Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

[Edward Campbell]

A second interesting article, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisojs of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, with which I do not agree but which deserves some attention:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/is-this-canadas-latin-path-to-asia/article4592174/

Is this Canada’s Latin path to Asia?

CARLO DADE
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Oct. 09 2012

Trade with Asia has been occupying Ottawa’s attention for good and obvious reasons. Yet, in what’s turning into a rush to that continent, Canada risks stumbling into strategic blunders that will hurt the country in the future.

The most critical of these is a default to pursuing bilateral initiatives, which, while successful elsewhere, will be more difficult with a region that has little interest in Canada or, worse, sees the country as needy and, hence, an easy mark at the negotiating table. The second mistake is to think that the only alternative to the bilateral route is to take what the United States is offering in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Fortunately, thanks to measures already taken, deliberately or fortuitously, by the government, Canada has a better path to Asia, one that begins on this side of the Pacific.

In contrast to its frustration in making inroads to Asia, Canada has had great success in completing a series of trade agreements running the length of the Latin American Pacific coast, from Chile through Peru, Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica to Mexico. These also happen to be the most dynamic and fastest growing economies in the hemisphere, accounting for more than half of the region’s foreign trade and a third of its GDP, and all have booming middle classes. These are also countries blessed with serious governments not given to the histrionics and populist soap opera embraced by others in the hemisphere.

These are the types of countries you want as allies if you’re serious about getting ahead in the world – and they happen to be good friends of Canada.

These countries have recently banded together to form the Pacific Alliance to integrate their economies to better trade with Asia. And the countries of Asia have noticed.

The Pacific Alliance has set a blistering pace. It has linked its stock markets into a single bourse, opened joint trade offices abroad and is on track to eliminate visas among its members and implement a common electronic origin certificate by year’s end. As opposed to North America, where summits get cancelled because leaders can’t find time to meet, the Pacific Alliance leaders, including Mexico, have been holding teleconference summits. If one wants partners serious about advancing new trade agendas to face Asia, then the Pacific Alliance, not NAFTA, is the preferred club.

For Canada, this alliance would also be a crucial alternative to the U.S.-dominated Trans-Pacific Partnership. Obviously, any trade deals signed by the alliance would be smaller than those of the TPP, since the U.S won’t be a part. But smaller agreements without the Americans are actually a blessing. They’re easier to negotiate and they avoid the inevitable delays in awaiting the 67 votes needed for U.S. Senate ratification. (A quick glance at the current dysfunction in Washington underscores that point.)

Think of it as a bird in hand beating two in the bush. The TPP garners attention because of its enormous potential, but since no one has faith that the Americans can deliver, no one wants all of their eggs in the TPP basket, either. Mexico, for one, has already figured this out.

The Pacific Alliance is on track to begin negotiating with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a bloc of 600 million people in 10 countries. ASEAN includes Indonesia and Thailand, which are not part of the current TPP round. And more important for Canada, ASEAN doesn’t include the U.S. and New Zealand, two countries that are part of the current TPP round and that have issues with Canada’s dairy industry.

China has also stated its desire to open talks with the Pacific Alliance. And one thing the alliance members have realized is that negotiating with Beijing is a dark alley best not walked down alone. Canada can negotiate alone with China, as seen by the recently signed Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. But for a broader agreement with more at stake, it simply makes sense to have leverage and allies, especially a small coherent group of serious countries with which Canada shares interests and values. Forging an agreement without the U.S. also means that U.S.-China security tensions and all the associated baggage are not present.

Parts of Asia and Latin America are booming, and Canada sits at the pivot between the two. Figuring out how to profit from this is the clearest path to long-term prosperity – and the Pacific Alliance is the ideal path to get there.

Canada has quietly campaigned to participate in the alliance and was rewarded with an invitation as a “special invitee” to the group’s last leaders summit, where Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird stood in for the Prime Minister. Moving from the group’s sidelines to full membership is the logical and crucial next step.

Carlo Dade is a senior fellow at the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa.

First: we must recognize that Carlo Dade by virtue of his job, has a professional focus: Latin America.

Second: I remain "confident" that Latin America retains the innate capacity to screw up ~ politically, economically, etc.

While I support freer trade everywhere and while I also agree that Latin America is "low hanging fruit" ripe for the picking, I do not believe that free trade with Latin America, even with Brazil, is of high importance.

All that being said, using e.g. Chile as a lever to 'enter' Asia has merit.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Australia has just issued a new foreign policy white paper, Australia in the Asian Century. I haven't read it all yet but there are some bits of interest in the "five key areas" in which the Gillard government suggests Australia must succeed in the 21st century:

"First, irrespective of how the Asian century evolves, Australia’s prosperity will come from building on our strengths. We need to reinforce the foundations of our fair society and our prosperous, open and resilient economy at home. We need to build on areas where we already perform well, in order to extend our comparative advantage. Critical to this will be ongoing reform and investment across the five pillars of productivity—skills and education, innovation, infrastructure, tax reform and regulatory reform." This is motherhood, designed, I think, to placate those who want Australia to "stay the course" and remain detached from Asia.

"Second, as a nation we must do even more to develop the capabilities that will help Australia succeed ... As a nation we also need to broaden and deepen our understanding of Asian cultures and languages, to become more Asia literate. These capabilities are needed to build stronger connections and partnerships across the region." This is smart thinking, it means being less Eurocentric and even farther less American in their thinking. It is something Canada can and should do, too.

"Third, Australia’s commercial success in the region requires that highly innovative, competitive Australian firms and institutions develop collaborative relationships with others in the region. Australian firms need new business models and new mindsets to operate and connect with Asian markets. We will work to make the region more open and integrated, encouraging trade, investment and partnerships. Firms will adapt their business models to seize the opportunities created in our region." Also a good idea for Canada.

"Fourth, Australia’s future is irrevocably tied to the stability and sustainable security of our diverse region. Australia has much to offer through cooperation with other nations to support sustainable security in the region. We will work to build trust and cooperation, bilaterally and through existing regional mechanisms. We will continue to support a greater role for Asian countries in a rules‑based regional and global order. Australia’s alliance with the United States and a strong US presence in Asia will support regional stability, as will China’s full participation in regional developments." This is a bone tossed to the Americans and the "stay the course," conservative crowd but the last phrase is a break with US policy which remains committed to containing China.

"Fifth, we need to strengthen Australia’s deep and broad relationships across the region at every level. These links are social and cultural as much as they are political and economic. Improving people-to-people links can unlock large economic and social gains. While the Australian Government plays a leading role in strengthening and building relationships with partners in the region—with more intensive diplomacy across Asia—others across a broad spectrum spanning business, unions, community groups and educational and cultural institutions also play an important role. Stronger relationships will lead to more Australians having a deeper understanding of what is happening in Asia and being able to access the benefits of growth in our region. In turn, more of our neighbours in the region will know us better than they do today." Again, this is a lead Canada should follow.

More to follow as I read more.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There may be more on this later today, but on the assumption that the Good Grey Globe has had an advance look at the Minister's (leaked) comments, this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, tells us hat Canada is moving on to the right track on aid to, especially, Africa:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-signals-radical-shift-in-foreign-aid-policy/article5582948/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Ottawa signals radical shift in foreign-aid policy

KIM MACKRAEL
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Nov. 23 2012

The federal government is signalling a profound shift in its approach to foreign aid that could see Canada’s international development agency align itself more closely with the private sector and work more explicitly to promote Canada’s interests abroad.

International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino will outline his vision for the agency’s future in an address to the Economic Club of Canada Friday morning, his first major speech since taking the job several months ago. The Canadian International Development Agency funds humanitarian aid and long-term development projects intended to help people living in poverty.

Mr. Fantino’s remarks will focus on the role private companies – particularly in the mining sector – can play in helping CIDA achieve its development objectives, part of a controversial change in emphasis for an agency that has historically been careful to differentiate between its work with corporations and non-governmental organizations.

The minister is expected to say he views the private sector as the most important driver of long-term economic growth, and that the agency will pursue more partnerships with Canadian companies.

He will also emphasize CIDA’s role in preparing developing countries for foreign investment, and suggest the agency’s work can help build market opportunities and dissuade governments from nationalizing extractive industries.

Mr. Fantino’s speech comes shortly after the release of a House of Commons committee report on the private sector and international development, which calls for CIDA to update its policy on the role Canadian corporations should have in achieving international development goals. The minister will table a formal response to the report in Parliament, but his speech on Friday is expected to offer a first look at the direction CIDA will take.

Stephen Brown, who teaches international development at the University of Ottawa, said CIDA has not dramatically shifted its spending toward private-sector partnerships. “But in terms of signals and signs of things to come, [the shift] is quite profound,” he said.

Last year, the aid agency matched three mining companies with NGOs to work on jobs training, education and clean water projects in specific African and Latin American mining communities. CIDA says the strategy will help leverage corporate investments to bolster development goals, while critics suggest it leads the agency away from its core strategy.

Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, said mining companies have been accused of making mistakes on corporate social responsibility projects in the past, and working with CIDA-funded NGOs could help them become more effective.

“We’re miners, we’re not in the business of social and community development that the NGOs are experts at,” he said. “Why not bring the experts in, and mining can be a partner, along with those experts, to help deliver more sustainable outcomes when these major capital investments do take place.”

Dr. Brown said some partnerships with the private sector can be useful, but questioned Canada’s eagerness to work with the extractive industry when mining rarely offers much benefit to the communities in which it occurs. “If our real goal is poverty reduction, that’s not the strategy we would choose,” he said.

MiningWatch Canada says the projects CIDA has pursued so far amount to subsidization of Canadian mining companies – a suggestion both CIDA and mining industry representatives dispute. “This is not about development, it’s about helping our mining companies deal with the conflicts they're facing on the ground,” said Catherine Coumans, a research co-ordinator for the organization.

Last fall, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada would develop a mining institute capable of offering advice to developing countries on managing their natural resources. Mr. Fantino is expected to announce on Friday that the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University will host the centre, which will be called the Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development.

I have said, before, that I agree with Dambia Moyo's thesis, in her first book, Dead Aid, that traditional government-to-government aid, often, in Canada's case, so called "tied aid" that gave money to countries to hire Canadians companies to build "bridges to nowhere" and unnecessary railway networks, was a waste and accomplished little - beyond making a few African dictators very, very rich. Investment, she suggested, was a better course open and she applauded the Chinese for sending their big resource companies to invest in Africa rather than just cutting a cheque. If this article is correct then we will follow suit.

Most critics of investment rather than aid note that the investor expects - will demand - a return on investment. That's true: Chinese (and now Canadian) resource companies do and will demand a return ... which is as it should be. The Africans need to get used to the idea that rather than "deserving" aid because they are poor they can, through their own hard work, make themselves less poor.

This policy will be attacked as cruel capitalism ~ it is anything but.

 

[ModlrMike]

This policy will be attacked as cruel capitalism ~ it is anything but.

One only needs to read the comments (and I suggest you don't) to see that you're right.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Foreign Minister John Baird speaks his mind in this interview report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Canada+takes+sides+world+referee+Baird+says/7737264/story.html

Canada takes sides, not a world referee: Baird
Will keep supporting ‘freedom, human rights’

By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News

December 22, 2012

Canada is not an “even-handed referee” in the world and will be no more of an honest broker with those who support terrorism than it was with fascism and communism, says Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.

In a wide-ranging end-of-year interview with Postmedia News on Friday, Baird said the federal government won’t tolerate excuses for those who engage in terrorist activities, and that Canada will continue supporting right over wrong.

He also offered no apologies for actions such as supporting Israel, condemning Iran or criticizing the United Nations — even if it means an added danger to Canadians travelling abroad with Maple Leafs on their backpacks.

“We cannot be afraid to take difficult decisions for fear of consequences,” Baird said.

“We’ve taken a very hard line on Iran because the regime is inciting genocide. It’s an anti-Semitic regime that denies the Holocaust, which backs terrorism. I suppose if we kept quiet, some would think that would be better.”

The government has often been accused of squandering Canada’s hard-earned reputation as a bridge-builder and moderating influence in the world.

This is nowhere more evident than in the Middle East where the Conservatives have made Canada one of the world’s strongest supporters of Israel after successive governments sought to take a more balanced approach.

For Baird, however, there is no choice but to support Israel as long as it finds itself under threat from countries like Iran and terrorist groups like Hamas.

This, he argues, is the real traditional Canadian foreign policy.

“Some people see Canada as being a great even-handed referee,” Baird said during the interview at Foreign Affairs headquarters.

“Well, we’re not a referee. We have a side. The side is freedom. The side is human rights. The side is open economies. And I think that’s what people expect us to stand up for.”

Baird relates the story of his grandfather who joined the military after university in 1942 to fight in the Second World War before staying on with the Canadian Forces through much of the Cold War.

“The great struggles in his generation were fascism and communism,” Baird said of his grandfather.

Baird was unapologetic about the government’s actions at the United Nations, including criticizing the world body for censuring Canada while allowing countries like North Korea to chair a committee on nuclear disarmament.

Some, including one Conservative backbencher, have suggested Canada would be better off leaving the UN, where Canada and its allies are often in the minority.

Baird said no one in government is seriously contemplating Canada quitting the world body, which he maintained does great work like aiding tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who have fled their war-torn country.

Postmedia News

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Canadians, and others, needn't like the Conservative government's foreign policy but none can deny that Minister Baird is clear, forthright spokesman. We are done with the evasions, pandering, half-truths, sweet talk and downright lies that characterized the past 45 years, especially during the Trudeau and Chretien regimes.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

......and hopefully we keep electing folks who keep on this path.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Much as I think the French are doing the wrong thing, in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons in Mali, I cannot argue with Jean-David Levitte, the diplomatic adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy and the former ambassador to both the United States and the United Nations who is quoted, in a New York Times article as saying: "if you don’t have the military means to act, you don’t have a foreign policy.”

It is something I wish Canadian politicians, especially Prime Minister Harper, would understand.

Soft power is good, as the USA demonstrated in the 1950s and after it can be GREAT, but as Joseph Ny, author of the soft power book, says, you cannot make the best use your soft power, even if you have it in abundance, without some "hard power" to prove you actually belong in the power projection business.

 

[Kirkhill]

"if you don’t have the military means to act, you don’t have a foreign policy.”[/size]

But can every nation afford sufficient military means to act in every situation?

Or does every nation have to figure out how to make the best use of its available resources and determine which fights to pick and which fights to walk away from?

Isn't that decision at the heart of determining a national foreign policy?

Switzerland's foreign policy is not to pick any fights.

Having said that:  I trust everyone on this site knows by now that I believe that every nation should retain the ability to implement the last resort of kings,  and equally I believe that Canada can do better. 

I don't know that most Canadians agree with me.

 

[Infanteer]

Switzerland's foreign policy is not to pick any fights.

No, it just backrolls everyone else's.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, it just backrolls everyone else's.

And a very successful policy that can be.  Look how well Britain did with the wars against the Louis's and Napoleon. 

 

[cupper]

Switzerland's foreign policy is not to pick any fights.

Actually, it's to make itself look as small and insignificant as possible so that everyone else forgets that it is there.

To quote Harry Lime from "The Third Man":

"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

And being founded within a mountain citadel doesn't hurt either.

 

[dimsum]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/09/conrad-black-a-foreign-policy-for-an-ascendant-canada/

I agree with most of his comments, but am a little surprised that he's chiming in with the "buttons and bows" bit now (granted, it seemed like it's an afterthought.)  "Panache" sounds a little too much like "blinged out like a Mexican General" to me.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Of note, though, is the fact that his comment on "bling" comes in the same breath as the mention of naval vessels and showing the flag proudly - a diplomatic function.

Unlike the Army and Air Force, it has always been a duty of the  peacetime Navy to show the flag and carry out port visits in foreign countries in support of DFAIT, and to host diplomatic functions on board while there. I think it is in this duty that he would prefer uniforms with a little more panache. Let's face it, while the N.C.D. offer a great deal of protection to the wearer, it is a totally cheap looking non-descript garment. The (very limited in number) alternative Naval D.E.U. does not look very "nautical" for the crewmen and for both crew and officers, is still a cheap looking garb. A good looking seaman's jumper to go out in foreign port or host functions onboard and an alternate khaki uniform for officers and C&PO's - paired with better fashioned and higher fabric quality D.E.U. would cetainly not go amiss in those diplomatic duties. We could look for good examples to the R.A.N., which has managed to upgrade its uniforms in a way that is both respectful of the traditional look and clean and modern looking at the same time.

 

[Ostrozac]

"Mister Takagi, I could talk about industrialization and men's fashion all day, but I'm afraid work must intrude."

I love Conrad Black. He is such a renaissance man that he reaches movie-villain levels of awesomeness on a regular basis.

And he does seem like a well-dressed guy. If he says we look like slobs, then maybe we should be taking fashion advice from him.  I don't have a degree in fashion design, but if we had a few experts on the payroll 25 years ago then maybe we could have missed out on garrison dress.

 

[ArmyRick]

Criminal or not, Mr Black has some well thought out points.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... While I understand the need to appeal to a certain, inclined towards the medieval, segment of the Conservative base, the whole idea of an Office of Religious Freedom is so bloody silly that it would be comic if it weren't a major, tragic foreign policy blunder. We, Canada, have no bloody business sticking our noses into the internal affairs of other, sovereign countries ~ unless it is with aid (bribes) or bombs and bullets (real aid) ~ especially not into the affairs of states which don't matter .... The Office of Religious Freedom is nonsense, but there are, in the civil service, as in the military, some people who prove the absolute truth of Parkinson's Law, and they can be posted to it and we can cut their Internet access and they will do no harm.

Sorry to disappoint you, ER....

The Harper government is planning to announce its long-awaited Office of Religious Freedom in an event at a Toronto-area mosque next Tuesday.

The announcement — which the government refused to acknowledge Friday — comes 22 months after the Tories first promised to create a modest, religious freedom branch within the Foreign Affairs Department.

The pledge was unveiled in the Conservative campaign platform during the last federal election, but Foreign Affairs has been unable to find a commissioner to take the job.

Human rights groups and opposition critics have said the office is a misguided attempt to inject religion into foreign policy.

They also question what exactly the new office can accomplish with a modest $5-million budget.

However, a spokesman for a major Jewish organization invited to Tuesday’s event said the fact the Harper government is holding it at a mosque shows its commitment to persecuted religious minorities the world over.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim community centre and mosque, a complex in Vaughan, Ont., has been selected as the venue.

Len Rudner, spokesman for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said the location makes an elegant statement about the Conservatives’ commitment to shining a light on religious persecution through its new office.

“The Ahmadiyya Muslim community is a very important community, and frankly it is a community that has known its fair share of persecution as well,” said Rudner, who has received an invitation to Tuesday’s event.

“It’s very commendable that the government looks for opportunities, not only in terms of the words that it speaks, but also the place where it plants its feet to show it is serious about religious freedom for all faiths and all communities.”

Rudner said he’s excited about hearing more details about the new office.

He called it a worthy initiative that will help expose abuse suffered by religious minorities in all corners of the globe ....

The Canadian Press, via National Post, 15 Feb 13

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sorry to disappoint you, ER....The Canadian Press, via National Post, 15 Feb 13

The only saving grace is that the budget is so low that a handful of middle level civil servants, with degress in victims' studies from UQAM and Concordia, will blow it all on a few trips to conferences to which no one pays any attention but which are held in exotic tropical places in the Nov to Apr time frame.

The new bureau's annual work programme will be, roughly:

    Apr to Aug: plan and conduct summer vacation;

    Aug to Oct: plan for and secure DM's approval for conferences in exotic and tropical places; and

    Nov to Apr: attend said conferences about which no one cares and write reports no one reads.

          Repeat, annually.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am confused:  Is this office supposed to offer free religion or free us from religion ???

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am confused:  Is this office supposed to offer free religion or free us from religion ???

It's designed to pacify a tiny lunatic fringe of the religious right: they want Canada to castigate the Saudis for not tolerating Christianity. That won't happen. In fact, with a $5 Million anual budget, nothing will happen but it will be trotted out if the Tories get into trouble in some rural ridings.

It is more likely to try to appeal to "new Canadians" by affirming their right to practice their own religions, here in Canada, without hinderance. Those socially conservative new Canadian votes in the Ontario and BC suburbs are more valuable than rural votes.

 

[The Bread Guy]

One writer's opinion on what's needed for the Office of Religious Freedom ....

.... First, she or he must be convinced that religion is an important dimension of human existence and its practice a fundamental human right. And further, that this right should be actively promoted and protected by Canada’s federal government in its diplomatic activities abroad as well as within our borders. And still further, that such protection merits a specific diplomatic focus in addition to Canada’s existing commitment to human rights promotion.

Second, the ambassador must be broad-minded about all religions and subgroups within them in order to avoid charges of bias in running the office. The worst-case scenario on this front is unfolding at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which has been dogged by accusations of pro-Christian bias since opening in 1998. It’s being sued for religious discrimination by a Muslim policy analyst claiming her job offer with the commission was revoked for fear of disapproval by its vice-chair — a person who has publicly advanced a Christian-centric conception of religious freedom and a suspicion of American Muslims’ beliefs. Canada’s government must have a rock-solid confidence in its own ambassador being a person of wholly different sensibilities.

Third, a suitable candidate must be versed in international diplomacy and human rights, as well as a worldly and articulate advocate for the office’s mandate. After all, the ambassador will be called on every day to explain why every form of religious freedom needs its own special protection as a human right, and to sell this idea effectively to audiences opposed to it from various secular and religious perspectives.

Finally, the office’s leader must be an acutely political animal whom the Conservatives can trust to finesse relationships with two very different constituencies. On one hand, conservative Christian caucus members and voters are expecting this office to focus on protecting persecuted Christians abroad. On the other hand, there are Canada’s ethnic communities, whom the Conservatives are famously eager to court — but who will certainly have hotly opposing views on which religious persecutions in which parts of the world most deserve Canada’s attention. Coaxing electoral wins out of this terrain will call for something of a political Houdini.

Pity the poor Conservative headhunters charged with finding a candidate meeting all these marvellous qualities. But once that moment of pity has passed, it’s appropriate to wonder if the list of leadership qualities they’re working with is downright incoherent — and if that fact points to a broader incoherence in the office’s explicit and implicit mandates ....

Toronto Star, 18 Feb 13