Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Ignatieff doctrine

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:30pm - 108 Comments

The Liberal leader is presently outlining his foreign policy in a speech to a Toronto audience. Simultaneously the Liberals have released a policy paper outlining the vision and various tangible proposals: emphasis on China, India and Africa, a post-combat training role for Canada in Afghanistan, a special envoy to the region, an overarching emphasis on empowering women in the developing world, a Canada Youth Service program, a new ambassador for circumpolar affairs, a permanent G20 secretariat, global scholarships for student from lower and middle income countries to study in Canada and a Branding Canada initiative.

Much of it links back to a notion of networked governance that Mr. Ignatieff mused on in Montreal.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/mc79hockey mc79hockey

    Heh. They're actually characterizing one of their own policy goals as "overreaching"? Good way to blunt the Tory attacks.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/aaronwherry Aaron Wherry

      Actually, they didn't. That's a mistake of my typing.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

        Aaron Wherry: the conservative's deepest plant in the "seemingly" liberal media.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

          I knew it.

    • Bonko

      It's the new hawtness among the left to promote feminism as a "super-right". They actually amended the Quebec Charter to make women's "rights" "super-rights" which trump other rights. It has zero to do with justice and everything to do with pandering to greedy man-hating feminists. They don't even bother hiding their hate behind words like equality anymore, they very explicitly demand women to have more "rights" (entitlements, really) than men.

      How on earth any straight man can support this misandrous man-hating party is beyond me. Guys? They hate you, a lot.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

        Not to be picky, but this post is about foreign policy. The best weapon in the fight against poverty in the 3rd world IMHO is… The empowerment of women.

        That means something different in a foreign policy context. If you have an objection to making one of Canadas policy goals the empowerment of women in the worlds poorest nations, I'd be interested to hear it.

        • Bonko

          Empowerment isn't even a real word, real power is something you take. At best it is used as a weasel word in this context, what do you mean by "empowerment"? Giving micro loans to women but not men? That's gender discrimination, not to mention a misallocation of assets. Women are better at paying back loans? So are white people (there is an enormous amount of evidence for this), and discrimination by gender is no different in kind than discrimination by race. So to be more precise: "empowering" women – which really means discriminating against men – as a policy goal is a human rights violation as well as a suboptimal allocation of scarce resources, not to mention an obvious vote-seeking sop to man-hating feminists and herbs. that's why I oppose it.

          Women are less economically productive than men (source: anything ever written on the matter) so it makes sense to target men with "development money", which shouldn't be going there in the first place anyway, since it does more harm than good. Haiti is explicitly telling people to stop donating as it is ruining their economy.

          I've noticed you use "IMHO" a lot in your comments; we're all entitled to opinions, but not our own set of facts. You're welcome to have an opinion that "empowerment" of women is the best weapon to blah blah blah, but that's all it is, an opinion, unsupported by facts.

          Feel free to read and rebut my substantive post below if you find this to be off topic, which it isn't.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            So to be more precise: "empowering" women – which really means discriminating against men – as a policy goal is a human rights violation as well as a suboptimal allocation of scarce resources

            No, it's not. Empowering women in order that they are provided equality of opportunity and the rights to their own bodies in no way discriminates against men.

            And by the way, your philosophy that "real power is something you take" is archaic. Power – reverence, influence, strength – is something that is gained over time, through proper self-development and the earned respect of others.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            "Well, reasoning with you people doesn't work so…"

            Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to inform you of the death of irony.

          • burlivespipe

            Can we get Bonko out of the CON closet and into a candidate's suit?
            Forget Libby, let Bonko speak!

          • Bonko

            Take, take, take. All you do is take. Endless demands for more, more, more.

            How are you an asset to Canada Lynn? What is your duty to your country and countrymen? Do you feel any obligations? Any responsibilities?

            All you do is take. A leech, a cancer on Canada. Taketaketake. Gimmegimmegimme. All the more reason not to "empower" women in developing countries, they'll just become greedy takers like Canadian feminists, all take and no give. Cancer.

          • wsam

            Who made you sherriff?

            Declaring your own post 'substantive' doesn't mean it is.

