The Post Doctrine: Silly Liberals, free speech is for Conservatives

I often disagree with my friends at the National Post editorial board, and they have it wrong again today. It's a given they're a little misguided (after all, they do occasionally publish my ramblings online, which doesn't speak well of their judgement) but they're particularly off base with this most recent editorial offering.

Apparently, the learned minds at the Post believe it's un-Canadian to disagree with Conservative foreign policy. At least that seems to be their thesis, because they present an extremely muddled and confusing argument in support of it.

When outside Canada, MPs of all stripes are expected to defer to the policies of the government of the day, at least in public. But since the summer, both Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and his party’s foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae, have sought to score political points back home by taking digs at the Tories while on foreign soil.

They start with "on foreign soil" as where they draw the line (if phoning reporters back in Canada on your flight home, consult the moving map to make sure you're in international airspace before you dial). That would be disagreeable enough, but they confuse the issue by providing an example of unacceptable foreign policy disagreement that was made on Canadian soil: Ignatieff's comments on the government's UN security council bid.

So it would seem that, whether on foreign soil or our own Canadian terra firma, any criticism of Conservative foreign policy means "forgetting you're Canadians first" and is, therefore, not permissible. Presumably, though, it's still ok to disagree with our minority government on non-foreign policy issues, as long as you're within our borders.

Of course, The Post Doctrine must be new, because I don't recall them being outraged when then opposition leader Stephen Harper went on Fox News and other U.S. media outlets in the lead-up to the Iraq War and publicly attacked the Liberal government. He even wrote an op/ed for the Wall Street Journal taking his country's duly elected government to task. The Journal, by the way, is distributed on foreign soil:

Canadians Stand With You
Wall Street Journal | 3/28/03 |

By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance — the official opposition in parliament — supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada’s largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war — not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century — against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism — Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand — and I believe most Canadians will stand with us — for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.

Of course, the Post didn't take great umbrage at Harper's lack of Canadianess. They, and most of the media elites, were too busy cheerleading for Canada to get into a war Canadians didn't want, and that Jean Chretien's government wisely steered clear of.

How about Harper's habit, as Prime Minister, of regularly using overseas press conferences (with foreign media present) to launch unprompted attacks on his political opponents? Apparently that's still Canadian, even though Harper does it so often he's had to apologize for making crap up:

L'AQUILA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper was forced to apologize publicly for attacking his political rival Michael Ignatieff at the G8 over a quote that was wrongly attributed to the Opposition leader by a senior Harper aide.

At a closing news conference here today, in French and in English, Harper was defending the relevance of the G8, when he launched into a stinging rebuke of Ignatieff.

So, if you're following at home, The Post Doctrine seems to boil down to this: Liberals shouldn't say anything bad about the Conservatives on foreign policy issues ever, particularly when overseas but sometimes in Canada too; Conservatives go to town.

The blatant hypocrisy aside, their entire thesis is laughable, and the Post's desire to place limits on speech is a bizarre position for a publication usually so opposed to any such limits (see controversial cartoons, human rights commissions, and so on) to take. Or any media outlet to take, for that matter.

First of all, I think people overseas know that opposition parties likely disagree with the government on any number of things. Maybe in the time when ambassadors traveled by sailing ship they may have been in the dark, but with Google that ship has pretty well sailed. Whatever timezone someone makes a comment in, it travels the world in seconds anyway. Just who are we trying to fool here anyway?

Would we be surprised if John Boehner or another prominent Republican visited Canada and didn't offer a full-throated endorsement of President Obama? Would we be scandalized if he disagreed with Obama on trade policy? Would we be surprised? Would we care?

Any democracy has healthy debate; the only countries that would be surprised by this are the dictatorships of the world, and I'm not concerned about offending their sensibilities. You know what's a pretty important Canadian value: free speech. It's a shame the Post's editors forgot they're Canadians first too. I support their right to be wrong though, whatever the time zone.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Diane Ablonczy on Maher Arar and "his terrorist links"

Diane Ablonczy today was named by Stephen Harper as the new junior foreign affairs minister. Here's what Ablonczy was saying back in 2002 when she was the opposition critic, on what was a major foreign affairs issue of the day: the case of Maher Arar, who was facing torture in Syria at the time as the government fought to have him repatriated:

Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.

How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?
..
Mr. Speaker, the government needs to take responsibility for what it is doing to protect Canadian security. The fact is that these Liberals were asleep at the switch. Arar was not properly checked. Instead, the government ran around chastising the U.S. for sending Arar back to Syria, where he is also a citizen. Why is it that the Liberal security system is so weak here that they overlook vital information that the U.S. picked up on a routine check?

