Canada Foreign Policy
Saturday, September 30, 2006
  La Francophonie—O Canada

The Balkans have endured more than their share of conflict. Nearly one hundred years ago a political assassination in Sarajevo triggered the First World War. During the Second World War, German forces faced some of their toughest resistance in the Western Balkans, while Italy’s campaigns in the early days of that conflict ran aground in Greece. More recently, the 1990s saw the disintegration of Socialist Yugoslavia, producing some of the worst fighting on the European continent since the 1940s.

But times change, and the changes can be striking. Now characterizing most of the region is an absence of conflict, prompting many states in the area to seek and gain partnership in the European Union, NATO, and other multilateral organizations. Many now see the area as ripe for investment. Canadian funds, no exception, have and likely will continue to find their way into the region.

Also arriving, on 27 September 2006, was PM Stephen Harper. The Francophonie Summit, starting in Bucharest on the 28th, guaranteed Harper, and Quebec Premier Jean Charest, would make their way to Romania. But what did Harper bring along on this, one of his very first ventures among world leaders? Conflict and tensions?

Those who have come to believe that Canada stands for compromise, peacekeeping, and a commitment to alleviating conflicts around the world may wish to make a study of Harper’s performance at La Francophonie. According to reporter Allan Woods, it was on 29 September that “Harper found himself fighting against what French President Jacques Chirac called ‘a great majority’ of the 53 member states at the conference when he took a stand against a statement of sympathy for the civilians in Lebanon because it made no mention of the Israeli civilians displaced, injured or killed in the month-long war” [cited in Allan Woods’ ‘Harper’s Defence of Israel Sparks Political Flap,’ CanWest News Service, 30 September 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=3355d60e-659c-48c5-9421-6440e38888d5&k=10021].

According to various news accounts, what happened was that Harper ultimately vetoed an Egyptian amendment, which would have deplored the effects of the recent Middle East War, which saw some 1,500 Lebanese civilians killed. Harper’s objection? He said the war, its effects, and the needless deaths could and should all be singled out, but not at the expense of failing to remember the suffering endured by the Israelis.

Among those upset by what Harper had done was Lebanon’s Minister of Culture. Tarek Mitri, in reacting to Harper’s veto, observed this was the same prime minister who at the start of the war decided Israeli responses were “measured.” Mitri also argued that many nations had come to condemn Israeli actions as violations of human and international rights, which is something, he noted, Harper may wish to consider. “I hope that the prime minister of Canada has seen the possibility of reflecting a bit on what he said at the beginning and which could have been said differently…It was a bit clumsy on his part but I don't want to get into a political conflict over what a prime minister said a month and a half ago,” said Mitri [cited in Norman Delisle’s ‘Harper’s Response to Israeli Raids ‘Clumsy’ Lebanese Minister, CP, 29 September 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=bb3a91ef-02b7-4b9a-953a-44726b70ce78&k=50624].

Quebec will host the next Francophonie summit in 2008. But at this present 2006 meeting Premier Charest would go on record saying his province has strong ties with the Lebanese people, and insisting he would make no comment, no comment whatsoever, when asked about Harper’s performance.


Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Friday, September 29, 2006
  Calm-- on the Outside


Could PM Stephen Harper be losing his composure? Are the critics of his handling of Afghanistan finally managing to exact a toll? Of course, Harper is mostly calm in public. He rarely, if ever, expresses any emotion and for the most part seems to be able and content to continue doing so for a political eternity. How long he manages to bottle up his anger, however, may prove the exception.

Just a few days ago former PM Paul Martin weighed in on Afghanistan, saying the Tories had lost their way. Martin, reminding the public he was responsible for the mission during his days in office, now asks: “Are we doing the amount of reconstruction, the amount of aid that I believe was part of the original mission? The answer unequivocally is that we're not.” Harper may have ignored Martin, or perhaps had another minister comment. Instead, Harper opted to attack, and to remind everyone of Martin’s Dithers image. Harper first acknowledged that Martin was indeed responsible for the mission, and that because of this could not and should not now act as critic. “When you make those kinds of decisions as a prime minister, you have to be able to take responsibility for them and stick with them…The fact that Mr. Martin is unable to do that, in this and so many other cases, illustrates why he is no longer prime minister of our country” [Martin and Harper cited in ‘Harper Slams Martin for Criticizing Afghan Mission,’ CTV News, 27 September 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060927/harper_romania_060927/20060927?hub=CTVNewsAt11].

