Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

Foreign Affairs Clue

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:45pm - 0 Comments

While the Harper government blames Michael Ignatieff, ambassadors interviewed by Canadian Press don’t mention the opposition leader. Instead, African ambassadors tell Canadian Press it was the Harper government’s positions on debt relief and the UN Relief and Works Agency.

But “senior African officials” tell Postmedia Africa does not feel negatively. Instead, “officials based at the UN” say it was the Harper government’s position on Israel that upset members of the Organization of Islamic Conference, while one “senior Islamic official” says the OIC felt snubbed when Canada didn’t address the conference like Portugal did. Don Martin says “some” say the United Arab Emirates lobbied other Arab counties to vote against Canada after the Harper government refused to open runways in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, but a “senior government official” says Canada got a “good chunk” of the Arab vote.

Meanwhile, “government insiders” were preemptively guessing it might be Peter Van Loan, in Israel, with the new trade deal.

Bookmark and Share
  • r2d2

    Did Jane Taber write this?

  • Reverend_Blair

    It looks like the Harper spin machine has spun out and hit the wall on this one.

  • catherine

    wow, Harper is swatting on all fronts here, I guess hoping to catch some voters here and there. He has Cannon talk up Ignatieff internationally and he times the Israel trade deal announcement to coincide.

    It's the loss with a million excuses hoping to catch a million votes. He should trademark it.

  • Richard

    I think we lost this thing at about the twelve minute mark of the closing ceremonies in Vancouver.

    • Emily

      Probably…..that was certainly ghastly enough to do it.

      • gottabesaid

        12 minutes of closing ceremonies, or 20 years of Celine Dion? I say Celine.

        • Dave

          The Célining alone, we would have gotten away with…. but then we had to go and Nickleback.

  • hosertohoosier

    What is the point of UN security council seat? In theory, it enhances Canada's power and influence. What is the point of power and influence? It gives states greater freedom of action and the ability to have a larger impact on world affairs. How do we get a UN security council seat? By adopting policies that member states will find acceptable.

    Therein lies the paradox of being a middle power. The only way we get a seat at the table is by demonstrating to others that we will do whatever they want. That is not influence or power in a meaningful sense (by the way, I also apply this argument to those that make the same argument about Canada-US relations).

    Canada's best route for being influential in global affairs lies in developing its capabilities, not in "soft power". When have we ever gained anything tangibly as a result of the goodwill other countries have for Canada? A stronger, more advanced military makes our participation or non-participation in conflicts meaningful, and ensures that we can demand quid pro quo from others in exchange for participation. A more populous and richer Canada can have more clout in global affairs. We may never be as big as the great powers, but in some markets our technological edge and abundant natural resources make us an important player.

    Over the long-term Canada will be best-served by a strategy that develops our hard capabilities. We should develop a strong, advanced, and highly specialized military instead of trying to do everything on a shoestring budget. We should open the borders of our vast land to as many productive immigrants as possible. We should aggressively eliminate obstacles to economic growth, such as corporate taxes, spend more on growth-facilitating infrastructure and education, and less on fiscal black holes like social security and healthcare.

    With the right mix of policies, Canada could be a "Britain" or a "France" in 30 years. If we persist in our boyscout mentality we will continue to be the doormat of the world.

    • Emily

      How many excuses does that make now? I've lost track.

      The cheerleading didn't help btw

      • Blue

        The little snippets of silliness from Emily provide an excellent contrast to the logical, well-reasoned argument from hth.

        • Emily

          Well since he just runs nonsensical teaparty ad campaigns, you're lucky I don't tear them apart.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Debating with Emily is like winning an argument with a six-year old child: Ultimately unsatisfying.

          • Emily

            Except it's something you can't do.

            Yer good at sulking though. LOL

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Tell you what, Emily… go back and reread what hosertohoosier wrote, and if you can produce a coherent multi-sentence response that demonstrates at least some faint understanding of what he was actually arguing, I'll take it back.

          • Emily

            I know what he wrote. We've heard it all before from the teabaggers.

            He even left in the words 'social security'. LOL

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Well, I guess you failed that basic test of comprehension.

          • Emily

            LOL missed that goof didja?

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I feel bad for challenging someone whose reading comprehension skills are obviously quite limited, but if you think hosertohoosier's comment screams "teabagger" I'm afraid you're beyond help.

          • Emily

            Tsk….again you have your boxers in a bunch.

            You really need a anger management course. Why are you spending time attacking me, instead of discussing the topic? You do this on every thread.

            Is it because you think I'm female, or just because I beat you every time?

            Yeah, it's a teabagger argument….not to mention something from the last century.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I don't know or care what your gender is, Nola or Emily or whatever you call yourself.

            I just find you unbearably tiresome at times–especially when someone takes the time to craft a long, thoughtful comment, and you swoop down and crap all over it in five seconds without even having the courtesy to read what you're replying to, let alone consider it.

          • Emily

            Well then here's a suggestion.

            Don't talk to me.

            It will save you all that angst and confusion.

          • madeyoulook

            Just because trolls can be fed…

          • Emily

            Yes, well he's suffering an identity crisis at the moment, so don't call him names or he'll have a breakdown altogether.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I know, I know. I should just ignore her, like hosertohoosier does in spite of the abuse. Unfortunately, she makes it hard sometimes.

          • Emily

            TRY!

          • Holly Stick

            Britain caused a lot of slavery, massacres, opium addiction, etc., before good people persuaded it to outlaw slavery; and they did not accomplish that by force of arms but by persuasion.

            Never, never, never imagine that war or threatening war is a good way to get anything accomplished. Churchill said "It's beter to jaw-jaw than to war-war." Unlike you, he had extensive experience of war.

            Your hard power idea is just a penis-substitute. Being a swinging dick might work in prison, but not in civilized society.

          • hosertohoosier

            Yeah, and the international system isn't a civilized society. It is anarchic. Like a prison.

          • DPT

            I dare you to submit a reasoned argument without ad hominem attacks. I'll save you the trouble though, you're not capable of it.

      • DPT

        at the very least he makes an attempt at a reasoned argument, you on the other hand are just a loud harpy groaning and shrieking form the periphery. Pathetic.

        • Emily

          Ahh sexist, patronizing, ignorant….who could resist an invitation like that?

          • Blacktop

            I don't think intelligence is required on this thread, so don't worry Emily. You and I can stay. Hoosier makes very good sense except for the bit about social responsibilities and health care. Social responsibilities mean the poosr. As long as they are poor for no fault of their own (like wanting to have a lazy lifestyle rather than working. I don't agree wit cutting human capital areas such as health and education.

          • Emily

            LOL damned with faint praise!

            Yeah, when they show up, the thread IQ level goes down.

        • Holly Stick

          You think "…spend more on growth-facilitating infrastructure and education, and less on fiscal black holes like social security and healthcare…" is a reasoned argument? It's the same old neo-con unrealistic BS he usually spouts.

          • Holly Stick

            And waste all our money on the military in the vain hope it would make "our participation or non-participation in conflicts meaningful"? You didn't actually pay attention did you? You men just notivce buzzwords and images like soft = bad and hard = good and your critical faculties just drain away.

          • Emily

            Well it's all about being the toughest guy on the block, not actually building a nation.

            Tanks and planes and swagger sticks….lotsa swagger sticks. It's studly.

          • Blue

            I`ve been watching the rescue of the miners in Chile—fascinating stuff.
            But I keep thinking that they`re going to open up the capsule one of these times and it`s gonna be empty—no miner—disappeared.
            Now, coincidently, that`s the same feeling of disappointment I get when I open up a 23 reply section from a solid comment from the likes of hth and find it full of the inane crap that oozes out of the time-wasting nonsense that this Emily character creates.
            And just what the heck is wrong with you partisians that insist on giving thumbs up to her. You accuse Dennis and Chet of being too partisan and then you encourage her……….maybe she`s your future.

          • Emily

            It wasn't a 'solid comment', it was a teabagger ad. The kind posted here all the time, so everybody knows it's rubbish, and doesn't want to waste time on it.

    • danby

      hoosiertohoosier

      Just a word of thanks for the post and a word of encouragement to persevere despite the circumstances. Although I may not agree with all that you post, you present structured, thoughtful opinions and that should always be welcomed here.

      • Moe_Mentum

        Seconded.