            In fact, in most likely means it is not. If the post truly had something of substance to declare you wouldn’t be so insecure to so loudly declare its brilliance. There is nothing to it but an ill-founded, fact-free and misogynistic attack on women.

            Your diatribe is nothing but a quasi-racist right wing pile of dingery-doo!!!

          • AJR79

            How about this for what I mean by empowerment?

            Countries which allow women to have jobs, get an education, and own property are more prosperous then those who don't.

            If you are against spreading any of these "womans rights" to places where they don't yet exist, please come out and say so. Perhaps you are comfortable that in some places women are chattel, and pine for the old days when they couldn't vote.

            Conflating modern, hardcore, 1st world feminism with what is going on in the 3rd world is redonkulous. On what basis do you mention Quebec laws without thinking about womens rights, in say, Congo.
            Either you don't understand the conditions for women in some of these countries, or you're a sociopath.
            I'd say it's a little of both.

            (option C is that you just want to vent about feminists, which upon reflection is the most likely reason for your screed)

  • bergkamp

    Ignatieff doctrine written by consultants, more like. Policy paper is content free except for consultants who will think their jiberish makes any sense at all. Does it say anywhere what a Global Network Agreement is? Do Libs mean free trade or something else?

    And I wonder who wrote this – were they paid by how many times they could use the word 'leverage'?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

      Hey bergkamp, just wanted to let you know that I actually attended a policy conference on Sunday that dealt with a number of these issues. The Liberal Party is reaching out to it's membership after the Canada150 conference through these one-day conferences. Basically, each participant selected 2 breakout sessions moderated by MPs where these various policies were being discussed.

      The final product may be written by professionals at this sort of things (or 'consultants') but the ideas do actually come from the membership – the complete opposite of the CPoC actually.

      • bergkamp

        " …. I actually attended a policy conference on Sunday that dealt with ….. "

        Do you mean Sunday a couple of days ago?

        Do you really believe Libs listened to supporters on Sunday, had a document drawn up on Monday and release it Tuesday. Sounds to me like policies have already been decided and Lib base is being told what they are.

        And this is not a defence of Cons because I think all three major parties are lacking when it comes to listening to their supporters.

        "Ignatieff doctrine written by consultants, more like."

        I did not express myself well but I was trying to say the document itself was written by consultants, obviously, because it is painful to read and you are never certain what the fcuk they are talking about.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

          I am also guilty of not completing my thought earlier – I meant to illustrate the process that is being engaged in with regards to Liberal policy development. Of course I don't think that Sunday's conference had a bearing on this document but this document was largely developed during the Canada150 conference in March.

          Being there on Sunday we were told what the major policy points were but we were there to flesh them out. Honestly, it was the first time I had been to such an event so I wasn't sure what to expect but all of the MPs (current and former) and Senators that attended continued to encourage the membership to speak their minds rather than doing all the talking themselves.

        • wsam

          I guess you didn't know that Iggy is a speed-writer.

      • wsam

        What did you wear?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

        Were you at a CPoC policy conference the week before?

        If not, how do you know how they do it?

        • wsam

          What are you wearing right now?

    • Orson Bean

      I agree with bergkamp that the use of "leverage" as a verb is the new butthead/nonsense/head-smacking word dujour out there.

    • burlivespipe

      Ah, new talking points already. Sure beats having to drag your OWN real thoughts out of the darkness for the public to graze through.
      Harper, with artificial courage of conviction. Courage may not be as depicted.

  • John D

    All sounds pretty good, actually. Except the "permanent G20 secretariat." The last thing the G20 needs is more bureaucracy, unless the secretariat means member state would be banned from bringing their own armies of bureaucrats to conferences.

  • Anon 001

    Wait a second, what about the "troops?" Why can't Iggy love the troops as much as Harper?

    • wsam

      Iggy should marry the troops. Or at least make out with them. That's why Harper had the fake lake built. For making out with the troops.

  • gary

    what does Layton think about this?

    • Gary

      I think he is a bit busy with the Libby Davies foot in mouth episode!

