Canada Foreign Policy
Sunday, April 30, 2006
  Chemistry

PM Stephen Harper appears to be able to resolve one outstanding issue after another. And while doing so, he demonstrates that public involvement in the process may not be a priority, and possibly not even desirable. Is anyone prepared to ask just how he seems able to go from one success to another, without so much as making the effort look anything like work? He has, after all, been in office for only a few nanoseconds.

Most recently, on 28 April 2006, the Conservatives reached a compromise with Washington that will extend the North American Aerospace Defence Command treaty (NORAD), an accord slated for renewal on 12 May 2006. What makes this agreement unique is, if media reports are correct, that its life shall be prolonged for an “indefinite period”. Furthermore, the deal, involving Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and US Ambassador David Wilkins, concluded with a private signing ceremony in Ottawa. Not only was the event kept secret from reporters, the media found themselves having to press Canadian officials for confirmation that something had taken place. Indeed it was left to US officials to make announcements, and to explain some of the terms. For instance, we now know that Canada will have a new role in combating terrorism from the sea. The new version of the treaty, however, does not obligate Canada to revisit the ‘missiles in space’ debate. Furthermore, some media suggest that while parliament will be allowed to begin debating the new treaty early next week, US officials are operating under the belief that no ratification, no parliamentary vote is to be taken [For perhaps the finest coverage of the agreement, which also serves as the key source in this summary, see Bruce Campion-Smith, “Tories Quietly Expand NORAD,” Toronto Star, 29 April 2006. Story posted at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146261012750&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home].

Just a day earlier Harper had signed off on a deal with the US on the softwood lumber trade issue. While some details of the accord have yet to be worked out, it is unlikely that any residual irritants will be enough to derail what’s been accomplished. And just how did Harper manage this coup? The Liberals laboured for years to reach a deal, without any success. Perhaps US Ambassador Wilkins has the answer, observing that the personal chemistry between Harper and US President George Bush not only made the outcome possible, but also suggests that this new working relationship will lead to many more successes in future. Wilkins said what happened is “a momentum builder…I think getting this irritant off the table allows us to take it to the next level and make it even stronger, more co-operative.” He also observed that Harper and Bush have managed to revive at least some of the magic that former PM Brian Mulroney and former US President Ronald Reagan had. In short, “U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins heaped praise yesterday on U.S. President George Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, saying their leadership and personal chemistry was a key factor in clinching a deal on softwood lumber” [citations in this paragraph from Michael Den Tandt’s “U.S. Envoy Credits Bush-Harper Chemistry,” The Globe and Mail, 29 April 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060429.WILKINS29/TPStory/National].


Perhaps the real question is whether or not Harper is merely inking deals already reached by his predecessor, enjoying the windfalls, or whether or not his diplomatic and negotiating skills are so strong that Canadians must not be surprised should the pattern of success demonstrated during this last week of April become commonplace. On 27 April 2006 Peter MacKay found himself in Bulgaria for a gathering of NATO foreign ministers. Iran and nuclear weapons, while not an official meeting topic, was expected to dominate much of the off-the-record and informal discussion [See, for example, Paul Ames’ “Iran the Hot Topic at NATO Summit,” AP, 27 April 2006. Story posted at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1146133747006&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News]. As issues such as Teheran are pushed closer to the top of Ottawa’s foreign policy agenda, Canadians may discover just how much chemistry Harper and MacKay really have.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Thursday, April 27, 2006
  Canada-US reach softwood lumber trade deal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_bi_ge/lumber_dispute

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Monday, April 24, 2006
  Geopolitical Complexities?

The Tories are finally starting to let us know just how they might handle foreign policy. PM Stephen Harper, simply, controls the agenda. At least, that’s the case when Afghanistan is the issue. Canadian troops are in that country, but virtually every aspect of public relations on or about the military mission is directed by the PM. There is an opposition, but Harper has already informed them, and the public and media as well, that Canada is in Afghanistan to stay. He does this, usually, by simply stressing that Ottawa does not “cut and run.” The opposition has had several opportunities to debate the mission, most recently earlier this month. But what passed for debate was little more than an information exchange, which I doubt lasted past an hour or so. While this does allow the opposition parties to say the nature of Canada’s mission has at last been handled by parliament, it also somehow conveys the impression that the opposition was satisfied to rush the affair through the Commons, either wanting to move on to more pressing matters or to avoid foreign and defence policies by giving them as little time as possible. Now that the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc can say have dealt with Canadians in Kandahar, are they in fact content to hope the issue does not resurface? Or, are they waiting for interest groups to push the agenda before they take a more vocal stand? Are the parties lacking the means to keep the issue of Canadians in Afghanistan in the media in the absence of public pressure or opinion to do so? It now does seem unlikely that the debate is over for good. On 22 April 2006 media reported that four soldiers died, bringing the total to 16 Canadians killed in Afghanistan.