Arar would later be brought back to Canada and, after being cleared of any wrongdoing by a public commission, would reach an out of court settlement with the federal government for $10.5 million.

Anyway, I'm sure Diane will do a great job.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Say no to UAE blackmail

Every once and awhile I’ll agree with Stephen Harper on something, and this is one of those times: when the United Arab Emirates decided to link Canadian military use of the not-really secret Camp Mirage (used to support our forces in Afghanistan) with landing rights for their state-owned and subsidized airlines, my answer would also have been to tell the UAE to stick it.

“For the UAE to hold Camp Mirage up for ransom was the last straw for [the Prime Minister],” a source close to the issue told The Globe.

And when they stopped a plane with the defence minister and chief of defence staff from entering their airspace enroute to Afghanistan, I would call them up and remind them, once again, where they can stick it. Such linkage is bush league thuggery, not diplomacy, and we’re right not to play ball on this. I’m disappointed that my Liberals, instead of calling a spade a spade here, decided they couldn’t resist a chance to disagree with Harper on something:

The Liberals are blaming Tory "incompetence" for an embarrassing landing-rights dispute between Canada and the United Arab Emirates.

The two countries were in talks to allow UAE airlines more flights to Canadian airports, but the deal was called off.

As a result, Canada has lost access to a major staging ground for troops headed in and out of Afghanistan.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said that resulted in the "absurd spectacle" of Canada's top soldier and two cabinet ministers barred from landing in the UAE on their way out of Kandahar.

He called it a "simple story of incompetence" and said it's another sign the Harper government is out of touch on the world stage.

Michael, I will agree that Stephen is out of touch on the world stage. But this isn’t another example of it. The UAE is out of line on this, and we should be saying so. There’s plenty to attack them on with the UN thing already.

Now, what about the larger issue of greater landing rights for Emirates Airlines in Canada? I seem to be with the government on this one as well: they’re not warranted at this time.

The fact is, there isn’t near enough direct Canada to UAE direct traffic to warrant an increase in capacity. And Emirates knows that. They’ve been pouring billions of government dollars into making their airline and their brand new $32 billion airport a transit hub: funnel traffic through Dubai and on to Asia and other destinations. They don’t come out and say it, but their goal is to siphon off transit passengers that now transit through Europe with other airlines. That’s their entire business model. It has nothing to do with UAE-Canada direct traffic.

Negotiations over landing rights are about reciprocal access, and opening up markets to the benefit of each country. But the fact is Canadian airlines have little interest in flying to the UAE (even if UAE were willing to offer equal access) because there is little market for direct traffic. Like the big hotels and indoor ski hills built on a mountain of debt, it’s a mirage. The UAE simply wants to siphon off business from Canadian airlines, with little to no benefit to Canadian airlines or consumers. Why should we agree to that?

Now, there are those that argue we should have open skies, fair competition, let the market win and consumers benefit from lower prices. Let foreign airlines fly point to point within Canada (it’s called cabotage in airline lingo). Is that the answer? I say, not really. Proponents of this argument like to point to Europe, land of super-low fare airlines such as Ryan Air and Air Berlin. But they miss a few key points.

Key among them is that Europe is a highly and densely populated compact region. You have a lot of people travelling within a smaller space. Canada is more sparsely populated, with significantly fewer people. If we threw open the doors tomorrow, I don’t doubt I could get home to Vancouver from Toronto for a heckuva lot less than I could today on Air Canada or WestJet. That’s a high-traffic route with lots of high-value business traffic: new entrants would be quick to jump on that.

But unless you live in Vancouver or Toronto, and maybe Montreal, you won’t see any benefit. You think Lufthansa will be servicing Fredericton? Will JAL be flying to Saskatoon? Not a chance. They’ll pick off the high-value, high-traffic domestic routes that feed into their international routes. And it’s on those international routes that the airlines make what money they do make.

The domestic routes are actually subsidized by the international traffic, and are more important as a feeder into the international network. So what happens when you allow Emirates to siphon off high-value international business, and let international airlines fly domestically within Canada on the few high-traffic routes? You siphon revenue from Canadian airlines with no reciprocal business opportunity, and force them to drop low-profit domestic routes in a futile attempt to compete on price. So, yes, your flight from Toronto to Sydney via Dubai will be cheaper. But you’ll need to drive from Winnipeg to Toronto to catch the flight. Or see your savings evaporate because of an astronomical Winnipeg to Toronto flight.

And, of course, the “open, fair competition” argument presupposes a level playing field. With the debt-ridden UAE government pouring billions into both its state-owned airlines and its airport infrastructure, the playing field is anything but open, fair and level.

The Harper government hasn’t gotten much right on foreign policy lately. But they’ve made the right call here: say no to UAE blackmail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Youth and Asia: Liveblogging the final afternoon panels at Canada at 150

1:04 PM: We’re back for the afternoon session on this final day of the Liberal Party’s Canada at 150 conference in Montreal. Well, kind of back. The Hyatt’s WiFi has now become officially useless, so I don’t know when this will get online. Seriously, the Via Rail WiFi is better than the Hyatt’s. They’re clearly not ready for Canada and the digital world.

The afternoon keynoter is up though to set the scene for the final panel of the day, which is ending the day’s look on foreign policy with a look at Asia, and then young Canadians making a difference in the world without government backing.

And then Michael Ignatieff will give, according to the media that I’ve read, what will be the most important speech of his life and one that, if he doesn’t hit the ball out of the park, will lead to his immediate ritual suicide. And then he’ll have a press conference. So look forward to that.

Apparently Ignatieff had a conference call with the caucus over lunch, so I’m sure whatever he says will leak any minute anyways…

1:09 PM: OK, back to the hall though. The speaker is Dominic Barton, worldwide managing director of McKinsey & Co., and he’s speaking of Asia’s role in the World of 2017 and, I guess, what it will mean for Canada.

He’s talking now about the massive urbanization that’s underway in China, showing before and after pictures of cities like Shenzen. The difference in just a few years from sleepy historic-looking city to booming modern metropolis is astounding.

Some interesting statistics. Some 900 million consumers will enter the middle class in Asia by 2017, representing a massive new market. There’s also a massive shift from rural areas to cities, which carries many repercussions. What do they want? Education is one, and there’s opportunity both to grow institutions there as well as attract foreign students.

1:14 PM: It’s not just China, he adds. India, Indonesia, many countries are growing, need infrastructure, and are looking for partners.

1:18 PM: A Japanese mentor once told him Asia was a Western invention, the countries of the region don’t have that much in common with each other. Barton says he’d argue that’s changing, though, because of trade. Inter-Asian trade is expanding dramatically. Some 20 universities in China are now dedicated to teaching Mandarin speakers Arabic to facilitate trade.

1:21 PM: Where are these Asian companies going to build their North American headquarters? Barton says it could be Canada, but they’re not going to if we’re not out there actively engaging with them.

Interesting, he says the Europeans, and particularly the Spanish, are much more engaged in Asia than we are.

1:29 PM: There will soon be over 5 million annual Asian tourists, and we need to build an infrastructure to support and engage that opportunity.

Overall, Barton says there is a fantastic opportunity in Asia and we need to be more proactive than we have been or it’s going to pass us by.

1:31 PM: A few questions now, Barton is saying he’s like to see more eastern and Asian history taught at the primary level, and greater faculty exchanges at the post-secondary level. Also, our universities opening satellite campuses in the region, and vice versa.

Last question is from Penny Collenette, former Liberal candidate in Ottawa-Centre, and now at the University of Ottawa. I was afraid for awhile we’d have to go an entire Liberal-sponsored policy conference without mentioning water policy, but Penny saved us that fate.

1:40 PM: And now it’s the final panel before the MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH EVER by Ignatieff. It’s on Canadians making a difference in the world, particularly young , Canadians. Panellists are Yasmine Charara of Observatoire jeunesse Oxfam-Québec, Ryan Hreljac of Ryan’s Well Foundation, and Parker Mitchell of Engineers without Borders. It’s chaired by Dr. James Orbinski, a former president of Doctors Without Borders.

1:24 PM: Hreljac makes everyone wonder what the hell we were doing at 18.

1:44 PM: Mitchell says his group didn’t start out to be influential, it started out to make life better on the ground. RIM didn’t start to change communications, it started to make a really cool technology. His advice is let’s stop thinking about influence, let’s start doing things, having bold ideas, setting bold targets and going after them.

2:04 PM: Mitchell suggests a student loan interest/payment holiday while young people are volunteering with NGOs or overseas. Wouldn’t cost too much. I like that idea.

2:07 PM: Slight correction to my notes on this panel. Parker Mitchell isn’t here. Filling in for him is George Rota, also a co-founder of Engineers without Borders. So anything that was attributed to Michell, attribute it to Rota. My bad.

2:28 PM: I think this panel is up. It's been interesting, but I'm re-setting for Ignatieff's closing address. Buzz on press row is possibility of actual policy to be contained therein. We'll see. Catch you on the flipidy-flop.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada and the world: Liveblogging the last morning at Canada at 150

8:31 AM: We're running a little behind on the last morning of Canada at 150 in Montreal, but I'm settled into press row and looking forward to a morning of interesting speeches as debate as the topic turns to foreign policy, and Canada's place in the world.

There's a number of interesting speakers on the docket this morning. First-up, and the one I'm most looking forward to, is Robert Fowler, the Canadian diplomat and UN special envoy who survived a harrowing kidnapping ordeal in Afghanistan last year.

Also interesting will be Derek Burney, our former ambassador to the U.S and, interestingly, a senior Conservative and the fellow that ran Stephen Harper's transition team when he formed government.

In other news, after two days of fruit and sticky buns for breakfast, the Liberal Party sprung for a full hot breakfast buffet on press row this morning. Bacon, eggs, sausage, potatoes, the works. You may scoff but trust me, a well fed press is a happy press. And this is a big day, with Michael Ignatieff's closing speech and presser this afternoon. Already, the media seems in a much happier mood... Although, CanWest's David Akin just wondered by and mentioned that the coffee and mentioned the coffee apparently ran out...

Still, much larger press turnout today, the hall is full and we're getting started with the morning program. It's online at can150.ca, and live on CPAC today as well I believe.

8:46 PM: Robert Fowler says he won’t be mincing words and tells the non-Liberals in the room it won’t be him. He also says he is very grateful to the Harper government and owes it his life for getting him out of his kidnapping, but he’ll still call it as he sees it on their foreign policy.

He believes the Liberal Party has lost it’s way in policy terms, particularly in policy terms, and is in danger of losing its soul. It is willing to embrace anything in favour of getting power. It’s not the party that governed Canada during his time in public service, and hasn’t given Canada a coherent vision of what it’s about.

The Canada at 150 conference though he says does give him hope that things may be changing, it’s been a great conference, great discussions, he’s enjoyed being here, and presents hope we may be finding our soul once more.

8:52 PM: Fowler says Liberals and Progressive Conservatives did well in Africa, so it seems the Conservatives want to do something else to make their mark. Not that our hemisphere isn’t important, we can’t abandon Africa. Canada isn’t Liberal.

We’ll be seeking election to the UN Security Council soon; Fowler says our winning is far from a given. Indeed, he seems pessimistic. If we do win, it won’t be on our recent activities, but on our past reputation and on hope for what we may do in the future.

The world does not need more of the kind of Canada they’ve been getting, says Fowler. As the world has been getting smaller, countries have been turning inward and adopting me-first policies and attitudes.

8:55 AM: Most of the world doesn’t understand what we’re trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, says Fowler, including Canada. He says we won’t prevail there, we’re not willing to pay the price in blood and treasure it would take to colonize it and replace their culture with ours, because that seems to be what we want. We won’t outlast the insurgents/Taliban: we fight to go home to our families, they fight to die. With no vital interests at stake, we won’t pay the price. It’s time to leave, he says.

8:58 AM: When was the last time a Canadian idea made a difference on the world stage? Fowler says probably Lloyd Axworthy’s responsibility to protect initiative, with an assist, he notes, from Michael Ignatieff.

How about actions? He mentions Axworthy again in Canada’s push to band landmines. Also, the Canadian role in establishing the International Criminal Court.

How about leadership? Where are our Louise Arbours today?

9:02 AM: He’s on to the Middle East now, and speaking strongly against Israeli settlement construction, saying the government has sold out Canada’s international reputation for balance and fairness to lock-up the Jewish vote in Canada. He laments our “reckless posturing” in the region.

He says there will need to be a two-state solution, each with a piece of Jerusalem.

It didn’t begin with our present government, though, although they did ramp-up the volume. And it goes into the wider courting of ethnic constituencies, mentioning Liberals courting Tamils in Toronto, or all parties taking part in Sikh spring parades in Vancouver where photos of terrorists like the Air India bombers are displayed.

It’s a myth Canadians don’t care about foreign policy, he says. When its grounded in Canadian values, they will be behind it strongly. But when only given small-minded, mean-spirited, whatever the US wants, they’ll have little choice.

9:08 AM: Fowler notes after four budgets the Conservatives have clearly failed to live up to their commitments on raising foreign aid to a certain level and, to be fair, the Liberals did no better. Meanwhile, the billionth African will be born shortly, and in 2050 the continent will be 20% of the global population. The population is also increasingly urban.

9:17 AM: References work of Paul Martin done on African development helping African countries realize part of the way forward is encouraging investment and removing regulatory barriers to investment. We have failed though to live up to our development investment commitments.

A billion Africans depend on counties like ours to help them improve their break lives. They know we can’t do it for them, but they do expect our help. We need to renew our commitment to Africa, he says, and be long-term partner, and exits the stage to strong applause.

9:20 AM: Up now is Tim Gartell, former national secretary of the Australian Labour Party. He applaud Michael Ignatieff for having this event, noting there aren`t too many parties in the world that would invite people to come and speak to them, give them a pasting, and sit there and listen to it. And certainly not any right-wing parties.

9:24 AM: Felt the need to hydrate after Fowler’s interesting and hard-hitting speech, much of which I agree with, some of which I don’t. I thought he was a little off-base on Afghanistan and, while I do agree that both Liberals and Conservatives policies that are too one-sided on Israel with an eye to domestic political considerations, I felt his characterization of the conflict was incredibly one-sided the other way. There is lots of blame to go around, and it’s worth noting that the two-state solution Fowler called for has been offered and rejected by Israel as recently as Dayton, if I recall correctly, and was rejected and met with terrorist bombings.

Back to our Australian friend, though, now that I’ve gotten some water. Gartell is talking about differences and similarities between Australia and Canada, and how the countries see each other. Haven’t heard any jokes about speech plagiarism yet.

9:37 AM: Ah, here’s the mandatory speech plagiarism joke, as Gartell says he’ll now be quoting some excerpts form speeches by Australian prime ministers, which he understands is en vogue in Canada, although he’ll be only quoting labour PMs.

9:44 AM: Derek Burney is up now, wearing a suit and tie made in Canada. Thanks everyone for agreeing to listen to a discussion on foreign policy early on a Sunday morning, and thanks Michael for a great and important event.

He thinks Canada/US relations should rise above partisan politics which explains if you’re wondering, he says, why he’s here today (as a Conservative partisan speaking to Liberals.)

He says a single coherent voice for Canada is necessary, saying we have a unique ability to divide and conquer ourselves, which the US will exploit. We’re not served by a variety of voices at either the federal or provincial levels, he says. (I think he’s off-base here, is he telling opposition to shut it? And its not like US speaks with one voice, with their political system they’re way more fractious then us, Congress says one thing, White House another.)

Also, we’re not served by a frosty relationship with the US. Even if it may serve domestic interests, it’s counter-productive overall. We can disagree without being disagreeable. They’re the masters of grandstanding and spin, so they recognize it easily.

9:52 AM: Suggests the establishment of a new multi-national border commission that would streamline customs and border practices and remove barriers that are purely protectionist, not security. Give business stakeholders direct access to commission to air grievances.

He also wants harmonizing of manufacturing regulations, immigration policies, trade tariffs, and more policy cooperation on cross-border issues.

Says must be bi-national, not tri-national, because Canada/US issues are way different than US/Mexico issues, and we need to make sure US/Mexican issues don’t drive US/Canada border policy.

He wants NORAD expanded to land and sea, saying more security can make border entry easier.

9:57 AM: Climate and security is linked, and energy security is important. We need to act, even though cost is now and political benefit later, which politicians tend to prefer be reversed.

Back on his recommendations for harmonization in a variety of areas, I need to take issue. Our views and values on many of those issues, particularly immigration, tend to diverge widely from the U.S. But any harmonization is almost certainly to be on their terms, not ours. I’m not willing to sell out our values to the U.S. for expediency, and I don’t think most Canadian will be either.

10:03 AM: Says we need a more robust approach to the U.S., but accompanied by increased focus on trade and investment with Asia. Seems more opportunity there than trade with Europe, and says should begin building infrastructure for energy export to Asia.

Ends saying we need to bring the “own the podium” spirit to our foreign policy.

10:19 AM: Apologies for the long delay in updates, the Web has been acting-up again but it’s a break now, so I’m getting some bandwidth again. Lots of chatter in the halls about the Fowler speech.

As I write, Fowler is doing a Q&A with the Web cast audience, and just took a question on African development from a viewer in Italy. Cool.

10:34 AM: And the break is over, which means my bandwidth is also evaporating. So could be a bit before I get these updates online.

We have a panel now though on Canada’s presence on the world of 2017, where are the priorities? First, the panellists are asked to give one priority they’d give if they had 5 minutes with the PM.

Pierre Martin, a political science professor at Universite de Montreal, says as we reach out to emerging Asian powers we can’t forget the dominant reality of our relationship with the U.S. in our trade and life. Also, he’s disagreeing with Burney on the idea of Canada only speaking with one voice to the U.S. Martin says we don’t just have one line in hockey, we have many lines. In Copenhagen, who expressed Canada’s voice better? Not Jim Prentice I’m betting.