    • wsam

      He shaved his moustache is what Layton thinks. Iggy's speech finally put him over the edge — exactly as Iggy planned.

      Score one Liberals.

  • Justin

    The Circumpolar Affairs post is really going back to what it was before the conservatives took over… it's not really a "new" post

  • Gaunilon

    From the Overseas Development Assistance section:

    "Modernizing the government’s approach will provide the opportunity to remedy serious mistakes of the Harper government. There is no room for ideology in development assistance. And there is no justification for imposing a chill on democratic dialogue on international policy issues through intimidation, threats and politically motivated withdrawal of funding."

    I think that's code for "we will include abortion funding in overseas development aid". It's interesting that they don't have the stones to say it directly.

    • Gary

      "I think that's code for "we will include abortion funding in overseas development aid". It's interesting that they don't have the stones to say it directly. "

      Because actually saying so would morph it into: "There is no room for ideology in development assistance."

    • wsam

      They don't want to save babies. Conservatives love babies almost as much as they love the troops. The Conservatives are going to marry babies and make out with the troops.

      • MammaBear

        I love babies, hate abortions and am not Conservative.

        • wsam

          If you love babies so much you should marry them.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            Okay, all this baby-loving is making me think that Wherry should have titled this post "Brave New World."

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            I love waffles. Babies I can take or leave.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

      I think he's talking about waaaay more than abortion here. Israel comes to mind. Afghanistan definitely comes to mind.

      I mean, other than "We support Israel no matter what they say or do", what foreign policy do we have anymore?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

        Good point. What policy do the Liberals have on abortion funding in overseas aid again? Are they planning to continue the Harper cuts?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

          Same policy as we've had for for 25 years or so: we'll fund local priorities, not push our domestic policies on anyone.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            Our aid is focused by sector, determined by project and assessed on that basis. Canada does not provide general budget support or pool its funds with other donors. Is Ignatieff restoring abortion funding? Why won't he be clear on this? He harangued the Conservatives about it for months…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            Nice try, Style. Classic bait and switch.

            Harper tries to sneak through a major ideological-based litmus test to our foreign health aid, a major change in our international aid policies, without a discussion or announcement, refuses to tell us what his plans are for months, finally does and is forced immediately to partially retreat and at least possibly permit family planning and contraception… and Ignatieff is the one who is the problem. Of course.

            Ignatieff has been crystal clear on this Style. If a country allows family planning, contraception and abortion, and the aid group together with the local government thinks that is the best use of Canadian dollars, then the funding will be used in that way. There is no push on targetted funding for abortions in contrast to Harper's targetted ban on family planning, contraception and abortion (he's since been forced to retreat on contraception because of Ignatieff).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            Oh, is that in the speech? Where exactly?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            Who said it was in the speech?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            Ignatieff spent months haranguing the Conservatives to be clear about their policy on abortion funding in development assistance. Now he gives a speech outlining his development policies and he can't spare a sentence fragment for abortion. Why should I assume his policy is to allow abortion funding? I know from the Parliamentary vote that his party isn't united on this and isn't requiring its members to support such a policy. Maybe he's saving up that clarifying remark for the G20 summit next weekend or something. Maybe he just forgot.

          • tedbetts

            " Why should I assume his policy is to allow abortion funding?"

            Because he's said so. Several times. Not every policy has to be repeated at each major policy announcement, especially when that was merely a response to Harper's "policy".

            Ignatieff is being upfront, not trying to sneak controversial changes to longstanding policy through the backdoor like the PM.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            But Harper said repeatedly that his government wasn't changing the existing policy and that didn't satisfy Ignatieff. Has Ignatieff clearly said, since losing on the motion, that his party would restore abortion funding? This was an opportunity to say it, it would have taken only a few words and it didn't happen. You and I have very different levels of trust in the Liberal party's commitment to abortion funding. They've never made it an explicit commitment and they don't seem to be doing it here.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            "But Harper said repeatedly that his government wasn't changing the existing policy and that didn't satisfy Ignatieff"

            And then he announced that he was lying and that he was, in fact, banning any use of Canadian aid money for abortions. We had not such policy before.

            It was one of the first times the opposition really did an excellent job as opposition. The government tried to sneak one by us and Ignatieff not only forced them out into the open but also got them to change their initial ban on family planning and contraception.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            Actually, he announced he was following the will of the House as demonstrated in the vote on the Liberal motion and excluding funding for abortion from the G8 commitment. At best, that was a lie and Harper's true intentions were finally revealed. At worst, it's the truth, faced with that vote, Harper didn't have much choice but to actually explicitly exclude abortion funding, something he'd spent weeks avoidng . But it clearly isn't Michael Ignatieff's Liberals making an explicit commitment to funding abortions.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            Seriously? Are you pretending you haven't been following what's been going or have you actually not been following? This statement is too absurd and divorced from the sequence of events and from the Conservatives' own announcements and Ignatieff's public statements to be in any way serious. But you give Ignatieff in more credit for having even greater influence over Harper's biggest priorities than even I would have, knowing Harper as I think I do. Good on ya! I live in downtown Toronto, I think I might like to go visit your world during the billion dollar photo op next week.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            I have much the same reaction to your version of events. The year 2005 called, it wants you to give Harper's secret agenda back….

            Nothing in the public record suggests this is one of Harper's biggest priorities, either the G8 commitment or the inclusion of abortion funding in development assistance. Harper and Oda denied repeatedly any intention to explicitly exclude contraception and abortion from the G8 pledge. Cannon may have had a different view, but he could have been shut down in Cabinet. Except that Ignatieff's posturing strengthened his hand (and the rest of the pro-life caucus).

            Throughout the debate, I said this would end badly because of the politics of abortion in Canada. And it has. And it was greatly influenced by the politics of abortion in the Liberal party. Something that Mr. Ignatieff should have understood and, in an ideal world, have managed before he set out on this damaging partisan stunt.

          • burlivespipe

            Wasting oxygen arguing strawman. Must realize that Harper illusional card game means getting Liberals on defensive — no credit for Ignatieff's work on shaking Harper's abortion secret, just as CONs no credit Paul Martin and Jean Chretien for keeping Canadian economy out of right-wing reduced regulation sink hole…

          • wsam

            Why are you so obsessed with abortion?

            Maybe you need to lay down?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

            He had to retreat on the contraception issue because of public opinion.

            If your going to bash him on the abortion thing, why not mention that he wanted to change a 25 year policy but "didn't want to open the abortion debate".

            I'd say trying to change a long standing policy like that, and saying you won't even have a debate about, shows an unreasonableness that is quite unappealing.

            Oh, and if your leader wasn't such a tard in the way he communicated with his caucus, and in the way that motion was worded, he would have won the day.

            I was rooting for him on that one, and he dissappointed greatly.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            The evidence actually supports the idea that the long-standing policy was not being changed, but it wasn't very good. Then the Liberals brought a motion that woudl have effectively added abortion funding to the previous policy, and they lost the motion because their caucus was divided on that. Now, we have a new policy that excludes abortion funding and Ignatieff won't say whether he's getting tough with his caucus and making a commitment to abortion funding.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

            I don't think you've got your facts straight here. Wherry has an old post with the motion, and the word "abortion" is not mentioned.

            What is mentioned is the "failed right-wing policies of the Bush administration". This is the reason even pro-choice CPC MPs wouldn't support it. If it had been worded better, I think it would have passed.

            The real intent of the motion was to avoid something like Bushs policy of cutting off funding to groups that even mentioned abortion as a possibility. I've read stories about it, and it was draconian (and stupid, and heartless, etc.).

            As for Canadas long standing policy of funding abortions in countries where it is legal… I believe that goes back at least to the Bejing platform of 1995.

            That doesn't mean that the government can't change that policy, but it is a long-standing one, and there should be debate about it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            Why would Paul Szabo vote in support of the "failed right-wing policies of the Bush administration"? And then tell everyone his vote was motivated by his opposition to abortion? And why would that then be followed by the Conservatives announcing they would follow the will of the House and exclude abortion funding from the maternal health commitment? And why wouldn't Ignatieff present a policy that contrasted with that? And our long-standing policy was not an explicit commitment – you can contrast our old wording with the current UK wording to see how the two differ. Aaron linked to the UK policy sometime back when he was showing how the presumed Conservative policy was at odds with the rest of the G8.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

            Why would the PMO and many Conservatives announce that they could in no way support this motion because of the mention of Bush and that doing so was inappropriate (which it was, that was the first blunder in that motion).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

            Because Paul Szabos reading and comprehention skills aren't up to snuff?

            Seriously thou the motion made reference to Bushs "Global Gag rule", NOT funding for foreign abortions. Whatever was said after is spin.

            "And our long-standing policy was not an explicit commitment"

            Whether it was or not (and I believe it is explictly stated somewhere), it's good that you have done the 180, and admitted that the evidence shows that it IS a long-standing policy.

            I don't know why you would want to compare it to the UK to prove your case, but I'm pretty sure that Canadas policy on this has been constant since Mulroney, if not before. Changing something like this deserved a full and open debate. We were robbed of this by Iggys incompetence.

          • Style

            Canada has had statements on maternal health and sexual and reproductive health for a while, maybe going back to Mulroney. What it doesn't have is an explicit commitment to include abortion, such as the UK has or the New Democrats have proposed. The fact is it was possible for Harper to truthfully say he wasn't changing the policy and still have had no intention of funding abortion. The Liberal motion may have only aimed at preventing gag orders and have been fine with cutting off abortion funding, that's a claim I hadn't heard before.

            Here's the Canadian policy Aaron linked to ages ago:
            The most effective intervention is appropriate, comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning services and information. http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.ns…

            You can see the New Democrats' proposal here: http://macleans.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/ndpg8…

            If you find the Liberal policy, please let me know.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

            Does family planning include abortion? I'd say it's cut and dried that it does.

            If Mr.Harper doesn't think so he should come out and say it. If he thinks not, then why not cut that option off at home?

            Oh right, most Canadians are pro-choice, and any attempt to do that would result in his political destruction.

            I guess it's easier to toss 3rd world women under the bus, in order to throw a bone to the religious right at home, then to try and stand by your principles, at home as well as abroad.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            A good way to make it clear that your development assistance includes abortion is to actually say so. The UK does. The New Democrats do. The Liberals didn't and don't. See, for example, their old policy and Mr. Ignatieff's speech. But thank goodness they brought the issue up because that's worked out great for 3rd world women. Somebody threw them under a bus for cheap partisan gain, but I'm not sure it was the Conservatives, at least not only the Conservatives.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

            A better way to make it clear that your development assistance includes abortion, is to actually fund it.

            Is it more important, what people explictly spell out (for those who don't understand the concept of family planning), or what people do?

            The Liberals (and PCs) had no version of the gag rule in their foreign policy. I aslo noticed that you evaded my question about family planning including abortion. Obfuscation, and spining blame won't work on me here.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            It is important to explicitly spell it out because then there is a policy that guides civil service decisions and another government cannot say "we are not changing the policy" while cutting funds for abortion. Why won't the Liberals put the word in their policy? The thrust of Ignatieff;s argument was that the Harper government had to be clear with Canadians. I don't see why I should trust the Liberals on this if they won't step up and be explicit. If abortion funding is important to you, ther is another federal party that is willing to commit to it unambiguously.

            Family planning can include abortion, but it is not synomous with abortion. You can have a family planning program that includes contraception and education, but doesn't fund abortion. A program to fund abortion, on the other hand, is not so ambiguous.

          • AJR79

            Iggy says it early on here:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GJuIpbuFs&pl…

            I generally think that abortion should be an option on the table in countries where it is legal. All I actually said was that there should be a healthy debate when changing a policy like that. Not the clown show we witnessed.

            It is not a ballot box question for me, at least not the way it played out. I don't like it, but I'll deal with it.

            Did Harper not forsee that a maternal and child health plan would bring up the abortion issue? He's not exactly playing chess here, if you ask me. The CPC is split down the middle on abortion. (people, not MPs)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            Well, he does say at the beginning that he "thinks it's been Canadian policy for 25 years" to fund abortion. That "thinks" is what bothers me. By the end, though, after losing the vote, he's saying Canada should support reproductive *rights* for women. And rights do not mean access or funding, it's a lower bar. I think Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne give good analysis at the end – Harper was silent about abortion, the previous Liberal policy was silent about abortion, then Ignatieff made it front and centre and lost the motion – even if, as you say, the motion was narrowly worded to address Bush-style gag orders. To have any confidence in the Liberal party's support for abortion, I'd need to see them vote in support of a motion "that Canadian development assistance includes support for strengthening sexual and reproductive health care services, including safe abortion where legal". If Ignatieff can get his caucus to support that, we can be reassured.

          • wsam

            The evidence supports the idea that long-standing policy has been changed.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

      "There is no room for ideology in development assistance."

      What does this even mean? Of course development assistance is based on ideology.

      Never mind deciding what projects to fund, even giving development assistance in the first place is ideological because there are plenty of people who know that aid does not help in long run because it hurts economic development and props up dictators who buy guns and mercedes' with aid they receive.

      • wsam

        Some use the aid to buy bandages.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

      He's on the record a couple of times already saying it. If it were mentioned, it would have overshadowed everything else.

  • Emily

    Overall I like it.

    My only question is will we ever hear of it again?

    He's made a number of good speeches, and then silence….to the point where nobody can name one policy.

    • tedbetts

      I think you have the slow unrolling of major policy planks here that will lead up to a platform in an election.

      We had the >Rural Canada Matters policy initiatives including Canada's first National Food Policy. We now have the 25 page Global Networks Strategy. Surely not enough and surely not enough detail, but we aren't in an election right now are we?

      Besides, other than spend a few billion dollars on one giant international photo op, millions upon millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars on Harper only photo ops, and hundreds of millions on Conservative pork, what are the specifics of Harper's policy on… anything? He fought the Liberals hard for months before telling us even a little bit about his maternal health plans. He had a nothing budget that cut military spending and then he announced a sole sourced $16 billion plan to by 65 fighter jets that aren't totally appropriate for the north.

      He hates having to tell us mere voters what he plans to do. So he doesn't.

      • Livebloggin Junkie

        You can read all about Harper's policies here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsGovernment…

        The plane wasn't sole sourced, the competition for the contract was made into a Nova doc: http://www.amazon.ca/NOVA-Battle-X-Planes-Liev-Sc…

        • Lord Kitchener's Own

          The plane wasn't sole sourced, the competition for the contract was made into a Nova doc.

          That's either ignorance or deceptiveness on your part. That documentary is about the competition in the U.S. that decided who would get to design and build the JSF. Deciding whether or not Canada is going to purchase the JSF that Lockheed-Martin eventually designed and built (or if we should go with a competitor like the Super-Hornet or the Typhoon) is another matter entirely.

          • Livebloggin Junkie

            Some could construe saying the the Super-Hornet or the Typhoon is a competitor for JSF is ignorance or deceptiveness on your part. Not me, I just read your posts where you schooled some dude on the processes of privilege / ruling / contempt motion, and that was just awesome.

            Also, you'd acknowledge that Canada has been participating in the JSF program from early days to the tune of $150 million, with economic spinoffs already. We where always getting this plane.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I liked this part too:
    "Under the Harper government, Afghanistan has seemed to represent the entirety of Canada’s role in the world. Apart from partisan rhetoric…"

    Releasing a documented plan is a very good idea, and I'm glad the Liberals are embarking on it, but this particular document is filled with "partisan rhetoric" together with holier-than-thou claims about how there is no place for such rhetoric.

    The document is also pretty vague where it should be specifc. There are many references to things the Harper government has cut or "undermined" that the Liberals would restore, but few specifics.

    It's a missed opportunity, and that is highly unfortunate.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      I'd say it's more clearly articulated than the plan our government has on offer,

      • ex canuck

        But Andrew (not PorC), you would say that, wouldn't you? What government plan are you referring to?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

          Must be the Americas Strategy. Or the Global Commerce Strategy (with its particular focus on China). Or the maternal health initiative in the G8. Or the plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan…Seriously, this government gets panned for having as many overreaching strategies as Martin, unless the Liberals are proposing a new strategy, then we have to pan them for not having any strategies.

          • wsam

            Maybe their strategy is too have so many strategies they effectively have no strategy. Sounds perfect to me.

          • Andrew (not PorC)

            What Afghan strategy? It hasn't been clearly articulated. What maternal health strategy? It hasn't been clearly articulated. All we know is that the definitely might no fund abortions. We're not clear whether this makes NGOs that provide abortions ineligible or not.

            What commerce strategy? They're signing trade deals. Great. I'm not sure that is any departure from past or future governments.

            And what Americas strategy?

            You failed to mention obstructionism in the global treaty process. Like showing up a Copenhagen with the goal of setting the drapes on fire. Our mid-east policy is infantile at best (Israel is always and everywhere right)–though my preferred position would be to ignore the whole mess; Canada can't make any worthwhile contribution to that quagmire and we're better off not wasting any effort on it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            http://www.international.gc.ca/commerce/assets/pd…
            http://www.international.gc.ca/americas-ameriques…

            The Afghan strategy is reported on, poorly, every quarter. And, as a bonus feature, here's the Government's circumpolar strategy: http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-com…

            It doesn't reintroduce the pre-existing Ambassador for Circumpolar Affairs, as the Liberals now so boldly propose – but this seems to be because that posting was useless.

    • wsam

      Did you ever stop to consider that Iggy is tricking you?

  • Gary

    That about sums it up good sir!

    Infinitely more factual than any of the pap that Macleans columnists can come up with!

    Carry on!

    • wsam

      You know he was being ironic? You knew that, Gary, didn't you. Gary …?

      • Gary

        I thought it was more of the sarcasm flavor as opposed to irony…………..

        But if I missed his drift, then yes, it is a bit ironic because it is true!

        Perhaps I'm the bonko one?????

        • wsam

          No, you are Gary.

  • The Real Jan

    Thanks Bonko. for giving us the PMO response.

  • wsam

    I knew a retarded African. He was from Cabo Verde and spoke only Portuguese. Mutual friends assured me he was a very funny man but when we met for coffee I found him retarded. He had a Britney Spears tattoo on his neck and every time he moved his head she would wink at you. The whole thing was retarded. Totally retarded. I left early.

  • Lorraine

    I guess our increased military focus on Haiti and other CariCon countries and work in the Middle East patrolling the seas for pirates doesn't count?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

    Keeping the troops in Afghanistan and continuing the abortion cuts, that should quiet any Liberal-Democrat merger talk.

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    The "responsiblity-to-protect" is just a "progressive" euphemism for neo-imperialism.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

      That's pretty valid – in practice, "responsibility to protect:" becomes "discretion to invade". You can't actually compel any state to protect the residents of another, so states will only resort to this doctrine when they are inclined to intervene militarily anyway. It's a good principle, but, unless the implementation requires intervention at the direction of an impartial tribunal, its practical effect is to justify military adventures. Neo-imperialism is a bit strong, maybe.

      • Orson Bean

        Agreed. And this goes to the related issue of the principle of national sovereignty, and the fact that there has never been anything close to a consensus, at international law or otherwise, on what the legitimate reach and limits of national sovereignty are.

        Thus we get the completely malleable & unprincipled situation we have, where people invoke the inviolable principle of sovereignty when they oppose a military invasion (or even a treaty with a foreign nation that they don't like), and then forget about the inviolable principle of sovereignty when they support such an invasion etc.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Which is worse than the "conservative" euphemisms for neo-imperialism how exactly?

    • hosertohoosier

      Well it depends upon how you consider sovereignty. If it is your view that sovereignty should be collectively exercised by nations (and here I mean nations as groups of people, not necessarily states), then R2P does look a lot like imperialism. However, if you take the standpoint that the only sovereignty that matters is individual because nations are arbitrary constructs with no thoughts or feelings of their own, then it looks a lot different. If national sovereignty is being used to violate individual sovereignty, then I think there is a problem of local imperialism. There are cases where international (or US) imperialism is the lesser evil, relative to local imperialism. I don't necessarily think we should crusade around knocking off dictators, but I don't think it would be illegitimate to do so in cases like the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    Ignatieff's position on Afghanistan is actually nonsensical.

