Harper and China: It's a mechanism, not a dialogue

Oh, if only I were as educated and wise in the ways and nuance of international diplomacy and language as our esteemed foreign affairs minister,Peter MacKay Maxime Bernier David Emerson Lawrence Cannon.

Because I must admit, the distinction he's trying to draw here to explain how the Conservative reproachment with China on human rights is nothing at all like the Liberal policy his government roundly attacked as morally hollow completly escapes me:

``What's important here is that both parties have decided to look at these issues as we move forward'' Cannon said ``so our people will engage with officials in the Chinese government in the very near future''

The Conservatives suspended the formal human rights talks between the two countries in 2006 after heavily criticizing the former Liberal government's centrepiece of policy engagement with China as being ineffective.

But Cannon insists this is not a resurrection of the Liberal program launched in 1997.

``I don't like using the word human rights dialogue'' he said ``I want to propose a mechanism whereby everybody will feel comfortable as we move forward. ''

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives flip flop on Khadr appeal three times in as many hours

If it wasn't for the fact that a Canadian citizen named Omar Khadr is still rotting in a prison cell in Guantanamo Bay, this would almost be amusing. Almost. My kingdom for competent government?

If you're counting at home you'll note three flip-flops by the Conservatives on an appeal of the Khadr court ruling, all between this morning's question period (11amish) and the filing if this wire piece just before 2:00pm. That's an average of one flip-flop per hour.

Tories flip flop on Khadr appeal (URGENT-Khadr-Lawsuit)
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 24, 2009 13:49

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTTAWA - The Harper government seems to be having some trouble deciding whether it's appealing a court ruling on the Omar Khadr case.

The government now says it has not decided if it will appeal a Federal Court ruling that said it must ask the United States to send Khadr home.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told the House of Commons today that their would be an appeal.

But his spokeswoman quickly contradicted that, saying no decision had been made.

Within minutes, she backtracked, saying the minister's comments stood.

A short time later things changed again, with the spokeswoman saying the government is still considering what to do.

(The Canadian Press)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On welcoming back Khadr

This clip is actually from last week and the question period in budget day. Obviously things were overshadowed a little then, but I did still want to post it. In it, Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae questions Conservative foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon on Omar Khadr, the Canadian being held at Guantanamo Bay whose case before a legally-questionable military tribunal was stayed last week at the request of US President Barack Obama.



Rae also wrote an op/ed on the Khadr case that was published on Thursday in the National Post:

Prime Minister Harper seems determined to go down in history as the last defender of Guantanamo on the world stage. He is letting us down in the process. Canada was the first country to sign the Optional Protocol on child soldiers. The treaty still binds Canada, and we agreed at that time, among other things, that "armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State cannot recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years." Canada agreed to rehabilitate and reintegrate these children.

He is also missing the political boat. It is one thing to be narrowly ideological, it is quite another to be oblivious to the changing circumstances in foreign affairs. The Obama administration is telling the world that torture is wrong, that secret jails are wrong and that tribunals have to comply with constitutional principles. It is asking other countries for help in providing for the resettlement of detainees. Failing to read these signals from Washington is a serious political blunder that risks getting Ottawa off to a bad start in our relations with our most important ally.

As Cannon and other Conservative critics have fairly (in a sense) brought-up the position of the previous Liberal government, here's an excerpt of what former Prime Minister Paul Martin had to say about Guantanamo and the Khadr case in his autobiography, Hell or High Water:

I am under no illusions as to the danger that terrorism poses, and I share the view that we must fight terrorism with every legitimate means at our disposal. That being said, I also believe that the courts are an important compass, especially when events threaten to make a democratic society lose its bearings with regard to human rights. In the United States, the courts have proved to be the only check on the misconceived policy of detentions at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

And speaking of Guantanamo, with the benefit if hindsight, given the revelations about events there, I must say that I now regret that the government did not intervene in the case of Omar Khadr and bring him back to face Canadian justice.

I say fairly in a sense because it's kind of pathetic the Conservatives are hiding behind the policies of a past government they agreed with very little on. Did the Martin government drop the ball? Yes. Absolutely. That said, we also know more now than we did then, and I'd like to think we'd have reconsidered our position over time, as Martin has belatedly done. And particularly with Obama's move to end the tribunal process, it is past time for Canada to reevaluate its position.

A new poll out today from Harris Decima shows Canadians want Khadr repatriated to Canada:

Most Canadians believe accused terrorist Omar Khadr should be returned to Canada, but a healthy plurality want him to face justice here rather than simply being turned loose, a new poll indicates.

Fifty-four per cent of respondents to the Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey said Khadr, held by U.S. authorities for more than six years at Guantanamo Bay on murder and other charges, should be brought back to Canada.