10:40 AM: Up now is Jeremy Kinsman, a former Canadian ambassador to the EU and high commissioner to the UK. We need to reconnect, the 21^st century will belong to those who connect, and we need to reconnect on the issues where we have credibility. Conflict mediation and resolution is one example. We need to get back to what we’re good at. Also, think of ourselves, and don’t think that means becoming more American. Americans like big ideas, and it’s time we came to them with something other than complaints. Co-managing the border, climate change, let’s have big ideas and get the Americans onboard. Co-managing stewardship in the Arctic, he says the US would welcome strategic leadership form Canada on big issues that show we’re thinking of North American issues.

10: 45 AM: Janice Stein from the U of Toronto’s Munk Centre says it’s time to end some myths: we’re not a middle power, whatever that is, and we’re not peacekeepers. We need to leave the 20^th century behind and look to the 21^st. We need to use a serious of institutions, trade, development, NGOs, to connect to developing world. Also, must consider what does the digital world mean to our place in the world, and how can we use digital tools to help? Gives example of paying Afghan police digitally to their cell phones to reduce corruptions.

10:50 AM: Stein says Canada has a very poor record on development assistance and it’s not that we don’t spend enough money at it; it’s that we do a poor job of it. And there won’t be more support for development assistance form Canadians unless we get better at it.

10:58 AM: Kinsman says culture, and promoting our culture abroad, is fundamental. You have to tell people who you are. Creativity and culture is synonymous with innovation, and cutting promoting our culture abroad is just plain dumb.

11:06 AM: Kinsman says if we stand for human rights somewhere, we have to stand for human rights everywhere. But that doesn’t mean we don’t engage with countries like China; he says engagement helps human rights.

11:15 AM: Kids interested in foreign affairs today shouldn’t be diplomats, they should go into NGOs. NGOs are largely delivering our foreign aid today, that’s where it’s at, says Kinsman.

Stien disagrees with Fowler that Canada has no strategic interest in Afghanistan, but says she does agree we’ve accomplished none of out strategic objectives, and as we move toward 2017 it will be important to understand why.

11:21 AM: Stein says the biggest security challenge in the world today is unemployed adolescent young men with no prospects and no hope, and it’s a huge security issue we’re not addressing through our development policies.

Kinsman agrees on unemployed young men, but adds under-employment of women is another major global issue. Stein responds emphasis on women is overlooking a major and growing challenge around young men,

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Ignatieff's speech on foreign policy

Video highlights from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's speech today on foreign policy to the Canadian Club of Ottawa.



Full text of the speech available here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Global leadership, or the small man of the G8?

On the heels of Stephen Harper's latest less than stellar performance on the global stage at the G8 in Italy, an article in Embassy Mag is filled with anecdotes of Harper abroad, and how he's not exactly making us friends:

Although the misstep by the prime minister will likely make few waves with Canadians—most of whom are busy enjoying summertime—experts say it adds to a troubling pattern in Mr. Harper's approach to foreign policy. They say he seems content to miss opportunities to contribute to the international dialogue, instead commenting on internal, domestic politics that international journalists will have no interest in.

You'll remember Rona Ambrose's attack on the Liberal environmental record in Nairobi back in 2006. While, of course, it wasn't a hit with Liberals, the global community wasn't a fan either. Overall, it seems foreign policy just isn't a priority for Harper:

"Foreign policy is not [Mr. Harper's] main interest," said Errol Mendes, a professor of international law at the University of Ottawa. "It would be interesting to know how many average citizens of the G8 would know who our prime minister is, whereas they certainly knew who Trudeau was, even Mulroney. So the fact that he does not shine on the international stage does impact on us having profile."

Some interesting observations in the piece from Canwest's David Akin:

...the Canadian leader is so poorly known that photographers are constantly asking who Mr. Harper is.

Mr. Akin recalled that at the prime minister's first G8 Summit in St. Petersburg in 2006, Mr. Harper avoided the press for three entire days, even as every other G8 leader loudly trumpeted their messages to the international press gathered on site.

"He was so uncomfortable he was invisible, he physically looked smaller in that '06 summit...he seemed really out of his element," Mr. Akin said. "When you're travelling with him, there's never enough information about his activities, about who he's speaking to. The read-outs that we get from the PMO communications when he meets with other leaders are frustratingly bland and vague."

