Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy

[MilEME09]

IMO if you stay in canada just to get a Canadian passport then leave immediately and never return i'd call that fraud and grounds to have it revoked.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Liberals would call that policy you suggest as two-tier citizenship, and we should be so gracious to have these people choose to abuse us.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There's nothing inherently wrong with two-tier citizenship.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Cartoonist, commentator, and author J.J. McCullough gets it in one:

Source: http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2016/02/07/puppet-show/

I guess it's clear enough that it's our military that's being jerked around by two untested political neophytes who are being controlled by one of Premier Kathleen Wynne's henchmen ...

 

[a_majoor]

Foreign policy really does not matter to Gerald Butts et al, because the Liberal vision is essentially to treat Canadians as cows to be milked for the benefit of the LPC and its cronies.

Now if we could convince them that foreigners should be milked for the benefit of the LPC and their cronies, then things will become different....

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Cartoonist, commentator, and author J.J. McCullough gets it in one:

Source: http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2016/02/07/puppet-show/

I guess it's clear enough that it's our military that's being jerked around by two untested political neophytes who are being controlled by one of Premier Kathleen Wynne's henchmen ...

Realistically, Canada has very limited foreign policy options when you get down to it. With the US foreign policy currently focused on creating a global hegemony vice attempting to create a regional hegemony or concert of nations/power balancing, Canada can:

A. Assist the US in creating a global hegemony under US leadership, which involves going to fight the wars of reassurance (what Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc were in essence; activities to convince key allies that America could AND would fight to secure their interests so they wouldn't need to develop large militaries of their own). This would require a strong expeditionary army which I doubt the LPC is interested in;

B. Assist the Americans in ensuring hegemony under American leadership for North America. We do this already with NORAD, but if this is our strategy than we need to do MORE in terms of Air superiority, naval forces, and cut back on army/expeditionary capabilities. This is more or less what the Canada First Defence Policy attempted to do. It would involve a lot of investments in the Air Force and Navy;

C. Canada can attempt to become part of another hegemony to attempt a balancing of power. Canada could, in theory, align more closely with outside nations to balance US power. Without a real US threat outside of doing this and a lack of will to purchase the military required to do this, it's a non option. Canada benefits too much from American protection and economics to align outside of economic means.

There are other combinations and options, but these, to me, are the major ones as of this time.

At this point, it appears that we're attempting to do all three without doing any well. We dont enough army to make a proper expeditionary force, nor enough air force and navy to properly assist in US hegemony in North America. We see some of C with the attempt to create free trade agreements with nations around the world as a means of lessening our dependence on the US.

Which strategy is the best right now? I would say B, but we'll see how it goes. I just hope that the government puts out a real strategy!

 

[Lumber]

Realistically, Canada has very limited foreign policy options when you get down to it. With the US foreign policy currently focused on creating a global hegemony vice attempting to create a regional hegemony or concert of nations/power balancing, Canada can:

A. Assist the US in creating a global hegemony under US leadership, which involves going to fight the wars of reassurance (what Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc were in essence; activities to convince key allies that America could AND would fight to secure their interests so they wouldn't need to develop large militaries of their own). This would require a strong expeditionary army which I doubt the LPC is interested in;

B. Assist the Americans in ensuring hegemony under American leadership for North America. We do this already with NORAD, but if this is our strategy than we need to do MORE in terms of Air superiority, naval forces, and cut back on army/expeditionary capabilities. This is more or less what the Canada First Defence Policy attempted to do. It would involve a lot of investments in the Air Force and Navy;

C. Canada can attempt to become part of another hegemony to attempt a balancing of power. Canada could, in theory, align more closely with outside nations to balance US power. Without a real US threat outside of doing this and a lack of will to purchase the military required to do this, it's a non option. Canada benefits too much from American protection and economics to align outside of economic means.

There are other combinations and options, but these, to me, are the major ones as of this time.

At this point, it appears that we're attempting to do all three without doing any well. We dont enough army to make a proper expeditionary force, nor enough air force and navy to properly assist in US hegemony in North America. We see some of C with the attempt to create free trade agreements with nations around the world as a means of lessening our dependence on the US.

Which strategy is the best right now? I would say B, but we'll see how it goes. I just hope that the government puts out a real strategy!

What about option D? Let do like Switzerland and just become Neutral. Except, instead of Switzerland, who uses conscription and a mountainous geography to make themselves looks like a porcupine (not very big, but seriously, not worth the trouble), we use a couple vast oceans and our proximity to the US for the same purpose. Get rid of the military and just stay out of everyone's affairs.

The only bad outcomes of this that I can think of are:
a. abysmal reputation in the world for not helping out;
b. US gets tired of our sh*t and invades Canada... which would mean I no longer have to steal US Netflix, so I guess this is kind of a good thing...

 

[Flavus101]

What about the economic repercussions to option D?

 

[Lumber]

What about the economic repercussions to option D?

Oh the reprecussions are quite promissing. We sell off all of our military gear to help lower the national debt (12 x $1bn warships would make a big dent!). We keep our procurment plans in place, but respec them for whichever foreign military wants them.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Oh the reprecussions are quite promissing. We sell off all of our military gear to help lower the national debt (12 x $1bn warships would make a big dent!). We keep our procurment plans in place, but respec them for whichever foreign military wants them.

But if we really want to be neutral (like Switzerland or Austria), we'd have to build a military force that would take on ANYONE wanting to take a serious poke @ Canada - including the U.S.  Your plan would make us less than neutral, but a slave to whoever has the biggest military willing to pimp us out protect us.

You think bilingualism is bad -- how's your Mandarin Chinese?  >

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

What about option D? Let do like Switzerland and just become Neutral. Except, instead of Switzerland, who uses conscription and a mountainous geography to make themselves looks like a porcupine (not very big, but seriously, not worth the trouble), we use a couple vast oceans and our proximity to the US for the same purpose. Get rid of the military and just stay out of everyone's affairs.

The only bad outcomes of this that I can think of are:
a. abysmal reputation in the world for not helping out;
b. US gets tired of our **** and invades Canada... which would mean I no longer have to steal US Netflix, so I guess this is kind of a good thing...

I'll assume that you're being sarcastic. What do you see our real strategic interest as? And in any scenario do you not see our interests being underwritten by the US (such as they were by Great Britain up until 1950-ish)? Canada is a small player in a big pond. For us to have any influence internationally we require enough military to meet a mission, but need to decide the mission.

 

[a_majoor]

Option "D" has been the default position of the NDP for decades, and was also the preferred option of the Sun King (until various fellow members of NATO let him know just how much was going to be at stake, including trade and international influence. Suddenly buying some Leopard 1 MBTs to replace the Centurions and so on became an option again).

Considering how the alliance reacted to Canada's suggestion of pulling out of the combat role against ISIS, do you really want to see that again on a larger scale?

As well, there is this quote to consider:

It takes but one foe to breed a war, and those who have no swords can yet die upon them

 

[jollyjacktar]

I don't always like his work, but today's Michael deAdder hits the spot.

9 Feb 2016 Chronicle Herald Cartoon

 

[Lumber]

But if we really want to be neutral (like Switzerland or Austria), we'd have to build a military force that would take on ANYONE wanting to take a serious poke @ Canada - including the U.S.  Your plan would make us less than neutral, but a slave to whoever has the biggest military willing to pimp us out protect us.

You think bilingualism is bad -- how's your Mandarin Chinese?  >

I always wanted to learn Mandarin!

But my point was that unlike Switzerland, we wouldn't need a really big military because we're so damn far away. We'd piggy back off the US, and just assume that they wouldn't want the Chinese or Russians controlling Canada (realistically the only two that could possibly conquer us, even if we didn't fight back).

I'll assume that you're being sarcastic. What do you see our real strategic interest as? And in any scenario do you not see our interests being underwritten by the US (such as they were by Great Britain up until 1950-ish)? Canada is a small player in a big pond. For us to have any influence internationally we require enough military to meet a mission, but need to decide the mission.

It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.

 

[The Bread Guy]

We'd piggy back off the US, and just assume that they wouldn't want the Chinese or Russians controlling Canada (realistically the only two that could possibly conquer us, even if we didn't fight back).

That's not really "neutral", then - more like a colony of the U.S.

It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.

And an interesting "far end of the spectrum" alternative to consider & discuss - especially that bit in yellow.

 

[dimsum]

That's not really "neutral", then - more like a colony of the U.S.

I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.

 

[Lumber]

I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.

See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?

 

[Halifax Tar]

See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?

Even then no one hates the ABs, except of course the Aussies lol And maybe the chicken people errr... French.

 

[dimsum]

See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?

Because we'd start saying "fush und chups" instead of "fish and chips"?  ???

 

[cavalryman]

See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?

We'd need about 340 million sheep for starters (10:1 ratio in NZ)...