      • danby

        and my apologies on the mistake with your name:

        hosertohoosier

        • Holly Stick

          Sorry, but what is thoughtful about this? "…With the right mix of policies, Canada could be a "Britain" or a "France" in 30 years…" It's ridiculous – different histories, wildly different environments even before the climate started changing so drasticaly, different population. How exactly could Canada go out and conquer a new world, when there is no new world anymore? How would we produce an empire, go out and conquer a bunch of other countries? You can be sure our military would not be up for that challenge no matter how many steroids we pump into it, when it can't get anywhere useful in Afghanistan now.

          • Tom

            Britain is now becoming a Canada, as the proposals for the new British budget reduce the Royal Navy to a force comparable to that of our own navy.

            Why would you want to become tied up in military affairs? Just look at the United States, with the most powerful military in the world's history. They have managed to get themselves into the position of "would they need such a large military if they didn't have such a large military?"

          • Shamwari

            I've heard this from a few Canadians over the past few months as the debate about the comprehensive and strategic defence reviews unfold in the UK. It is nonsense. I certainly don't agree with the rationale of the cuts – they could be deeper in some places and fewer in others – but Britain is a long way from becoming another Canada. Influence and access through various multilateral institutions at a level greater than anything Canada appears willing to aspire to is one reason. A long history and a national sense of the nation's place and obligations amongst the international community is another. Sheer capability is yet another. Counting hulls listed on paper is a useless analysis. Comparing national will and actual capability is a better place to start and it is the type of thinking lacking in Canadian policy circles.

      • guest

        well said danby. if more liberals around here stood up for quality dialog instead of encouraging the anti-conservative dumpfest there would be more thoughtful conservatives and more quality dialog.

    • Felix Jones

      What you're missing, I think, is that Canada does not have this "hard power" that you speak of. What's our military strength at the moment? Three ocean-going warships, a dozen CF-18s and maybe two divisions of infantry? Something around there, I'm guessing mostly, but I don't think that I'm very far off. Flexing our "hard abilities" makes us look like dicks around the world, and our international gains have only come as a result of our "soft abilities"..think Lester Pearson.

      I agree that our best options come from immigration, but I think you're really reaching with the France and Britian in 30 years projection. For that we would have to double our population, and what's growth at these days? Barely enough to stave off the death rate. We are at our best peacekeepers, nice people that help others. This HAS been our reputation abroad, and unfortuately it's being dismantled by this administration. More and more I'm starting to think that they just plain old don't understand diplomacy.

      • AT1

        Felix, we WERE prominent peacekeepers once, but that effort died long before the Harper government came to power. During Chretien's terms in office, we were fielding fewer peacekeepers around the world than Bangladesh. You cannot blame the present administration for that decline.

      • hosertohoosier

        I agree that Canada does not have a lot of hard power presently. However, over time we can develop it. Canada spends less (as a proportion of GDP) on its military than almost any other NATO country, so there is a lot of room for improvement. In doing so we have some scope for developing a niche by focusing what money we do spend. Military power is a multidimensional thing. For instance, in its heyday, the British had one of the smallest land armies of any of the European powers. However, dominance of the seas (and of global commerce and finance) enabled Britain to play a leading role in world politics.

        As for becoming a "Britain", lets focus on GDP as a reasonable metric for power potential, capturing both population and productivity. Canadian growth is already outpacing that of the UK. From 1946 till 2006, Canada grew 3.6%/year, while the UK grew at an average rate of 2.2%/year (in real terms). So as it stands, the UK economy is only about 70% larger than that of Canada. 30 more years at the historical gap in growth, and Canada would be very close to Britain. However, Canadian growth has slowed since the late 1970's, while British growth has not. The gap in performance is down to 0.4%, so Canada will need to change policies in order to surpass Britain.

        The evolution of Canada: UK GDP in 1990 dollars

        1945
        Canada: 88.5 billion
        UK: 347 billion
        UK:Canada ratio 3.92

        2006
        Canada: 815 billion
        UK: 1.4 trillion
        UK: Canada ratio 1.71

        2040 at average postwar growth rates
        Canada: 2.75 trillion
        UK: 2.99 trillion
        UK: Canada ratio 1.09

        2040 at average growth rates since 1979
        Canada: 1.98 trillion (my, what a difference a bit less compounding makes)
        UK: 3.01 trillion
        UK: Canada ratio 1.52

      • hosertohoosier

        Secondly, the Lester Pearson story is yet another piece of mythology. Neither Canadians nor Lester Pearson invented peacekeeping. It was an American idea concocted as a response to the Suez crisis and aimed at allowing Britain and France to save face. Pearson's sole contribution has been precisely the element of peacekeeping that makes it ineffective – the requirement that peacekeepers stay only if both countries want them to.

        Peacekeeping has largely failed to prevent interstate conflict, beyond a few minor successes. For instance, when Nasser wanted to invade Israel in 1967, he told the peacekeepers to leave. In Vietnam, Canadians observing the UN truce of 1954, proved unable effectively monitor because the other (pro-Soviet) countries in the observation force undermined their efforts.

        Pearson's defence policy was, similarly, a joke. Under Diefenbaker, Canada had agreed to purchase Bomarc missiles in order to replace the Avro Arrow. This was controversial because the missiles had nuclear tips necessary for their functionality. Now I can see the case for buying the missiles (although retrospectively it appears they were not effective) or for backing out of the deal. Pearson's approach, however, was to buy the missiles and disarm them, rendering them useless.

        Pearson's greatest foreign policy success took place when he acted bilaterally and played diplomatic hardball. I am speaking of the 1965 auto pact, which made Ontario the global leader in the auto industry it is today (okay, probably not that great a distinction given the state of the industry today, but we've had a good run).

        When I say that Canada should use its hard power, incidentally, I mean something closer to that. We should make deals that tangibly benefit Canadians, with viable enforcement mechanisms where possible. Our military policy should be primarily aimed at securing Canada's national interests abroad, AS SHOULD any participation in international do-goodery. I am not against foreign aid, for instance, I would just rather see it used for strategic purposes (ie. more focused, and sent to allies, or as part of a trade-building quid pro quo).

        • Holly Stick

          It is idiotic to think we could become a big military power. We do not have the population, we do not have the money, we do not have the military technology and most Canadian are smart enough to know that starting wars is stupid, destructive and evil.

          Look at superpower USA, which has accomplished nothing worth doing in Afghanistan, while in Iraq they managed to kill a few people they didn't like while killing about a million innocent people, making millions more into refugees, destroying cities, earning the hatred of millions, increasing recruitment by terrorist groups, imprisoning, torturing and murdering innocent people and for what exactly? So Cheney and other scum could make some money?

    • Out There

      What is the point of UN security council seat? In theory, it enhances Canada's power and influence. What is the point of power and influence? It gives states greater freedom of action and the ability to have a larger impact on world affairs. How do we get a UN security council seat? By adopting policies that member states will find acceptable.

      Would you be advancing this argument if Canada had actually obtained a Security Council seat? Just curious.

      • AT1

        I certainly would!

    • CAPS

      "When have we ever gained anything tangibly as a result of the goodwill other countries have for Canada?"

      Working against apartheid under a PC government.

      The world Landmines ban treaty under a Liberal one.

      • Holly Stick

        As opposed to waving around really big guns and imagining that would earn us respect from grownups.

  • BGLong

    It all must be quite disconcerting for the PM.

    For years he's been used to dealing with an opposition that flashes, fusses, fulminates,
    and then folds.
    Then he faces a crowd that nods, and smiles, shakes his hand, says "of course" and then
    puts the boot in. Must be scratching his head … if fingers can get through that hair.

  • NiceGuy

    So does this mean that all the drug dealing, arms smuggling tin-pot African dictators are finally going to pay their own way in this world? Let me guess…the answer is no…

    • Emily

      Gosh yeah, no other countries do that.

      • Blacktop

        Not like the third world, especially the African hole into which everybody is supposed to throw money.

        • Emily

          The US is the biggest arms dealer, and drug dealer on the planet.

    • BGLong

      We got a "free trade" deal with Colombia. It's a start.

    • AT1

      Obviously, Portugal is stepping up to the plate on this one!

  • Blacktop

    I don't regard being on the Security Council a big deal. Ignatief was the spoiler, with his criticism. He is better regarded because of he is recognized as being more international. Canadian but a Harvard type. No big deal. I can't see wasting money on Africa when we have urgent needs at home. As for Irsael, that too is mosre imprtant than the UN, which is a moribund gutless bunch of time servers,. mostly from third world countries.

    • Emily

      Oh of course you don't…..now you've lost it. LOL

      And no, it had nothing to do with Iggy.

      Um…the UN is all the countries in the world.

    • Felix Jones

      Nobody who votes to admit nations into the Security Council has even heard of Michael Igantieff. Quit shilling for the CRAPs.

    • Dave

      My, but that Michael Ignatieff is a persuasive fellow on the international stage. Just the kind of man we should have as foreign minister or something. You know, one of those senior political positions where he is well-placed to have the ear of other countries and their statespersons.

  • Blacktop

    Priceless. I thought it was the nephew.

    • brooster

      …in the library with the lead pipe

  • Blacktop

    Probably. But I would rather be on the side of Israel than the others, not unreservedly.For my money, Canada as the third biggest fighting, materiall contributor in WWII shoudl have been on the Security Council, neither France which folded, nor China.which was rotten and corrupt at the time.

    • madeyoulook

      I suspect that there will be NO more permanent members, for that would involve bringing in members of the nuclear club. We need no more encouragement of nuclear proliferation than we have already.

      • Emily

        Yes, the security council will change drastically in the near future.

        It's a leftover from WWII at the moment

      • Mike T.

        I suspect there will be no more permanent members due to a mix of nobody wanting to share power, and because at least one permenant member will be uncomfortable with each new proposed member.

  • madeyoulook

    Meanwhile, “government insiders” were preemptively guessing it might be Peter Van Loan, in Israel, with the new trade deal.

    Wow. A free trade deal with a democracy? Scuttled our chances? All of a sudden I feel better that we did NOT win the two-year snippet of alleged power and influence. I say we go ahead and sign at least seven more trade deals with democracies in the next two years instead.

    • Emily

      We also have such a deal with Colombia.

      Oh…and Lichtenstein.

  • Mike T.

    Why not just write "I agree with the portions of the article which mirror what I posted earlier."

  • Steve M

    Not that it matters now, but why the heck is this a secret vote? Secret ballots are fine for individuals, but politicians and diplomats should always vote on the record.

    • Emily

      It's countries that are voting, and the secret ballot is something we fought for.

      It prevents revenge, vendettas, intimidation….

      • Steve M

        We fought for the UN secret ballot?

        I can absolutely understand individual citizens fearing "revenge, vendettas, intimidation…", but countries?

        • Emily

          For 'the secret ballot'.

          And of course countries worry about 'revenge, vendettas, intimidation'

          War, sanctions, cutting trade ties, hackers….

  • RadRacer

    Of all the ink spilled on this, I have seen only one that accepts the PMO premise of "its Iggys fault".

    Having Giorno stick around until Xmas is proving to be a huge mistake.

    • Anon 001

      You actually believe Giorno has any power in this PMO. He probably needs permission to go pee.

  • Blue

    You are so caught up in your Harper-bashing, man-hating agenda that you cannot even comprehend what is written.
    A reasonable person would know that it was never meant that Canada would become a France or Britain in the imperialistic or colonizing way that you seem to imply.
    But Canada has a chance to become, not a superpower like China or the US, but maybe have the greater then middle-power influence of France or Britain.
    Unless of course we choose to follow the narrow agenda you propose.

    • Holly Stick

      If we are stupid enough to think we could become a hard-power country, we will destroy ourselves.

      And what does Harper have to do with this discussion?

  • danby

    One of the big things I dislike about the Harper government is they practice disingenuous wedge politics and stifle real debate wherever possible.
    HtH presented an opinion, without name calling and without herding opposing views into black and white pens. Do I agree with him? Not necessarily. Truth be known, my views fall closer to yours than HtH, but I don't deal in absolute certainty – therefore opposing views should assume the role of a devil's advocate, and thus strengthen my own.
    I've read enough HtH to know that he is not some Harper hack troll spewing talking points. Like (the much missed) Guanilon he presents insightful views and will engage those that wish to civilly debate. Emily's original rebuttal was curtly dismissive, and while that is suitable for certain individuals that frequent these boards, I think it was inappropriate here. That is all CR was trying to point out and he too was slammed for his trouble. Your rebuttal to HtH`s post was certainly more appropriate, and you managed it without implying he's a teabagger.

    I enjoy when the heavy hitters lock horns in civil debate. Sometimes it strengthens my views, sometimes it tempers them and sometimes it makes me reconsider them- but I always learn something.
    Not only do you get a lot of opinion at the Macleans site, but you also get a lot of information from those experienced in the various fields, and unlike our government, I like information and debate.

    • AT1

      Well said for what needed to be said!

    • Crit_Reasoning

      Thanks, danby!

    • guest

      i still can't figure out why hth's intelligent post has a -9 rating and emily's reply has a +2. do people really want more of her posts and less of his? its ridiculous.

      • Holly Stick

        Because many people disagree with his ideas. Cut social spending and put the money into the military and expect that to make Canada an important country? Sorry, that may be a nice fantasy, but it doesn't work in real life.

        • Holly Stick

          danby, what is thoughtful about wanting Canada to become a warmongering mini-me of the US? It's stupid and evil.

          • danby

            I personally found Stephane Dion to be a thoughtful man and I was interested in hearing the Green Shift being debated. Instead all I got was 10 percenters and dismissive sound bites ranting about how he would bankrupt and screw the country. It was stifling and I didn't like it.
            I may not agree with HtH, but he is no troll and I don't think he should be shouted down the way Mr Dion was.
            While I have no interest in warmongering, letting our military fall fallow also seems a poor choice. I consider investment in the military to be necessary, though the issue becomes "how much?"

          • Holly Stick

            Yes, it makes sense to invest for defense, but not as a way of pushing around other nations to protect corporate interests.

        • guest

          i think the rating system is intended as a way to filter poor comments from good ones. just because you disagree with a comment doesn't mean it's poor quality. then again, judging from your "stupid and evil" comment below you probably don't see the distinction.

  • Mr Irrelevant

    So basically the truth plays right into the distinction on foreign affairs the Conservatives want (appealing to voters who have no problem, even prefer, being snubbed by Islamic countries), which makes the Ignatieff line even more puzzling.

  • Holly Stick

    Cite your sources.

    • hosertohoosier

      South African exports from the Correlates of War Project bilateral trade dataset, assembled by Barbieri: http://www.correlatesofwar.org/

      GDP figures (in other post) from Angus Maddison: http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_Statistic…

      F. W. De Klerk on why he ended apartheid: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

      60% increase in Canada-South Africa trade: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3550962

      • Holly Stick

        Thanks for showing some sources of numbers.

        The software won't let me say what I think about your approval of landmines; are you a fan of cluster mines that kill and maim children too?

        • Holly Stick

          After all, someone gets "tangible benefits" from producing and selling clustermines, so in your mind that would be a good thing, right?

          • hosertohoosier

            Part of the point of emphasizing tangible gains and building up power and influence is to enable a country to occasionally make moral choices and have them matter. The potential profits from selling cluster mines are probably low enough that it is not a tough decision to restrict trade.

            As I said earlier, the production and use of certain kinds of landmines is not only profitable and beneficial to security, but easily defensible on humanitarian grounds. Modern technology has enabled better mines that have limited lifespans, that can be clearly detected, or even controlled autonomously (eg. the XM-7 spider mine). This reduces the risk of civilian casualties considerably. There are regimes out there that are going to use mines whether they are prohibited or not. If advanced western countries do not produce the kinds of mines that limit civilian casualties, they are likely to produce their own with far fewer safety features.

            You have to consider the lives that mines save. Landmines are a defensive weapon that can bring stability to an unstable border. Even if the mines can be detected by a would-be aggressor, the time required to defuse them would at least eliminate the prospect of a surprise attack. The demilitarized zone between the Koreas is the classic example of this in action. There are instances where the question is not land mines vs. no land mines, it is land mines vs. people shooting at one another. The latter is far more difficult to answer than the former.

          • Holly Stick
  • Emily

    Ahh yes, blame 5 years of Harper incompetence on the Muslims

From Macleans