Ouch. Andrew Cohen is also critical:

"What struck me about this is that he was relentlessly and unnecessarily partisan," Mr. Cohen said. "And you wonder why he did it; it doesn't help him internationally and it doesn't help him at home...so why did he do it? Maybe because he just can't help himself.

"We will probably have to wait...before we ever know what kind of a prime minister he was in those summits, but my sense is if we were doing innovative things and we were as daring as once we were, we would know."

Pollster Frank Graves says the domestic impact for Harper is likely minimal:

"Most people are paying very little attention," said Frank Graves, president of Ekos Research Associates polling firm, though he said he suspects Mr. Harper regrets the attack on Mr. Ignatieff, and the impression it may leave on the public.

"Why would he have offered up this gratuitous and what turns out to be erroneous critique of his competitor in Canada when he'd just done a reasonably good job otherwise?" Mr. Graves said. "That might reinforce this view that he has difficulty transcending partisan instincts."

I think Graves is probably largely correct on the domestic polling side; I don't think foreign policy or even Harper's embarrassing international stumbles are likely a vote-mover for many Canadians. But political calculations aside, our decreasing credibility on the global stage does bode ill for Canada on a number of fronts, both economic in our ability to attract trade and investment, and in our ability to influence global affairs.

I'm going to take issue with Graves' comment though that he thinks Harper regrets the attack on Ignatieff. He's right, and he's wrong. Harper undoubtedly regrets that he got bad information, I'm sure of that. Harper doesn't like being embarassed. But don't believe for one second he regrets the impulse to attack. It's ingrained in his psyche, his very nature.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper Reformatories: We don't need to help Canadians overseas

Surprising pretty much no one, the Harper Conservatives have waited for Parliament to break for the summer before filing their appeal of a Federal Court decision that requires it to seek the repatriation of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay.

The facts in the Khadr case have been well-argued and my disgust with the Conservatives' actions on this file are on the record. The appeal only further drags-out this process, further impugns Khadr's charter rights, and once again abdicated Canada's moral leadership as we wait by, the last Western country with a citizen at Gitmo, for the U.S. to tell us what to do.

What I found newly galling though reading coverage of the appeal today was this:

The government argues there is no principle in international law compelling officials to provide diplomatic protection or consular service to nationals abroad, let alone seek their return to Canada.

That's a stunning statement for the government to make in a legal argument. Basically, the Harper reformatories are saying if you find yourself in trouble overeas, Canadian citizen or not, we don't have to do squat to help you if we don't want to. Lose your passport? Maybe we'll issue you a new one. Maybe not. Arrested on bogus charges in a foreign backwater? Maybe we'll make a phonecall.

This argument seems to chrystalize Harper's foreign policy: get in trouble overseas, whether your own fault or not, and MAYBE we'll help you. It helps, of course, if you fit their definition of a "real Canadian" or if it plays into Jason Kenney's outreach strategy.

But, in essence, there's two classes of Canadians: ones the Conservatives like and ones they don't. And apparently only the latter are entitled to the assistance of their country's department of foreign affairs.

Perhaps they should add a disclaimer to Canadian passports...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How's this for a Harper policy? "Canada not obliged to protect kids outside country"

It just warms the heart, doesn't it? Beneath the sweater vest, the true nature of the Stephen Harper Conservative party:

Canada's legal duty to protect its citizens, even children, ends at the border and there is nothing in domestic or international law that obliges the government to seek Omar Khadr's repatriation, say federal arguments filed in court.

And hey, it's not like they haven't done SOME things to help the kid:

The government contends it has done plenty to ensure the "well-being" of the Guantanamo Bay detainee - from supplying him with magazines to ensuring he receives medical treatment and facilitating contact with his family - and any further protection is at the discretion of the state, not the courts.

I'm sure he appreciates the old Reader's Digests. Humour in Uniform probably takes on a whole new meaning at Gitmo.

What makes the Harper policy even more odious is that it's so subjective. It's not that they won't help any Canadian in trouble in foreign lands. Instead, they seem to pick and choose based on their own political, philosophical and moral biases. One case will get the full Jason Kenney putting on the pressure treatment, while another will see excuse after excuse as a citizen is exiled at an embassy or just plain indifference as a citizen rots at Gitmo. It depends entirely on their definition of whose a "real Canadian" and who isn't.

And that's wrong. The government has the responsibility to stand up for all its citizens. Even the odious ones. These things should be beyond politics. And for my country's government to be arguing otherwise in federal court is just sad.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Will we really care what leaders come to the Vancouver games?