But why be so aggressive on offence? Surely Harper understands Martin is, was, and will not be a political threat. And what possible gain is to be made from being so belligerent? Could stress be a factor? Is Harper frustrated, infuriated by the attacks of his handling of Central Asian policy? Did Harper somehow expect those who endorsed and shaped the mission would refrain from negative comment now that they find themselves in opposition?

Or is it simply the case that Harper is merely irritated by his critics? Perhaps he wants them simply to leave him alone, as he does not intend to even begin taking them seriously. Writer Murray Dobbin suggests that no amount of opposition, from other parties or the public, will ever have any impact on Harper. Dobbin says:

'It is alarming for many Canadians to watch Stephen Harper, the head of a minority government with the support of fewer than 40 per cent of citizens, turn Canada into a nation of war. But that is what is happening. .. Stephen Harper's contempt for Canada and what it became in the decades following the Second World War is firmly on the record. Most of his comments — his sneering dismissal of our egalitarianism and sense of community — relate to social programs like medicare. Utterly blind to how the rest of the world sees the conflict in Afghanistan, Harper told the CBC that Canada's role in Afghanistan is “...certainly raising Canada's leadership role, once again, in the United Nations and in the world community.” '[Cited in Murray Dobbin’s ‘Harper Pride Tied to Military Muscle,’ originally published in The Tyee and also posted at http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?x=52838].

Perhaps Harper is obsessed with Afghanistan. Perhaps he is groping for a way to turn his foreign policy into the centrepiece of his domestic agenda. Perhaps he is impacted by the critics. Perhaps he is concerned about failure. Whatever the case, some found his speech to the UN General Assembly on 21 September 2006 baffling. Harper used almost all of his time to dwell on Afghanistan, and how Canada, come what may, would remain committed to that country. Afghanistan, stressed the PM, is the world’s “greatest test” and “Our collective will and credibility are being judged. We cannot afford to fail.” But some noticed, almost immediately, that it was arguably unusual there was little mention of other problems, issues, and nations around the world. Gerry Barr, from the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, asked: “What about environment, health and HIV-AIDS for heaven's sake? What about development, the other continents of the world. That is a concern.” Barr, who noted Afghanistan was dividing Canadians, summed up the PM’s performance, noting: “He's a national leader speaking to the world…I think what he ended up doing was sort of addressing the domestic debate” [Harper and Barr quoted in ‘Harper: Afghanistan UN’s ‘Greatest Test’,’ by Tonda MacCharles, Toronto Star, 22 September 2006. Story also posted at http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158875420938&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815].

Perhaps just how quickly developments in and around Afghanistan have overtaken Tory capabilities to manage policy is now becoming apparent and problematic. And there is no sign things will get easier for Harper. NDP leader Jack Layton, who now says problems in Afghanistan must be resolved through "the principles of conflict resolution” and not “war fighting” might spin foreign policy into a domestic issue and potential votes for his party [Layton quoted in CKNW Radio Interview with Bill Good, 10:00-10:30hrs. PST, 29 September 2006]. And even some of Harper’s friends and allies have become critics, making it harder for the PM to defend his position. Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf, for example, recently spoke about his country’s contribution to the war on terror and Canadians’ responses and involvement in that same conflict. “You suffer two dead and there's a cry and shout all around the base that there are coffins …Well, we've had 500 coffins”. After learning what Musharraf had said, the PM responded, observing only that “Let me just say that Pakistan is an important ally in the fight against terror” [Musharraf and Harper cited in ‘Pakistan Vital Ally—Harper,’ The Edmonton Sun, 28 September 2006. Story posted at http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/09/28/1911266-sun.html].

Most recently, Harper continues to use every possible opportunity to suggest our allies could become more involved. NATO and the UN, according to the PM, could do more for Afghanistan.


Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com 
Saturday, September 02, 2006
  Canadian troops for...Pakistan?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060902.wxpakistan-nukes02/BNStory/International/home


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