Harper has also signaled that he intends to give up on some of the priorities of his predecessor. For instance it may be that Sudan is not of interest to the Tories. Darfur, described by some as the worst case of human rights abuse in this new century, had been on Liberal PM Paul Martin’s agenda. Now the question is whether or not Harper will just walk away. “Clement Apaak, president of the SFU [Simon Fraser University] Student Society and founder and chair of Canadian Students for Darfur [says]…his group is already stepping up its efforts to force greater Canadian involvement in the three-year conflict that has claimed about 180,000 lives (no official figures are available) and driven millions from their homes… ‘A letter has already been sent asking him [Harper] to make a public statement about his position on Darfur,’ Apaak said. ‘We’ve asked all our supporters to write him as well…There was a lot that Canada was doing, and they [the Conservatives] don’t seem interested in continuing what was being done by the previous government. That is very disturbing, as far as we are concerned. I think everyone is more concerned than the government is right now’” [From ‘Darfur Falls off Tory Agenda,’ Matthew Burrows, Georgia Straight, volume 40 number 2000, 20-27 April 2006].

And finally, if Harper’s strategy for managing foreign policy involves allowing Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay to rely on his current crop of handlers, there may have to be some rethinking. Over the past month, MacKay has dealt with a few Great Power matters. There was nothing too serious, and the events and any of their potential fallout will likely fade away, and soon. The developments do, however, provide some insight into how the Tories work. First, there was the bizarre incident with Condoleezza Rice. Back on 13 April 2006 MacKay met with the US Secretary of State and things seemed to be going so well…until it was time to make an appearance at a press conference. Right then MacKay morphed, forgot about his role as foreign minister and became fan boy. He turned to Rice and announced, “I'm delighted to be here. I've always been a fan of yours and much of our discussion today confirmed what I already knew about you from having followed your career, so we're very grateful and I personally extend my thanks to you for your generous and very kind invitation to be with you” [State Department Transcripts. Document posted at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/64545.htm]. Then over the past weeks several high-ranking Tories made statements about China. Again MacKay led the charge, saying his government is “very concerned about [China’s] economic espionage.” He has also said “it [economic espionage] is something we want to signal that we want to address, and to continue to raise with the Chinese at the appropriate time.” And here MacKay was backed up by Harper, who noted, obviously reading from the same hymn sheet “We have some concerns with certain activities of the Chinese government in this country and we do intend to raise them at the appropriate time” {MacKay and Harper citations quoted in CTV news, 20 April 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060420/china_espionage_060420/20060420?hub=World]. At about the time Harper and MacKay seemed concerned about China’s espionage activities, President Hu Jintao visited Washington. Was there some coincidence?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
  And the "President" says...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/Business/Oil_and_Gas/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
  More money for the military...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=7b75cd52-862e-4654-96bd-b501309c9b4b&k=37966

...and the Great Debate. Was it over before it even started?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=31603d7d-850d-4103-950d-2dbfd491fb46&k=99678

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Sunday, April 09, 2006
  More war?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Monday, April 03, 2006
  I understand the new Parliament is meeting today.

And then there's the Afghanistan Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_re_mi_ea/afghan_us

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
A discussion of geopolitics and Canada's role in the world. A series of essays to examine the components of Canadian foreign policy making. Psychological, sociological, historical, and cultural variables impacting Canada's perceptions of the world.

ARCHIVES
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 / 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 / 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 / 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 / 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 / 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 / 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 / 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 / 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 / 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 / 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 / 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 / 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 / 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 / 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 / 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 / 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 / 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 / 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 /

Listed on BlogsCanada