I like to think I love a chance to rip on Stephen Harper just as much as the next guy, if not even more, but I’m having a hard time caring much about whether or not Harper attends the opening ceremonies for this summer’s Beijing Olympics:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is resisting growing pressure to attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer, but his Trade Minister Michael Fortier insisted yesterday that the Prime Minister's absence would have no lasting impact on bilateral relations.

Sure, reversing course and going may be the real politik thing to do, and with the leaders of France and the U.S. attending he’d have plenty of cover for a decision to go. Harper has insisted from day one it’s a scheduling and time decision and not message-sending on human rights. It’s probably a little of both I suspect. But I find it difficult to believe whether or not our Prime Minister goes to the opening games will have any impact one way or the other on our bilateral relationship.

I really think Bob Rae goes over the top here though with his release and comments on the topic:

Mr. Rae has called on the Prime Minister to reverse course and attend the Games' opening ceremony, saying Canada will "pay a price" for the snub. …

Mr. Rae said Mr. Harper seems to be suffering a "hang-over" from the Cold War, when Conservative parliamentarians were courted by Taiwan and were staunch critics of Red China.

"I think it is ironic that Chiang Kai-shek's followers in Taiwan are quite prepared to seek a rapprochement with China, but Chiang Kai-shek's followers in the Conservative cabinet are not," he said.

Alrighty then. The Harper policy on China has been decidedly lacking in nuance and tact. But if relations with China are frosty it’s for a myriad of reasons. We have some legitimate beefs with their government, from its treatment of its own citizen to its treatment of some of ours. On some issues, a firm hand by the Canadian government has been appropriate. In other cases, we’ve overplayed our hand for domestic consumption, wanting to be seen as being tough in certain communities at home, and it has cost us.

Harper’s attendance at the games shouldn’t be the issue. The issue should be is the government’s wider China policy serving our dual interests to advance both trade and human rights. It can be a difficult balancing act to be sure.

But as for the games, who cares. Any ill feelings in Beijing won’t be cured by Harper’s being in the stadium. And I really doubt we’ll be seeing headlines in two years about this leader or that snubbing Vancouver by not showing-up at BC Place, and the Canadian government planning retribution. I think then Prime Minister Stephane Dion will know better... frankly, I could care less which leaders come to Vancouver and which don’t.

Except for President Barrack Obama. He’d better be there, or we’re cutting off the oil.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Did the heat get to Deceivin' Steven?

I’ve had this article bookmarked for awhile but haven’t gotten around to posting it. These are comments made by our illustrious Prime Minister during his recent trip to Latin America (h/t):

In a rare and surprising shot at the U.S., Harper said Canada shared America's desire for free and open markets, democracy and accountability. But in a speech to a business crowd in Chile, he added Canada differs from the U.S. in its policies of "social cohesion," such as universal health care, equalization and other progressive institutions.

Unlike the United States, which has a checkered history of interests and interventions in Latin America, Harper said the region has nothing to fear from Canada.

"It is not in our past, nor within our power, to conquer or dominate," he said.

Don’t worry, we won’t try to invade you like those Americans, who hate progressive policies.

Have a Liberal PM make those same comments and the shrieks and howls of anti-Americanism would resonate from the loony right columnists and bloggers. I must have missed their similar condemnation of Harper’s remarks.

It is nice to see Harper trying to carve-out a positive role for Canada on the world stage however. It wasn’t that long ago after all that he said:

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status..."

Speaking about, cough, boasting about social services, glad to see Harper, um, boasting about our social services like universal health care (we're totally first rate now that the Cons are in power though, so it's cool). It wasn’t that long ago after all that he said this about a two-tier system:

"Well I think it would be a good idea. We're alone among OECD countries in deciding that we'll have a two-tier system, but our second tier will be outside the country where only the very rich and powerful can access it and will be of absolutely no benefit to the Canadian health care system."

It also wasn’t that long ago that Harper decried Liberal TV ads that ask “voters to choose between a country like Canada with generous social programs, or a country like the U.S. with its lower tax rates, referring to tax cuts proposed by Harper” as anti-American, and, get this, a potential cause of terrorism:

"I think given the security situation it's not appropriate for any political party to do anything that would encourage anti-Americanism or break down that co-operation at this point," Harper said after U.S. officials announced an increased terrorist threat Wednesday.

But I’m sure Harper’s asking Chileans to chose between Canada’s generous social programs and the U.S.’s history of invading Latin American countries is totally different. Somehow. Maybe the difference is that its worse? I dunno.

Anyway, lastly, on Harper's Latin American adventure and supposed foreign policy shift this Liberal reality check is worth reading.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers