurosceptics-dont-always-have-cause-to-celebrate-the-story-likely-to-annoy-the.html

William Hague announces new British Commonwealth embassies to head off expanding European diplomatic network

By Matthew Barrett

...
William Hague has good - exciting - news for those who despair. Tomorrow, he will announce the launch of a network of new embassies across the world which will be shared between British Commonwealth nations, and which will seek to head off the creeping influence of European Union diplomats.

The Foreign Secretary is in Canada, where he will sign a diplomatic agreement to open joint embassies with that country, and he also hopes Australia and New Zealand will join the initiative. It's no surprise Canada should be our closest diplomatic ally: Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended and protected the motherland's interests before - over the Falklands for instance.

Mr Harper has a proud record of being Israel's strongest defender at the United Nations, so he will be entirely aware of the pernicious affect international bodies can have. He will, I have no doubt, share Mr Hague's suspicions about the European Union's fast-expanding diplomatic programme, the European External Action Service, which is setting up offices in America and elsewhere, and seeks to sideline Britain's position as a major diplomatic power.

In nations where Canada has an embassy, but Britain does not, or vice versa, the countries will share the embassy - and the same will hopefully apply for the Anzac nations. This will obviously expand the number of countries where Britain has an embassy, and will therefore counter the influence of the European network of embassies. Mr Hague said:

    "As David Cameron said when addressing the Canadian parliament last year, “We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values.” We have stood shoulder to shoulder from the great wars of the last century
    to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and supporting Arab Spring nations like Libya and Syria. We are first cousins. So it is natural that we look to link up our embassies with Canada’s in places where that suits both countries.
    It will give us a bigger reach abroad for our businesses and people for less cost."

United by monarchy, history, language, heritage and political tradition, we have much more in common with, say, a Canberran or a Torontonian than we do with an Athenian or a Roman. We are already diplomatically close, but this move by Mr Hague to extend our interests is a very welcome renewal of our four countries' friendship. The Commonwealth was neglected under Labour, who rejected the old English-speaking countries, and embraced "forward-looking" Europeans. The Coalition has started correcting this.
...

It is not a bad practical idea but I'm not sure the optics are great. It will, obviously, send Mlle. Marois into paroxysms of rage as she emands the Quebec be allowed to cohabit, diplomatically, with France.

We have few major differences with the UK but, equally, few shared interests, either.