    In Afghanistan, you cannot train (seriously) forces without also being in combat. The only way to train forces is to train by doing, which means combat alongside Afghan forces.

    Training means continuing the combat mission.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      I agree that training means continuing the combat mission. I think Ignatieff wants to continue the combat mission. I think the Liberals (mostly) want to continue the combat mission, but realize it needs to be sold to a skeptical public. I keep hearing things from the PM that suggest that he does NOT want to continue the combat mission. I think this is potentially one of the most interesting bits of foreign policy weirdness going on right now.

  • Kyle

    Why on earth would Mr. Ignatieff even mention remaining in Afghanistan during the roll out of his foreign policy platform? Obviously that is the meat of the story for a reporter and what everyone is going to be talking about but I don't imagine that's what he wanted today's story to be.

    He could have waited a week and then announced his "I'll keep more troops in Afghanistan than Harper" plan and at least gotten some coverage about the rest of his foreign policy planks in the interim.

    Strange.

    • Livebloggin Junkie

      Not too strange. Bob Rae already told Ignatieff that this would be the policy two weeks ago, so it would have been stranger to have a speech about foreign policy and not confirm it.

      Also, if you'd spent the last week saying you weren't sleeping with Jack Layton, wouldn't you want to position yourself to the right of the Prime Minister?

  • hosertohoosier

    I don't think networked governance (globally) is worth a warm bucket of spit. Social network analysis has become a hot topic in the social sciences, resulting in a lot of work on IGO networks. Frankly I am not very convinced that it makes very much difference. The "serial joiner" countries that have relationships with everybody are not the ones that wield influence on the world stage. The states that matter are the ones with power, of which there is really only one (the US), and a few prospects (India, China, Brazil, a unified EU).

    Canada needs to enhance its own power (by improving productivity growth, R&D and increasing immigration), cut a deal with Russia on the Arctic, only go on peacekeeping/nation-building missions if there is a tangible payoff, start using our natural resources as leverage, and refocusing our diplomatic efforts on the few international institutions (the G8, UN security council, and management board of the IMF) and relationships that matter.

  • chet

    Global scholarships,

    ahh yes, spending Canadian tax dollars of educting….the world.

    A permanent G20 secretariate (apparently the problem with this G20 costs was the fact that the costs weren't institutionalized such that they are gauranteed to grow around a new permanent bloated bureaucracy).

    I can hardly wait to be told that this government centric utopia will also be "free".

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

      Ummmm – can you not think beyond the first step of the policy? This is a long view type thing, not a short turnaround plan. Educate very intelligent but poor people from poor countries. Those people go back to their home land and remain connected to Canada. Educated and hopefully upwardly mobile these people gain prestige in their homelands and are now friends to Canada. Rinse, repeat.

  • jacob

    Its nice to see people talking policy on here for once.

    • burlivespipe

      Some are talking; others are sniping. The CON forces don't want to talk policy, they just want to get out their non-registered long guns and shoot holes through it, knowing that the whole process reduces the public's stomach to ask for the CON 'opaque' policies.

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        Oh come on. You couldn't even let jacob revel in it for a MOMENT?!?!?!

  • Charles_k

    You can break apart any PMO release the same way.

    You put a lot of work into this, and for that I commend you.. but the Harper's grass isn't any greener.

    Harper is a known evil. The Liberals, no matter how much you try bring up what the did before, are an unknown evil. The leader very much defines the party.. we've seen these in various regimes by various leaders dating back to early 1900s. You can't just blatantly bring up the softwood lumber dispute.

    Also, there are some of us out there that think that youth service is actually helpful. It reminds us that there are actually human beings, real human beings, going through terrible things. A humbling thought, much less feeling from actually seeing it.

    At the end of the day, maybe a tenth of the /voting/ population might look this in depth into what the policies are. Hurray.

  • Mike T.

    OMG HE SUPPORTS TORTURE!!!

    (This comment brought to you by the year 2006)

From Macleans