That included 38 per cent who said he should face the courts in Canada, while 16 per cent said he should be released and placed in a monitoring and rehabilitation program.

Twenty-nine per cent of those questioned said Khadr should be dealt with through the U.S. court system.

My feeling? While the case against Khadr is increasingly suspect, given the revelations we've seen coming out of the military tribunal, these are serious charges he faces. His age, time incarcerated in Guantanamo, and possible torture are also important factors. The military tribunal process is illegitimate, and he is a Canadian citizen. Given all this, the Canadian government must demand his immediate repatriation to Canada, and the accusations against him dealt with through the Canadian justice system.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We need a little Clarity on Quebec

After Conservative intergovernmental affairs labour minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn’s pronouncement that a Conservative majority government would re-open the constitution to address “Quebec’s historical demands” the backtracking quickly began.

Out to quickly distance the Conservative government from Blackburn’s comments was intergovernmental affairs transport minister Lawrence Cannon, emphasizing Blackburn was expressing his own views, not the government’s:

"There is absolutely no appetite to open the constitution and to have any amendments to the constitution. We practice a federalism of openness in Quebec as well as with the rest of the provinces."

Still, after Cannon’s rebuke Blackburn left the door open, saying the time will come:

"As a Quebecer I think we can all wish to one day see all of these measures form part of the Canadian constitution. Now, to do that, there has to be a will on the part of the provinces. The circumstances have to lend themselves to being able to proceed in that path - I think everybody recognizes that the fruit is not ripe at this stage and we will continue with our agenda."

It will ultimately be up, said Blackburn, to Stephen Harper, who has conveniently been out of the country during all this nonsense. Here’s what he said to La Presse though in December (via Danielle and Paul):

“Stephen Harper souhaite que la résolution qui reconnaît les Québécois comme une nation soit incluse dans la Constitution canadienne”

Or, badly translated:

"Stephen Harper wish that the resolution which recognizes the Inhabitants of Quebec as a nation is included in the Canadian Constitution"

Which of course differs from what Jason Kenney was telling the English media last year:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has no plans to take up Mario Dumont's offer to re-open the Constitution, one of his top lieutenants said Monday.

"Our focus is on concrete, tangible deliverables, not abstractions,'' Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, said in an interview.

So, if I’m following all this correctly, the Conservatives are saying we totally want to get the Quebec as a nation thing into the constitution so give us a majority and hey maybe the time will be right, but hey English Canada the time isn’t right at the moment so totally don’t worry about it.

It all seems purposely confusing and misleading. The Conservatives want to have their cake (hey Quebec, we’re going to take care of you) and eat it too (don’t worry rest of Canada, not gonna happen). National unity shouldn’t be used as partisan ploy for political gain. The consequences can be serious.

A guy who knows a little about national unity and what not, Stephane Dion, is calling BS on the Harper government:

Dion, a former minister in charge of the unity file and a constitutional academic before he came into politics, said the Prime Minister wants Quebecers to believe he'd recognize their nationhood within the Constitution, but in fact, has no plans to do so.

Dion said that Harper has been deliberately vague with Quebecers about how he intends to handle nationalistic aspirations in that province – dating all the way back to his campaign speeches in that province in the last election campaign.

"The Prime Minister should say, very clearly, which federal powers he wants to transfer to provinces, and to the province of Quebec in a special deal maybe. He must clarify that," Dion said yesterday.

What Stephane didn’t say, but what he could (and should) have, is that we need a little clarity here, if you will.

I found this interesting:

Senior Liberals said they suspected the Constitution was thrown out for public debate merely to make mischief for Dion, who is dealing with internal party strife and huge dips in party support in Quebec.

History has shown that debates over Quebec's place in the federation can prove hugely divisive in the Liberal party and can pit Quebec Liberals against those in the rest of Canada. The fact that this information was leaked to an English-language newspaper seemed to feed that suspicion.

Maybe, maybe. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the Conservative strategy here. I also think Blackburn went off script. But a few things:

a) The purposely vague, say one thing in English and another in French actions of the Conservatives can easily be exploited by pointing-out the discrepancies and calling for clarifications, as Dion has done here.

b) This is an opportunity to stake out clear and defined policy ground for the Liberal Party. Articulate an alternative policy, a federalist alternative. The BQ and Conservatives are both fighting over the same soft-nationalist ground. Who is speaking for federalist, pro-Canada Quebecers?

c) I recognize such a position may alienate the establishment members running the LPC(Q) (into the ground). Well, it’s not like they’re helping much right now anyway. C'est la vie.

d) A strong federalist push would play to Dion’s strengths, and his base, and the Liberal base. The Conservatives want to give Dion a chance to play Captain Canada again? Fine with me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers