Canada Foreign Policy

2007-10-28T18:45:00.000-07:00

Hello Everyone,

I should be back in about 3 weeks. Meantime, keep watching the "rift" between PM Harper and General Rick Hillier. I suspect the general won't be "replaced" any time soon...at least not until well after the next election.

Happy Halloween,
Stan

2007-09-06T17:47:00.000-07:00

Harper and Osama go Down Under:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070906.wfakemotorcade0906/BNStory/International/home

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-08-28T11:26:00.000-07:00

Greetings!

Even with a new foreign minister and MacKay in Defence, not all that much new or of note is going on. I suspect it'll be same old same old for some time. I'm off, and away from the desk for the next 6-8 weeks...Will catch up later. Have a great summer (what's left) and early fall.

Stan

2007-08-21T14:05:00.000-07:00

Montebello, conspiracy theories...and Afghanistan...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=15fdf7f7-b030-40cb-84c2-d454fd62d3cf

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-08-14T17:09:00.000-07:00

The cabinet shuffle:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=582d8348-979a-4e36-856f-8fa4465ec3d0

O'Connor is bumped down, and MacKay goes to Defence. But with no shuffle in the PMO, will this new cabinet provide for a new or different government?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-08-08T07:59:00.000-07:00

Latest on Free Tibet and Canadians...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=9fc99bf8-08cd-46fe-a4b2-683f582b8882

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-08-02T12:13:00.000-07:00

In (sea)bed with the Russians?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20084680/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-07-31T09:39:00.000-07:00

A Tory Bounce?

The Conservative party is about to head into a caucus retreat. Most observers and reporters acknowledge the governing Tories have had a rough time in office, thanks to public opinion if not because of anything any opposition parties or members could muster in the Commons. Almost certainly the Conservatives will be talking about policies and programs they feel will give them that much needed public opinion bounce, and perhaps give them at least a fighting chance at forming another government when the next vote is called.

There is a possibility that foreign affairs might get addressed. But in reality that’s only the slimmest of chances. Insofar as the Tories are likely concerned, only Afghanistan is to get serious attention, and policy for and in that country will get talked about only because of how serious a domestic Canadian issue the war in that country has become. Some observers suggest fixing the public relations nightmare caused by Afghanistan may be the main if not the only problem PM Harper will have to fix if he expects to salvage his regime. Even respected academician and author on military affairs, the Calgary-based David Bercuson, is now on record stressing: “Afghanistan has got to be very high on the list of problems he [Mr. Harper] has to fix...The public is getting the perception that Ottawa is all over the map on this issue, and this isn't the way to manage a war...He has to improve the unity of the message of his people, find someone who will be the chief spokesperson or change out the Minister of Defence” [Dr. Bercuson cited in Alan Freeman and Jane Taber, ‘Minister’s Rift with General Erodes Support, PM Warned,’ Globe and Mail, 31 July 2007. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070731.wHillier31/BNStory/Afghanistan/home].

But will this Tory caucus really exist to address the fundamentals of foreign policy, or of any kind of policy? One reporter observes: “With the Tories stalled in the polls and licking their wounds from a rough spring in Parliament, the party needs to come up with a fresh approach at the meeting that begins tomorrow in Charlottetown. Shaping this strategy will no doubt be the main topic when 149 Tory MPs and senators gather... But whatever the rank-and-file propose in Charlottetown, all evidence indicates that their ideas will qualify as little more than suggestions...Despite years of championing accountability and the importance of MPs' independent voices, Harper has established an unprecedented one-man hold on Ottawa” [Les Whittington, ‘Harper Maintains Firm Grip on Agenda,’ The Toronto Star, 31 July 2007. Story posted at http://www.thestar.com/News/article/241535]. One has to wonder just how much policy the Conservatives really even had when they blundered themselves into office.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-07-27T18:00:00.000-07:00

True North, Strong and Freudian

July, summer, is traditionally a time when little foreign policy work, when little policy work in general, takes place. This year is no exception. Yet because of what did happen, some invaluable insights were served up that let observers know exactly how behind-the-scenes policy work gets done.

In short, Harper and his team of advisors and confidantes meet, agree on a course of action, and begin implementation of agendas entirely oblivious to what may crop up to drive everything or anything off course. Now it is clear Harper operated this way all along, and very early suspicions are confirmed beyond any doubt.

Almost as soon as he was elected, the PM traveled to Afghanistan for a photo op with troops. The thinking seemed to be that the mere appearance with Canadian forces would elevate the Afghan mission to such a status that immediate, undying and eternal public support for Canadians’ presence in Central Asia would be offered up. No more would be needed than going to Afghanistan to ensure the mission would be embraced. Yet over the course of the past several months, almost every single major public opinion survey has shown evaporating public support, especially in Quebec where opposition is overwhelming, for troops being abroad in a combat role. Without any sense of how to turn things around, or how to do something to add to the modest momentum provided by that trip early in his tenure, the PM seemed to lapse into a quiet, calm, almost catatonic state of barely detectable panic. In the past year, what has become an excuse for policy is an ad hoc series of directives that seek to divert public attention from Afghanistan. There is now an even greater reluctance to deal with the hardships with the mission. Instead, public angst and opposition is being diverted with arguments that Canada’s role in Afghanistan is important because it has a major reconstruction and rebuilding component. Hints are also dropped that troops may be evacuated from danger areas in early 2009. And even more recently there are reassurances that things in the Central Asian state are going very well because local troops are being trained for those dangerous combat missions, and will be ready, in almost no time, to replace Canadians.

The PM, in other words, has been running from Afghanistan, both figuratively and literally. Most recently, that dash has meant attention has been turned to Latin America, where the belief is a positive foreign policy agenda may be unrolled for the public while at the same time serving as a way of not having to spend so much time on Afghanistan. Most especially, dish up Latin America for the media and they won’t have so much time to devote to the negatives of Afghanistan. And what could possibly go wrong? This is precisely the question Harper and his team failed to even raise, repeating what they did so early on when dealing with and attempting to handle Kandahar.

Academicians and reporters have already dubbed it the “Third Way,” Harper’s recent trip to Latin America, where the PM met with both national leaders and Canadians, especially investors, living abroad [For coverage and analysis, see, for example, Thomas Walkom’s ‘PM’s Interest in Latin America Easily Explained,’ The Toronto Star, 26 July 2007. Story posted at http://www.thestar.com/News/article/240003]. The aim was to promote Canadian values, defined by capitalism and investing and trade with a human face– a path neither embracing the rugged capitalism of the American way nor tolerant of the dying, decaying breed of Castro-Chavez hyped communism. Harper went first to Colombia, then on 17-18 July on to Chile. On 20 July it was on to Haiti, but before that, from 18-19 July there was a stop in Barbados for meetings with various Caribbean leaders. And so what could possibly go wrong?

On 21 July 2007 news broke that Toronto police officers brawled with young Chilean soccer players. The event, perhaps luckily for the PM that he had only days earlier managed to part company with his Chilean hosts, played itself out as a major diplomatic incident. As one source notes: “A heated match between two rival South American soccer nations that degenerated into chaos after the final whistle has turned into an international incident...The Chilean government is accusing Toronto police of unjustified aggression after officers allegedly beat, tasered and pepper-sprayed members of the Chilean under-20 squad.” Chile’s foreign ministry became involved, and even President Michelle Bachelet was drawn into the affair, commenting: “The incident is especially serious because, in our opinion, the Chilean delegation suffered unjustified aggression” [comments cited here quoted in Natalie Alcoba’s ‘Soccer Melee Strains Canada-Chile Relations,’ CanWest News Service, 21 July 2007. Story carried by the Montreal Gazette and posted at http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=6a21cea1-ba9c-4b81-ba5b-dd89d10cc4ee&k=25212]. After a few days, the whole affair simply faded away, at least insofar as media were concerned. And for his part, Harper did eventually make a public comment, observing Ontario local police had procedures for investigating charges such as those leveled by the Chileans.

But who could have thought that an international soccer game played in Ontario, involving South America, might have generated alarm just as the PM wraps up a Latin American junket? But the real, substantive questions remain: will the incident make a lasting impact on Latin American relations? Might the event somehow resurface, derailing Canadian-Latin American relations down the road, where Chileans at some point in the perhaps not too distant future might refer to the notorious day of soccer and question Ottawa’s sincerity? And what about the PM’s response to the affair? While Harper’s words may have been appropriate, did his demeanor, appearing on television and seeming to be agitated and inconvenienced by the fact that he really needed go public to remind the world that police had procedures for dealing with such incidents, guarantee that relations with Latin America may yet suffer? In other words, did the PM really diffuse the affair as effectively as he might or should have?

Harper’s predecessor, the Liberal Paul Martin, fretted and twitched when it came to implementing foreign policy. This behaviour led to ineffectiveness through paralysis. Harper, on the other hand, acts without regard for potential or actual consequences. There is much busy work where Harper is in action, but ultimately the actual outcome may yield little or no effect, suggesting Harper and Martin may differ where means are concerned, but ultimately they may be the same when and where results are weighed.

Perhaps the regard Harper has for foreign affairs came out when he talked about the Arctic back in early July. The region is once again making headlines. Some reports suggest the PM may head to the Far North in early August. It may be the case that such a trip is vital, necessary, given Russian submarines even now are mapping out and imprinting Moscow’s claim to the Arctic seabed. But it was back on 10 July 2007 that Harper was quoted as saying, “Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty in the Arctic; either we use it or we lose it...And make no mistake this government intends to use it. Because Canada’s Arctic is central to our identity as a northern nation. It is part of our history and it represents the tremendous potential of our future” [Quoted in Robert Shaw and Cindy E. Harnett, ‘Harper on Arctic: ‘Use it or Lose It’,’ Times Colonist, 10 July 2007. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7ca93d97-3b26-4dd1-8d92-8568f9b7cc2a&k=73323].

“Use it or lose it”? Could you really blame Paul Martin if he were to ask: ‘What? You mean I lost an election to this guy?’

Posted bt Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-06-30T10:56:00.000-07:00

Consensus

Some already argue this is the end of the brief Tory era of Grand(iose) Foreign Policy.

Is Stephen Harper backing away from foreign policy? About a week ago he said he needed a parliamentary “consensus” for troops to stay involved in the Central Asian conflict zone in their current mission past February 2009. Does this mean he is really offering the opposition parties a chance to make foreign policy? That’s highly unlikely. But Afghanistan has proved a very unpopular war with Canadians, and all ongoing polling data suggest Tory support will continue to dissolve the longer Afghanistan drags on. Perhaps Harper sees his minority government lasting past early 2009, which would make it necessary for him to get opposition parties to agree to an extension of the mission, an agreement that might cause them to experience an equal falling-out of public support, resulting in the Conservatives having only manageable public opinion losses owing to foreign policy. But maybe that’s not the end-game either. Maybe Harper is just groping for a way to deflect criticism of Afghanistan until the next election happens, maybe later this year, or more probably sometime next. At that time the Tories may hope to win the slimmest of majorities, allowing them to simply extend the Afghanistan mission past 2009, and the opposition parties’ disagreement might have only negligible impact, at best, on the workings of government.

Maybe the PM is only trying to buy time until the next election. But even this seems somehow too simplistic. Too simplistic, most especially, when one has to account for a very Trudeau-esque move. Former Liberal PM Pierre Trudeau was famous for appealing to the public “over the heads of” the authorities, over the heads of the corporate interests of the Canadian establishment. The people, in their wisdom, would make the rulings and live by their decisions. And so Harper now finds himself appealing over the heads of the opposition parties. He is asking for consensus on Afghanistan, but a consensus proffered by each and every individual, by the public. “I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians about how we move forward...I would hope the view of Canadians is not simply to abandon Afghanistan. I think there is some expectation that there will be a new role after February 2009, but obviously those decisions have yet to be taken,” he said [PM cited in “Harper Wants ‘Consensus’ on Afghanistan,” The London Free Press, 23 June 2007. Story posted at http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/06/23/4283823-sun.html].

Canadians are rarely, if ever, invited to a meaningful foreign policy debate. Demanding their vital input in such a forum is almost unheard of. Yet by doing so Harper seems to suggest he understands his Canadian history, especially the past in the province of Quebec. In the past, during the World Wars, conscription and the conflicts themselves threatened to rip apart the country. While English Canada supported the wars, Quebec tended to see them as foreign adventures to be avoided. With this history, is it really no mystery that most of the political elite likely prefers the public out of foreign policy discussion that in any sense deals with the topic of war. And so is it just possible that Harper hopes, this time, he may actually invite Quebecers to the talks, who, after perhaps giving approval for his policies will be disinclined in future to oppose a Canadian role in Afghanistan? With this, there is both a national unity and an assertive foreign policy,–just perhaps?

Mainstream thinking, at least for the moment, says the only thing Harper is doing is looking for an exit strategy, knowing that Canadians’ inability to reach that consensus will give him the excuse to withdraw. As journalist Terry Cooke, writing in the The Hamilton Spectator on 30 June 2007, observes: “Stephen Harper's new position on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is disappointing. Fecklessness about committing men and women to armed combat is something that I have come to expect from Liberals, but it's hard to abide in a Conservative leader espousing principle while apparently opting for expediency...It's obvious that flagging public support due to mounting casualties has driven the prime minister to seek an exit strategy while trying to assign blame to the opposition benches” [Story posted at http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1183177981374&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062581].

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-06-28T09:50:00.000-07:00

An Intriguing Admission or Just Nothing at All?

PM Stephen Harper wants the public to buy into his image. Since coming to office, he has tried to convince us that he’s the type to be in charge. He controls affairs, and doesn’t fall victim to circumstances. Or, so he wants us to believe. Are recent events going to tarnish that image? Could one confession, or allegation, cause the whole edifice to implode? If the opposition parties only listened to what Harper has been saying, they might just be able to capitalize when an election comes around.

In the beginning, Harper would set out to redefine foreign policy. His predecessors, or so it was implied, had allowed foreign relations to deteriorate. Not only was this portfolio a niche the Tories might exploit to advance their standing with both the domestic public and international opinion, it was an area that demanded genuine attention. What could go wrong? Take charge of foreign affairs, and the approach would pay dividends at home and abroad. Harper, moreover, could use the strategy to shore up his image as take-charge great leader.

But now comes the intriguing admission that despite all outward appearances and assertions, the Tories, and especially Harper, never were even close to being in charge of foreign policy. Perhaps it was not due to lack of effort, but it was, if the charges are to be believed, due at least in large part to a bureaucracy intent on undermining political leadership: “Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper complained earlier this month that officials in his foreign ministry were undermining the government's overseas agenda, a newspaper [The Toronto Star] reported... If accurate, the report would support an impression in Ottawa that Harper has little time for his Department of Foreign Affairs, run by political rival Peter MacKay” [Cited in “Harper Says Undermined by Own Diplomats: Paper,” Reuters, 25 June 2007. Story posted at http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-06-25T141234Z_01_N25282638_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-DIPLOMATS-COL.XML]. But, Harper cautions, the problem is not unique to his government, and perhaps it is not insurmountable. It may even be trivial. Harper said: “What is not acceptable, and it does happen on occasion, is for a public servant to say ‘That may be the position of the elected guys, but that's not the position of the government.’ All the (foreign) leaders I've talked to complain to me that their foreign service wants to do what (it) believes is foreign policy, not what the government-of-the-day's foreign policy is. It's a universal problem” [Cited in http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-06-25T141234Z_01_N25282638_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-DIPLOMATS-COL.XML].

Should Harper be qualifying and minimizing his initial observation? Where is Peter MacKay in this dispute, or misunderstanding? Is the “rival” siding with his PM? According to one source, while Harper and MacKay may not be the very best of friends, they may be united when it comes to alienating the rank-and-file in the Department of Foreign Affairs. On 27 June 2007, Sean Durkan, writing in Embassy, observes: MacKay “did little to endear himself to the troops earlier this year by letting it be known publicly that he (like the PM) felt his bureaucrats erred by not ensuring someone turned up at the trial of Chinese-Canadian Huseyin Celil.” But the dynamic between Harper and MacKay may not be so simple. Even more recently, the Foreign Minister stood up for his department, whose members found themselves hauled before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The Committee is “sparring” with Foreign Affairs over the charge that DFAIT officials “bowed to political pressure and blacked out sensitive parts of the government's internal 2005 and 2006 human rights reports on Afghanistan...As [Deputy Minister Leondard] Edwards sat down in his chair last Tuesday to testify, Liberal MP Tom Wappel, the committee chair, was handed an open letter from Minister MacKay, stating he was distressed to hear of the rough treatment handed out to his officials last time round and that he trusted this would not happen again” [all citations in this paragraph from Durkan’s article ‘Stand by Your Staff,’ posted at http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/june/27/capitalcity/].

Is Peter MacKay really that kind of rare minister who, even in some small respects, is actually able to work independent of Stephen Harper?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Senc comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-06-06T08:27:00.000-07:00

Global Events Update: the world just keeps getting so much easier for great leaders like Harper, Bush, and Brown...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19070463/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-06-05T07:19:00.000-07:00

Harper goes to Europe

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/05/harper-france.html

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-05-31T11:30:00.000-07:00

From the 1st Pacific Economic Summit: Green Governor and “Liars”

California’s Arnold Schwarzenneger, already dubbed by media ‘the green governor,’ is in Vancouver on 31 May 2007 for meetings with Mayor Sam Sullivan and BC Premier Gordon Campbell. The environment has arrived, and is now a very real element in bilateral if not international relations.

Schwarzenneger’s meeting with Campbell is likely to place environmental issues atop the agenda, as both leaders have indicated the topic must be accorded the highest priority. The ex-Terminator is saying his intention is to announce at least a few climate-friendly initiatives which shall almost certainly receive Campbell’s endorsement. For his own part, the BC Premier has gone on record numerous times with his own various pledges. The Premier, who has grown into a vocal advocate of alternate fuels, promises that by the 2010 Olympics Vancouver and Whistler Village will be linked up by a “hydrogen highway.”

Schwarzenneger also observed that politicians must be held accountable for their environmental promises. The surest way to find out if a public figure is a “liar,” he noted, is to catch him or her saying they are doing all that can be done for the environment. It is a “good thing” for politicians to want to do more and more for the environment, and it is “good” for the public to make more and more demands, added the governor [Schwarzenneger’s remarks reported by CKNW Radio News, 31 May 2007].

But what must Ottawa be thinking about all this? He is not Minister of Development. Nor is he Industry Minister, though perhaps some members of the public may be excused for believing he is. Rather, John Baird is Tory Environment Minister. Just this past month he attacked the Kyoto Treaty, arguing that if serious effort were made in meeting all targets, the price of gasoline could spike so high an economic meltdown so severe would result, that no one could live with that eventuality. Then on 30 May 2007 Baird again made headlines when in committee he described the Ontario Premier’s green plans as a cynical vote-getting ploy: “Federal Environment Minister John Baird accused Ontario [Liberal] Premier Dalton McGuinty of dishonesty in order to ‘get votes’ when he promised to shut down the province's coal-fired electricity plants... ‘This is a perfect example of another Liberal making a promise on greenhouse gases and on reducing smog and pollution that you can't deliver,’ said the environment minister. ‘We're not going to tell people what they want to hear to get votes’” [cited in Allan Woods’ ‘Baird Attacks McGuinty Promises,’ The Toronto Star, 30 May 2007. Story posted at http://www.thestar.com/News/article/219247].

Just yesterday PM Harper agreed to a photo-op with a lowly governor, but one with a pedigree in film superstardom. So undoubtedly there was going to be commentary about chemistry, and some observers found things going on. For his part, Harper cultivates the image of one strongly believing that all environmentalists cling to the pedigree of destructive, radical tree-huggers. The PM “is an economist who frets about the fiscal impact on industry of change not directly driven by the marketplace.” And so their photo-op pairing reveals a most “Odd Couple”: “What do an extroverted, muscular California politician and a slightly flabby, straight-laced Canadian prime minister have in common? Not a lot” [quotes from Barbara Yaffe’s ‘Harper and Schwarzenneger an Environmental Odd Couple,’ CanWest News Service, 31 May 2007. Story published by the Vancouver Sun and posted at http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5460c5d4-179c-4cd1-ba36-b38ef375776f].

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-05-30T14:11:00.000-07:00

How much does it cost?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18941690/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-05-28T20:05:00.000-07:00

Is There Any Good News?

It was a very big deal when it first happened. Now, sure there was some notice, but hardly anywhere near the attention the first time around. Back after he won election, The PM generated headlines for days after making a historic visit to Afghanistan; a move, at least in part, designed to shore up troop morale.

Just last week, he did it again. Harper traveled to Afghanistan, stayed a couple of days, and announced that Canadians may need to prepare themselves for having to stay in the strife-ridden nation well past any planned 2009 evacuation date. Media dutifully reported the event, but just as soon as it was over, coverage and analysis vanished.

If the PM hoped to use the trip as a means of whipping up public support for the Tories, or for any of his policies, the exercise must be called an abysmal failure. Many recent polls hint that the legacy Harper may yet share with his predecessor is that of a propensity for blundering his party out of office. If recent surveys prove accurate, Harper is extremely unpopular. But if there is any positive news for the Conservatives, polls seem to suggest their main rival, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, is also the target of a popular mood that may in the near future have a distinct voting bias in favour of NONE of the ABOVE. According to Angus Reid, “Many adults in Canada appear dissatisfied with the country’s main federal political leaders... 41 per cent of respondents think neither Stephen Harper nor Stéphane Dion would make a good prime minister, up nine points since late March” [‘Canadians Disappointed with Harper and Dion,’ Angus Reid Poll, Angus Reid Global Monitor, 28 May 2007. Story and data published at http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15896]. And when it comes to the specific issue of Afghanistan, both Harper and Dion find themselves still in the same boat. Angus Reid continues: “On May 25, Harper discussed Canada’s military commitment in Afghanistan, saying, ‘The mission there has been long, hard and difficult, (...) but we have racked up an impressive list of accomplishments. The men and women of the Canadian Forces have conducted themselves with the utmost degree of professionalism and demonstrated exceptional bravery and skill on the battlefield.’ Dion declared: ‘Like all Canadians, we remain steadfast in our support for our troops as they put their lives on the line to provide us with a safe and secure world.’ 42 per cent of respondents think Canada is on the right track, while 37 per cent disagree” [Cited in ‘Canadians Disappointed with Harper and Dion.’].

There is lately more and more coverage given over the what’s going wrong with Afghanistan. If one source is anywhere near accurate, then Canadian reconstruction efforts are decidedly and utterly ineffective if not downright counterproductive. In his piece, reporter Murray Brewster observes: “The Canadian International Development Agency is making no headway in rebuilding Afghanistan and should be relieved of its duties, an international think-tank said Monday...In its latest report, the Senlis Council says the federal development agency should be replaced with a special envoy, who has the authority and money to get things done...The development agency currently has two case officers working out of the provincial reconstruction team base in Kandahar City. But since the death of Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry in January 2006, civilian staff are rarely allowed to venture beyond the heavily fortified compound” [Murray Brewster, ‘International Think-tank Says CIDA Should be Relieved of Afghan Role,’ The Chronicle Journal, 28 May 2007. Story posted at http://www.chroniclejournal.com/CP_stories.php?id=46065].

New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, perennial critic of how things are managed in Afghanistan, is again making headlines by calling for a re-think of Central Asian policy: “Citing the rising costs – both human and financial – Mr. Layton said multibillion-dollar purchases of tanks and helicopters could have been avoided if the military was not engaged in a ‘search and destroy mission.’... ‘I think many Canadians are asking themselves whether Mr. Harper hasn't lost track of the priorities of Canadians,’ said Mr. Layton” [Cited in Sean Patrick Sullivan, ‘Layton Says New Approach Needed in Afghanistan,’ CP, 26 May 2007. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070526.wlayton0526/BNStory/Front].

Is any news good news for the Tories?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-05-07T08:53:00.000-07:00

Somebody's Intelligence dollars hard at work...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_go_ot/spy_coins

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-04-30T22:03:00.000-07:00

Where are We Now?

“[S]oldiers will seek to resolve every complex situation through military means. Add to this their martial spirit and professional pride that preclude them from ever admitting defeat or questioning their own ability to achieve ultimate victory and we’ve set the stage for a long, drawn-out, bloody campaign.” This is what Scott Taylor, writing in The Chronicle Herald on 30 April 2007, says [story “Military ‘Victories’ Don’t always Add Up” posted at http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/832497.html]. This is a very important observation, and Taylor also notes the way military personnel are supposed to behave with and around detainees in Afghanistan is changing, rapidly. This is Canada’s problem in Afghanistan. When handling prisoners, basic human rights must be respected. Even if Canadian soldiers do not abuse detainees, and all accounts stress Canadian treatment is humane and above reproach, our military must take time to ensure those being brought to justice are treated with respect even after they are handed over to local authorities. To act in any other way might put Canadian troops or members of the military in the position of having to face accusations of war crimes, would it not?

It is over the issue of treatment of detainees that Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor is continuing to take heat, from reporters and members of the opposition parties. And all this is because of what has happened to any notion of a realpolitik-defined foreign policy. In the world that Canada inhabits, any practice of geopolitics and realpolitik must include not only the notion, but practices around, human rights. But how well do human rights and realpolitik mix? For the Tories, this is what they must worry about. The opposition parties have the luxury of attacking O’Connor and PM Stephen Harper by pointing out how the government is failing to uphold human rights.

At this point, what has slipped under much of the media radar is the fact the main opposition party, the Liberals, may not be in fundamental disagreement with the Conservatives over the big geopolitical, realpolitik questions posed by and in Afghanistan. Michael Ignatieff, Deputy Liberal leader, has been among the most vocal calling for O’Connor to be dismissed. According to Ignatieff, O’Connor has completely bungled the issue of how prisoners in Afghanistan are being treated. But, and perhaps more importantly, the Defence Minister seems to be in the position of having lost the confidence of the PM: “He should be fired because he no longer has the confidence of the prime minister...We've got troops in the field and the prime minister is leaving this man to twist slowly in the wind. At a time when we've got soldiers in combat, you have to have civilian leadership that's working together, and they're clearly not. They muzzled him [O’Connor] in the House...” Ignatieff said [Cited in “Ignatieff: O’Connor ‘Should be Fired’ Over Detainees,’ CTV News, 27 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070427/ignatieff_afghanistan_070427/20070427?hub=Canada].

So why does Ignatieff really think O’Connor needs to go? Would Liberal policy in Afghanistan really look very much different from what the Tories currently offer?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-04-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

Is this mission too complicated? Is this all about diplomatic, political, and military just not being able to coordinate? Is the answer just O’Connor blowing (twisting) in the wind?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070428.DETAINEES28/TPStory/National

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-04-28T12:16:00.000-07:00

"Disarray"! "Disarray"? Or, with an Opposition Like This, Who Needs a Caucus?

Maybe you were never a Stephen Harper fan. But, it used to be said that he was competent. This could not be said of his Liberal predecessor. Maybe you didn’t like what Harper said or did, but at least you were compelled, maybe grudgingly, to say that his leadership was effective.

At any rate, competence is what the image consultants wanted the public to believe Harper had. He was, they said, just as effective as he was controversial. In reality, what allowed him to project that image was control. And that’s not necessarily control over issues or political affairs, merely control over his caucus. What needed to be asked long ago, but wasn’t, was whether or not effectiveness and control are or ever were interchangeable.

The question may now be moot. According to some accounts, Harper’s ability to even manage his caucus may be waning, a development plunging his entire government into "disarray." And really what created this new reality is Afghanistan, and the Tories’ ability, or inability, to control what happens there: "Canada's government descended into disarray over an Afghan abuse scandal on Thursday after ministers openly contradicted each other over allegations that Taliban suspects captured by Canadian soldiers had been tortured by local police" [Cited in David Ljunggren’s ‘Canada’s Government in Disarray Over Afghan Abuse Scandal,’ Reuters, 26 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26440802.htm]. All this is nothing short of "rapidly becoming the biggest crisis to hit the minority Conservative government since it took power" just over a year ago [cited in Ljunggren...].

At the center of this "scandal" is the rule of law. Prisoners in Afghanistan have alleged they have been beaten and tortured. However, no one suggests that any Canadians were ever involved in this inappropriate behaviour. Rather, problems start once Canada turns over prisoners to Afghan government authorities. Is it the case, some now ask, that Canada undermines rule of law by turning a blind eye to torture once it passes along prisoners, or is there some monitoring mechanism, thereby ensuring that suspects will not be mistreated?

How significant or meaningful are allegations of torture for Tory officials? It was on Tuesday the 24th that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, speaking at a conference on international counter-terrorism, remarked that humane treatment of prisoners is "a radical thought for a lot of people in that part of the world." Day also said: "We’re saying to them that these people we’re bringing you to put in jail, yes, these people have no compunction about machine-gunning, mowing down little children. They have no compunction about decapitating or hanging elderly women. They have no compunction about the vicious forms of torture you can imagine on innocent people. Now we’ve captured them ... and we’re asking you to treat them humanely." Meanwhile, at least one report says that Wajid Khan, PM Stephen Harper’s advisor on Middle East Affairs, believes "torture is just part of the grinding conditions faced daily in Afghanistan’s ‘tribal culture’" [Day and Khan cited in CP, 25 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=54f54ce8-bd74-4516-9ead-ad7ad26ed31d&k=85625].

The "scandal" erupted on 23 April 2007. Allegations of torture made headlines that day, prompting government officials to explain they had absolutely no knowledge of any facts, and suggested the reports were linked to conjecture and malicious rumours. Days later, on 25 April, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor observed a deal on prisoner treatment had been concluded with Afghan authorities. Yet within a day, perhaps hours, of the O’Connor statement came news, confirmed by the Tories themselves, including the office of the Foreign Minister, that no one knew of any accords. And later still came news that monitors or observers always had contact with detainees.

Opposition parties seemed enraged by both the allegations of torture and the seemingly confused Tory responses to the charges. Liberal leader Stephane Dion offered up the suggestion that prisoners be brought to Canada, a remark addressed by Stockwell Day who countered with the notion that the Taliban ought to remain in Afghanistan. And then there came calls for O’Connor to resign. Some seem hopeful this will yet take place, given the Defence Minister has opted to maintain a very low profile these past recent days.

But is all or any of this really a scandal that threatens the Tory government? On 27 April 2007 came reports that the Afghan Ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, confirms no Canadians have monitored prisoners turned over to local authorities. The Ambassador added Canadian monitors soon will have that right, but meantime urged that the "political circus" triggered by accusations of prisoner maltreatment come to an end. "It doesn't mean those were detention centres of people who were arrested by Canadian forces...So if this has created confusion, I think that we all need to take a step back and define what we're talking about and to bring some clarity to this instead of turning it into a political circus...From the Afghan point of view, it's clear there was no followup or monitoring of detainees caught by Canadian forces turned over to Afghans, especially to the NDS [National Directorate of Security] that took place prior to this current time," said Samad [cited in Juliet O’Neill’s CanWest News Service piece titled ‘Afghan Ambassador Says Canada Has Not Monitored Prisoners,’ published in The National Post, 27 April 2007. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e7e081d3-52ba-458e-976e-54dffa6a1f05&k=41661].

And how much of a "scandal" there really is, and how much "disarray" the Tories will really find themselves in will almost certainly depend on opposition parties’ willingness to keep reacting. Over the past months opposition leaders, perhaps most especially New Democrat Jack Layton, have said their intent is to try to make parliament work rather than trigger an early election. Once again, Layton stresses that Canadians are in no mood to head back to the polls, and at the same time neglects to point out his own party fortunes may suffer if voting were to take place in the near future. Perhaps what took place over the past several days had more to do with a slow news week than any "scandal" or Tory "disarray." If O’Connor keeps a low profile for a while longer and Harper continues to remain evasive on what is taking place in Afghanistan, the image of an effective and competent government may resurface in no time.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-03-31T22:12:00.000-07:00

Peter MacKay Warned

On 23 March 2007 someone in Iran ordered that 15 British marines be captured, using the argument that they were in Iranian waters. British, and indeed world authorities, condemned the move. The Foreign Office has provided evidence the 15 were in Iraqi waters and working to stop smugglers when they found themselves abducted. Yet Teheran insists the Britons violated international law, and in the latest development says the marines will be prosecuted if enough evidence turns up justifying that legal action goes ahead [IRNA, 31 March 2007].

Of course, what some are calling a crisis has much more to do with politics than any kind of law. There is already speculation Teheran acted out of fear that an attack against the Islamic republic was imminent. There is also the argument that the seizure of the 15 may have been undertaken with Teheran seeing itself in a position of strength, and just wanting to gain bargaining chips when it begins negotiating for the release of some of its people. And in the latest twist, some allege the abductions had been long in planning.

Ottawa stands with London: "Canada interjected itself squarely into the hostage standoff between Iran and Britain Friday after dressing down the Iranian envoy in Ottawa, joining the growing international effort to pressure Tehran to release the 15 captured sailors...Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he summoned Iran's top diplomat in Canada for a meeting on Thursday to urge Tehran to immediately release 15 British sailors and marines..." [cited in Mike Blanchfield’s ‘Canada Calls Iranian Envoy on Carpet over Seizure of British Sailors,’Canwest News Service, 31 March 2007. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=87f0c824-c692-444f-a721-96ee75ab2b11&k=5667].

But Teheran reacted, and perhaps not as MacKay might have expected. Iran’s Charge d’Affaires Abbas Asemi warned Canada against merely accepting the British version of events, saying, "Iran harshly protested against the move and meanwhile is pursuing the matter by taking proper and legal measures to solve it. However, the British officials who are aware of the mistake of their marine troops have launched political hues and cries as well as propaganda through media to cover up their wrong-doings and attribute them to others... By resorting to fake evidence, the British government is seeking to distort the realities. This is while all documents and evidences prove the illegal entry of British sailors to Iran's territorial waters. Meanwhile, Iran has called on Britain to accept its mistake" [Asemi cited in ‘Canada Urged to Condemn UK Violations,’ IranMania, 31 March 2007. Posted at http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=50623&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs].

Perhaps the most important aspect of the Iranian story is that it managed to deflect attention from another recent development involving Canada and the Middle East. During the past week, the moderate Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti paid a visit to Ottawa, only to learn that neither PM Stephen Harper nor MacKay would be willing to meet. According to at least one report, Palestinian officials warn the decision by the Tory government means "Canada risks isolation in the Arab world if it does not rescind its ban on meeting with members of the new coalition Palestinian government as the United States, United Nations and much of Europe have done..." [cited in Carolynne Wheeler and Gloria Galloway, ‘Palestinians Warn Canada of Necessity for Dialogue,’ The Globe and Mail, 30 March 2007. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070330.PALESTINIANS30/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/]. For their part, the Tories stress they are in frequent contact with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and remain supportive of his peace efforts. Nevertheless, as MacKay told the Commons, "Until such time as we see progress in the area of the Quartet principles, which call for the recognition of Israel, which call for the cessation of violence, which call for the road map to be adhered to, we are not going to deal directly with a terrorist organization, namely Hamas" [cited in Wheeler and Galloway].

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-03-28T21:06:00.000-07:00

Pass the Danish?

War is changing. At least it is for the current generation of Canadians serving in the military. Not for at least half a century have the armed forces encountered the kind of fighting now becoming routine in Afghanistan.

To almost no fanfare over the past week, several reports surfaced explaining Canadian troops will be receiving a counterinsurgency manual sometime later in 2007. While the document may have been in preparation for years, it is likely that only recently policy planners and defence department officials began regarding its issuance with some sense of heightened importance. They may only now be asking: are troops ready for what may begin evolving in Afghanistan later this year? And, can the unthinkable, the possibility of Taliban forces reclaiming territory in the not too distant future, actually come to pass?

Writers Jon Elmer and Anthony Fenton explain that what the armed forces can look forward to is "a 250-page publication, the field manual outlines the principles and practices of fighting the kind of insurgencies that have come to define warfare for the Western powers in the 21st century, in places like Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq" [Jon Elmer and Anthony Fenton, "Canada’s Counterinsurgency Strategy," IPS Inter Press Service News Agency, 22 March 2007. Story posted at http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37050 ]. Insurgencies, or "irregular warfare," have come to define contemporary military encounters, and Elmer and Fenton add this type of conflict "has confounded U.S. and NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, where growing insurgencies have taken a bloody toll on local populations as well as Western troops, and signs of success are few and far between...The increased prominence of the doctrine was recently on display when Gen. David Petraeus, author of the United States Army and Marine Corps counter-insurgency field manual, took command of U.S. forces in Iraq in early 2007."

But profound changes in Canadian policy and military doctrine are likely to receive next to no attention from political leaders, who may even try to keep Afghanistan off the radar as much as possible, and even less in the context of any federal election campaign. Just over a year ago when Canadians last went to the polls, foreign policy issues were nearly absent. And when they did make a cameo appearance, it was over jurisdiction of the Arctic and national sovereignty. It was just over two years ago Denmark’s claim to Hans Island stirred patriotic feelings, and some Canadians demanded the federal government get passionate about exerting control over the Far North. There was flag waving, and "some Canadians even called for a boycott of Danish pastries" [cited in Doug Mellgren’s ‘Riches Await as Earth’s Icy North Melts,’ AP, 24 March 2007. Story Posted at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070324/ap_on_sc/arctic_bonanza].

But what was or is it about places like Hans Island? Hans’s uninhabited and uninhabitable, so what’s there to stir patriotic fervor? The answer is likely to be found in global warming’s silver lining. While melting in the far north may translate into possible extinction for polar bears and aboriginal cultures, it also means vast amounts of natural resources, including fossil fuels, are made easier for the taking. All that potential profit making already means "regardless of climate change, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic is moving full speed ahead. State-controlled Norwegian oil company Statoil ASA plans to start tapping gas from its offshore Snoehvit field in December, the first in the Barents Sea" [cited in Mellgren]. And all that melting means transportation is being made not only easier, but much more lucrative. For example, "Global warming is also bringing an unexpected bonus to American transportation company OmniTrax Inc., which a decade ago bought the small underutilized Northwest Passage port of Churchill, Manitoba, for a token fee of 10 Canadian dollars (about $8)...The company, which is private, won't say how much money it is making in Churchill, but it was estimated to have moved more than 500,000 tons of grain through the port in 2007" [in Mellgren].

So the last time politicians dared to raise Arctic sovereignty they could do so by appealing to Canadians’ sense of nationalism. Now if Ottawa’s real interest in defending the North is linked to profits made possible or easier by global warming, can Arctic sovereignty really be revived without triggering a public backlash? According to polls over the past few months, global warming and environmental issues are a major concern for ordinary people. Can two kinds of green really be made to coexist?

Pass that Danish?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-03-16T16:58:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting article. Just delete terms like 'Republican,' 'Democrat,' 'Iraq,' 'Washington,' and substitute 'Conservative,' Liberal,' 'New Democrat,' 'Afghanistan,' 'Ottawa,' and this could be about Canadian foreign policy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17644884/site/newsweek/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-03-11T09:36:00.000-07:00

Latest on Afghanistan:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=55199dbb-c898-4891-9078-5cf7e060bd58

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=dafeb03a-5317-4203-b90f-ce2a7a2cac72

And do these old films, from a long time ago, have no current/contemporary message?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7324838937417972680&q=let+there+be+light

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9085887151290954373&q=san+pietro

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-02-28T21:12:00.000-08:00

Is Peru Important?

With world markets beginning to melt down yesterday, and now according to some, stabilizing, it may be a good time to look at economics. While it may be premature to conclude this correction is over, and volatility may just grind away, drawing down values over the next four to six months before any bounce of any significance can occur, recent and ongoing events highlight how important the economy is to foreign policy. A downdraft in Shanghai triggered bad times across world markets, and trade and investment patterns may be impacted.

A region that traditionally receives little coverage in Canada is Latin America. More specifically, South America, and while countries like Brazil, Chile and Argentina are mentioned by media, it is rare to come across commentaries about Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, or Paraguay. Invariably analysts and reporters address one or several of four major themes when Latin America does gain some attention. There is always Mexico, and stories about how it fits into North American trade (NAFTA) are not uncommon. Sometimes Cuba is discussed, and here it is customary to explain how and why bilateral relations have always been stable if not good, with reference made to the fact that Canada did not join the embargo of Fidel Castro’s regime, enabling ties. There was at one time the issue of immigration and refugees, and a cottage industry dominated principally by government analysts and academics periodically examined individuals and groups fleeing repressive regimes, with invariably the conclusion being made that those who arrived integrated successfully, managing to leave behind any associations with far left or far right ideologies. And then there was trade news from and about South America, in the 1990s usually dealing with Brazil, and how that economy might cause competition headaches for Canadian companies, notably for those in the aerospace sector.

Economics and South America are once again making an impact in Canada. These days places like Peru are stealing some headlines, and claims are that Canadians are open to investment ideas. Marketers of Latin America observe "Peru’s stable economic growth and positive financial outlook have attracted various international banking institutions... [including] Scotiabank (Canada)" [cited in "Peru’s Growing Economy Attracts Spanish Banking Group Santander," LIP News, 23 February 2007. Posted at http://www.livinginperu.com/news/3260]. Just how important relations may be with Peru was signaled in late January 2007, when a visit by a high-ranking official to Ottawa took place after almost a decade. Peru’s Agriculture Minister, Juan Jose Salazar, was "the highest-ranking official from Peru to come on a working visit to Canada since former president Alberto Fujimori in 1998" and his mission was to discuss bilateral free trade. Salazar maintained "Peru wants to be closer to Canada, both politically and economically. He expressed his government's awareness of the Canadian market’s significance for Peruvian exports, the potential benefits of a bilateral free trade agreement, and how co-operation in critical areas can be consolidated and improved." He also noted that Peru offers political, legal and economic stability, which no doubt was meant to sound reassuring and enticing to the roughly80 Canadian companies already investing an estimated $5 billion, mostly in the Peruvian mining sector [cited in Vladimir Torres’ "Canada to Discus Free Trade with Peru," The Hill Times, 31 January 2007. Story posted at http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/january/31/peru/].

And while officials from Lima make their way to Ottawa, PromPeru, Peru’s promotional agency, is working to make Canadians want to trek to the South American nation. Official sources say that in 2006 tourism was up about 25%, with roughly 41,500 Canadians taking the journey. Most of them are well off, earning upwards of $95,000 in annual salary and falling in the 25-54 year-old demographic [cited in "Peru Targets Canadian Tourists," LIP News, 22 February 2007. Posted at http://www.livinginperu.com/news/3251].

But events in Shanghai on 27 February 2007 may yet turn out to have a profound impact on Canadian-Latin American ties. A question may be whether or not 2006 marks, at least for a while, the high point in Canadian relations with Peru.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-02-26T11:16:00.000-08:00

"Domesticating" Afghanistan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070226.wharper0226/BNStory/National/home

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=94c0df30-c709-44bb-8f71-845d386d8a58&k=78253

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-02-25T16:28:00.000-08:00

Stephen Harper, Green and "Domesticating" China

"I don’t believe there is a green bone in Stephen Harper’s body–he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment." That’s what activist and scholar David Suzuki said recently when speaking to Calgary elementary school students and parents [remarks cited in Bill Kaufmann’s "Suzuki Slams Harper, Alberta," The Edmonton Sun, 24 February 2007. Story posted at http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/02/24/3661631-sun.html].

Some might believe Suzuki makes a strong point. Prime Minister Harper didn’t win the last election promising to focus on the environment. He may have even underscored his lack of commitment when appointing Rona Ambrose to the portfolio. And then there’s the fact that he only recently found religion, sometime within the past eight weeks or so, when polls started showing that environmental issues were important to Canadians. Harper also got the message when Liberal leader Stephane Dion attempted to walk away with the issue.

But does Harper really not care at all about the environment? The media, sometime in the past month or so, and for whatever reasons, decided to devote an extraordinary amount of time and energy to covering the issue. Perhaps Harper simply took note of this, and reacted. On the other hand, the environment may have strategic value for the Tories. It may not be the environment itself that interests them, but the environment as an issue may come into play, with critical consequences. If it can be framed as a purely domestic matter, then Harper may feel comfortable talking up "green" in the context of launching a reelection bid. Almost certainly the Conservatives will devote time to the economy, to crime, regional development, immigration... But if they can’t find the means of steering the debate away from social conservatism, Harper’s Tories may be limited to another minority. And so the environment becomes important. Pointing out the Liberals’ abysmal record may put Dion on the defensive. Talking about the environment as a domestic issue may also play well with a rather large (or large enough) segment of the voting public so as to not cost the Conservatives any votes. If Harper takes up the environment, but abandons the link with Kyoto, he may be able to create a uniquely Canadian, domestic policy discussion. And if this happens, the Liberals may find themselves in a corner, unable to raise fears or concerns about regressive social agendas.

But it isn’t just the environment that finds itself being turned into a domestic issue. All of foreign policy is being transformed. Those matters that cannot be managed or controlled are quietly and conveniently not being addressed. Afghanistan is not talked about, and media are devoting less and less attention to Central Asia in a trend likely to continue for the foreseeable future. It was only some weeks ago that signs suggested the Tories might work hard to revive public diplomacy. Minister David Emerson went to China for trade discussions, seemingly aware that relations with Beijing had been strained. But rather abruptly there was an about-face, and presenting a message for a domestic Canadian audience again consumed the Harper Tories. On 9 February 2007 Harper himself said: "There are those in the opposition who will say, ‘You know, China is an important country, so we shouldn’t really protest these things … so maybe someday we’ll be able to sell more goods there’...I think that’s irresponsible. I think the government of Canada, when a Canadian citizen is ill-treated and when the rights of a Canadian citizen need to be defended, I think it’s always the obligation of the government of Canada to vocally and publicly stand up for that Canadian citizen. That is what we will continue to do" [PM quoted in "Harper Chides China over Economic Threats," CBC News, 9 February 2007. Story posted at http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/09/harper-china.html].The PM’s words came in response to statements from Beijing officials that raising human rights and the specific case of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen held by the Chinese on charges of terrorism, may aggravate ties.

There’s little doubt the Tories are in the process of redefining particular issues for their impact on domestic public opinion. The environment and foreign policy are in the process of being "domesticated." The questions–why exactly now and for what precise purposes?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-02-08T07:57:00.000-08:00

There go relations with China?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070208/celil_070208/20070208?hub=TopStories

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-02-04T19:58:00.000-08:00

Turkey, Iran, and the Kurds...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16959214/site/newsweek/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-31T21:06:00.000-08:00

An accidental war?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16911972/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-27T13:10:00.000-08:00

A Second Chance

Perhaps most observers will be caught up in the Brussels NATO meeting, held on 26 January 2007 and attended by Foreign Minister Peter MacKay. Lately there seems to be a widely held belief that relations among NATO member countries are deteriorating, and each or every gathering could prove decisive. But is that really the case? Will anything that Canada does at any of these meetings either rupture the organization, or produce some miraculous result that will bring everyone back to some common ground? Thus far Canada has been content to remind its allies that the situation in Afghanistan remains grave, that more help from other NATO allies is needed, and badly. So what was new or different this time?

On 26 January one report observed that "Mr. MacKay plans to ask NATO to provide more help in controlling the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Pakistan-based militants have been crossing into Afghanistan to battle NATO and Afghan government forces and to recruit Afghans for the insurgency. Mr. MacKay says this must be stopped, but Canada cannot do the job alone" [cited in Paul Ames’ "NATO Allies Pressured on Afghanistan," The Globe and Mail, 26 January 2007. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070126.wnatoafghan0126/BNStory/International/home http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070126.wnatoafghan0126/BNStory/International/home]. If anything, intra-NATO relations are in a holding pattern, and there may be no resolution for some time.

So could the real story for January 2007 be one about quiet diplomacy, and one of studying events that received little, if any attention?

It was just over a week ago that MacKay traveled to the Middle East, where he met with a number of officials, including Israeli and Jordanian . The minister’s main message was that Ottawa’s commitment was to regional peace, including working towards a resolution of the Palestinian question. "Our message in the region is clear: we support efforts that will lead to a peaceful and comprehensive resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the creation of a Palestinian state," said MacKay [cited in "MacKay Says Mideast Peace Requires Joint Efforts," AP/CP, 20 January 2007. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070120/mackay_mideast_070120/20070120?hub=Canada]. Absent was any hint that Ottawa might even want to consider reiterating any messages about a "measured response."

In the middle of the month International Trade Minister David Emerson went to China with a very simple mandate and message–that Canada was losing out when it came to business opportunities with the Middle Kingdom, and something had to be done to correct the problem. "We’re losing ground in terms of market share, of exports...We’re losing ground in terms of foreign direct investment and our share that’s coming to Canada in a North American context," said Emerson from Beijing. He noted he would meet with business leaders and government officials, also stressing that the issue of human rights was not a major hurdle for those he met who were involved with commerce. He did observe that human rights would be brought up with officials, but implied that this time any communications would be discreet and conducted behind closed doors. "As Canadians, we generally believe in market-based economic development, rules-based trade and the rights of individuals...We see these things as fundamental to eliminating poverty and improving living standards," he said [Emerson cited in "Canada Missing Trade Opportunities with China: Emerson," CP, 16 January 2007. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=0ae7cbcc-e3f6-40b3-bdb0-61d8f2afd545&k=92181].

So is recent Tory diplomacy really or mainly all about trying to get a second chance at making a first impression? Rona Ambrose, former environment minister, may have some thoughts.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-24T11:26:00.000-08:00

Arar, Wilkins, and what Canada should do...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070124/wilkins_arar_070124/20070124?hub=TopStories

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-16T15:20:00.000-08:00

Even more war?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656642/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-14T15:56:00.000-08:00

What’s Going on, eh?

Officials, especially those connected with the military, take whatever opportunity they can when speaking to the media to make the point that our country’s involvement in Afghanistan has raised Canada’s profile. They don’t actually make claims directly, but it seems they would also have us believe that after many decades our nation is reasserting or somehow defining its status as a hard power. The era of Canadian soft power is behind us. Some argue the point that Canadian troops in Afghanistan make it possible for this country to have far greater influence with NATO. Others are content to repeat the mantra that the international community now has no other choice but to take Canada far more seriously.

But what would Tony Blair make of this Canadian posturing? On 12 January 2007 the British Prime Minister delivered a foreign policy speech [BBC, 12 January 2007]. His words amounted to the diplomatic equivalent of contending Britain could both walk and chew gum at the same time. When it comes to radical Islam, he said Britain had to be prepared to continue with a robust foreign policy, and one which had a large role and need for the military. On the other hand, giving over resources for this objective did not mean the UK would be rendered incapable of tackling world poverty, global warming, or peacekeeping missions. Britain had a long and proud peacekeeping tradition, said the PM. But that fact in no way meant that it was somehow impossible to do both; and, Blair stressed London could and should do both war fighting and peacekeeping. He did note that some countries had over the decades found it convenient to degrade their militaries, opting only to project soft power. So for the UK, playing "Globocop" does not mean other strategies and goals are to be abandoned [cited in Rashmee Roshan Lall’s ‘Blair Wants UK to Stay Globocop,’ Times of India, 13 January 2007. Story posted at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest_of_World/Blair_wants_UK_to_stay_globocop/articleshow/1162424.cms].

Was Blair, at any point while speechifying, thinking of Canada? And were any Canadian officials, if they were listening or watching, agreeing with the PM’s analysis of soft power? While Canadian elites may wish to believe we now have much more bargaining ability on the international stage and that this country is well on its way to exercising hard power, recent events say there may be a large measure of doubt concerning our potentialities. To be sure, those in office understand many average Canadians are far more committed to an international role that depends on peacekeeping and reconstruction. And so public relations efforts are periodically trotted out to reassure that constituency, that part of the electorate. Yet over the past days there is mounting evidence that our leaders may understand soft power is mostly what Ottawa actually has in its arsenal.

The world just became much more complicated. On 11 January 2007 US troops entered Iranian consular offices in the Iraqi city of Erbil, taking documents and arresting five Iranian nationals. Earlier, on 7 January 2007 Washington launched air attacks against al-Qaeda bases in Somalia, killing at least eight people but failing to target or wound three key radical leaders. And it was back on 10 January 2007 that US President George Bush spoke to the American people, explaining it was his plan to deal with the civil war in Iraq by sending an additional 21,500 troops to that country. Undoubtedly some scare-monger somewhere is already suggesting the Western world may be only three or four headlines away from reports of the start of the Third World War.

Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor seems very concerned, if not rather worried, about what’s going on. On 12 January 2007, after speaking to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, he observed that Canada is doing about as much as it really can in Afghanistan, and did so by stating he hoped the recent US decision to beef up troops in Iraq did not translate into Washington quitting Afghanistan. Could he be wondering whether or not any unfolding US policies may in fact translate into rough times for Canadian foreign policy in Central Asia? He did note there was absolutely nothing to critique when it came to sending more US forces, so long as the move does not "draw any troops from Afghanistan to reinforce Iraq" [cited in ‘O’Connor Hopes Bush’s Iraq Plan Won’t Drain Afghanistan Force,’ CP, 12 January 2007. Story posted at http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/12/oconnor-troops.html].http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/12/oconnor-troops.html]. And so how much hard power can really be tapped into for the mission in Kandahar? O’Connor, way back on 8 May 2006, said the mission might be extended "basically forever," however doing so would mean no troops for other major projects, including the war-ravaged Darfur region [See O’Connor’s remarks in ‘Peter MacKay Visits Troops in Kandahar’, CBC News, 9 May 2006. Story posted at http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/09/mackay-kandahar-visit.html]. Are O’Connor’s words relevant today?

It was on 7 January 2007 that Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay arrived in Afghanistan to meet with troops and reconstruction teams, and to reassure them of Canadians’ support for their work. He arrived in Kabul and days later, on 9 January, went to Pakistan where he met with officials to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. MacKay also hoped to find ways of keeping al-Qaeda and Taliban supporters from the crisscrossing the border between the two countries, and while balking at a Pakistani suggestion that border territories be mined, he did agree that biometrics, that technologies could be critical in arriving at a solution [See ‘MacKay Rejects Pakistan’s Border Mining Plan,’ CTV News, 9 January 2007. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070109/mackay_pakistan_070109/20070109?hub=TopStories].

There was something very different about this latest visit to Central Asia by a high-ranking Canadian. Just after PM Stephen Harper was elected early last year, he made a visit to Afghanistan, after some days of very public planning. To be sure, the exact timing of his arrival was kept secret, though the trip itself had been advertised well in advance. MacKay’s arrival was a surprise, and his very public agenda suggested something much more than reassuring troops and voicing commitments for reconstruction work needed to be handled. Then again, maybe it’s all about personal style, and little else. Back in May 2006 MacKay went to Afghanistan, and that too was a surprise visit. Nevertheless, this time he did seem to go out of his way to say Canadian efforts were yielding significant progress, and this comes at a time when some high-profile sources argue there is little but doom and gloom: "...an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, an influential journal published by the U.S. Council of Foreign Relations, paints a gloomy picture of NATO efforts in Afghanistan. The article claims rebel attacks are increasing and the opium trade–which helps fund the rebels–exploding" [Cited in ‘MacKay Paints Rosy Picture of Afghan Mission’, CTV News, 7 January 2007. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070107/mackay_afghanistan_070107/20070107?hub=Canada].

MacKay travels to the Middle East later this month.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send cmments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-13T09:06:00.000-08:00

Canada's border security:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16601121/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-11T21:46:00.000-08:00

Labour practices, security, and foreign affairs:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070111/bell_helicopter_070111/20070111?hub=TopStories

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-07T14:07:00.000-08:00

Surprise, surprise. MacKay goes to Kabul:

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=c817ece6-d07e-4912-b79f-49dc802cc6a8

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-05T08:41:00.000-08:00

The New Tory:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=8703009c-6e84-427e-baeb-97ef1c129714&k=37570

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2007-01-05T00:31:00.000-08:00

The Harper Shuffle:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070104.wxcabinet5/BNStory/specialComment/home

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-12-30T12:05:00.000-08:00

“Their Courage and Commitment”

There was very little that was as important to him. In a year end message to Canadians Prime Minister Harper tells us that, “for me, the highlight of 2006 was visiting our troops, diplomats and aide workers in Afghanistan…We should be very proud of... their courage and commitment, of their skill and professionalism. Through their selfless acts, these brave men and women are protecting our security interests and making a real difference in the lives of the long-suffering Afghan people.” Governor General Michaelle Jean, in her remarks said, “My thoughts are especially with our soldiers in Afghanistan and their loved ones who have endured great hardship. Indeed, they are making great sacrifices” [observations by Harper and Jean cited in Terry Pedwell’s ‘Afghanistan Prominent in PM, G-G Messages,’ CP, 29 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b9e22b44-8d84-48a8-ba41-538ee9b8b7a5&k=62978].

In Afghanistan itself, NATO’s Operation Baaz Tsuka, slated to have been wrapped up before Christmas, goes on. So far, there has been little Taliban resistance, but that may change in coming days. There may be fighting, perhaps serious. According to one account from earlier this week, “the NATO-led offensive is expected to intensify this week as soldiers continue to sweep the area of the former Taliban stronghold area…The National Post reported that troops involved in Baaz Tsuka were still in the thick of things when they paused for Christmas dinner - served by Canadian General Rick Hiller and comedian Rick Mercer” [Danielle Godard’s ‘Canada: Afghanistan Mission ‘Will Intensify’,’ AHN, 26 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005961738].

PM Harper, at least once this past week, confessed “to just love the job” in government. How long he gets to stay in office, some analysts suggest, may depend mostly if not entirely on his handling of two policies: That is “While public policy experts and kitchen-table pundits can argue over the merits of Conservative policy on income trusts, Quebec nationhood, Senate reform and targeted program cuts, early indications suggest it’s a pair of big, intractable issues - Afghanistan and the environment - that could dominate the coming year and make life miserable for whoever is at the wheel” [from Bruce Cheadle’s ‘Environment, Afghanistan Could be Biggest Challenge for Harper in 2007,’ CP, 30 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=63c818e5-eacc-4d76-ab8a-c2ea9f36a44e&k=40634].

Almost certainly Afghanistan will make life difficult for anyone in office for most of 2007. Yet will this issue really have a decisive impact during the upcoming campaign? In some ways the recent reactions of the opposition may prove a windfall for Harper. Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, just weeks ago, threatened to introduce a no confidence motion because of the Tories’ handling of the war in Central Asia. Seemingly in no time did he back away from the threat of bringing down the government over Afghanistan, and found himself explaining that in fact his position had been either misunderstood or misrepresented [See Duceppe Interview on Question Period, CTV, 24 December 2006]. And for his part, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has already said restrictions should be placed on how Afghanistan might be treated during the campaign. In fact, he specified it should not be a major issue, stating, “It is certainly something we need to discuss. Today the country was receiving half of our international aid, almost, and we have a lot of soldiers risking their lives, and we need to be sure that the mission is well designed. But again I think the main focus of the campaign should be how to strengthen our economy, how to become competitive in this very difficult world.” As one account of his remarks observes, it does seem to be the case Dion “doesn’t believe Canadians should go to the polls solely over Canada’s role in Afghanistan and said it won't likely be a top issue during a campaign” [This observation and Dion’s remarks from the 24 December 2006 Question Period interview cited in CTV News, 24 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061224/opposition_leaders_061224/20061224?hub=Qperiod]. Will Harper place any restrictions on himself should Afghanistan surface, or can and might he somehow opt to define it as a major campaign issue?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-12-26T10:02:00.000-08:00

And another war...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16356501/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-12-23T15:19:00.000-08:00

Year End, New Preparations

As 2006 draws to a close, there are signs some issues may be resolved, while others will linger, perhaps for many years to come.

Maher Arar is back in the news, and was on the agenda when Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay met with his US counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, in Washington on 21 December 2006. Arar’s case, an irritant in Canada-US bilateral relations came about because “the RCMP passed false and inflammatory reports about Mr. Arar's supposed ties to terrorists to U.S. officials — bad intelligence that very likely was used to deport the Canadian man from the United States to Syria, where he was tortured” [cited in Tenille Bonoguore’s ‘U.S. to Reexamine Its Stand on Arar,’ Globe and Mail Update, 21 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061221.wrice1221/BNStory/National/home]. In Canada, a Commission of Inquiry investigated what happened to Arar, clearing him of any wrongdoing. MacKay said on Thursday he communicated this to Rice, noting that Arar now has no restrictions imposed on his abilities to travel insofar as Canada is concerned, and that he is no longer on any watch lists. MacKay urged that the US follow the Canadian lead. However, Washington continues to maintain that there is justification for keeping Arar on a watch list, though the information supporting this conclusion remains classified. What MacKay might have received was a pledge that “The United States will re-examine its decision to include Maher Arar as a person of interest on its security watch list following a meeting [with]…Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” ” [cited in Tenille Bonoguore’s ‘U.S. to Reexamine Its Stand on Arar,’ Globe and Mail Update, 21 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061221.wrice1221/BNStory/National/home]. And so it is at last possible there may be, perhaps once some legal obstacles are cleared, closure for Mr. Arar.

The environment, missing from Tory planning, will likely make a resurgence in 2007, especially as an election date draws nearer. It appears Harper’s Conservatives gave little, if any, thought to environmental issues when they took office early this year, simply assuming rhetoric about Kyoto’s shortcomings and pledges to do more than previous Liberal governments would galvanize enough of the electorate and neutralize any serious opposition. Rona Ambrose’s performance in the Environment portfolio has demolished any and all hopes that environmental policies might be shunted aside, presumably to fade away. Not only has her handling of her ministry triggered waves of domestic opposition, but has raised protests internationally. Now rumours say she will lose her job, possibly very early in the new year.

Among the first to find opportunity in Ambrose’s failings is Stephane Dion, new leader of the Liberals, selected at a party convention on 2 December 2006. Dion, according to some a “green Liberal” and himself a former federal environment minister, likely studied both the very best polling evidence and Ambrose’s tenure, reaching the conclusion that stressing the environment should win many votes. In fact he has already “put the environment at the forefront of his campaign from the get-go, proclaiming sustainable development to be the Liberals’ ‘third pillar’ alongside fiscal responsibility and social justice” [cited in Philippe Gohier’s ‘Missing all the Fun: Rona Ambrose has taken a beating for her party’s environmental policies. Is she about to lose her job just as the Tories go green?’ Macleans.ca, 21 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/national/article.jsp?article=2006_12_19_1166563191]. And so, in any attempt to undo what Ambrose may have done, Stephen Harper and a revamped environment policy team may have to be prepared to link green issues and foreign policy, if only to counter any headway Dion may make in the upcoming (spring?) election.

Towards the end of the year Governor General Michaelle Jean went on a 24-day, 5-country tour of Africa. During that time, on 10 December, she met with members of Canada’s armed forces in Morocco. “I think it was very important for me to come and encourage them,” she said. Yet her visit was most striking in how it recalled Canadian foreign policy traditions, especially those of peacekeeping and most especially generosity. Jean remarked at one point that not only was Canadian donor aid important to Africa’s well-being, but that it was making a profound difference, perhaps even being a main driver of what is described as an “African renaissance.” Certainly there were problems in Africa, she insisted, and some conditions remain “very troubling,” but overall Canadians could be sure that the $1.5 billion spent annually was making vital change possible. “There is hope in Africa…A lot of good signs. Good governance, sound economic management, civil societies, men and women, who are very vibrant and who are making credible efforts in order to make the ownership ... of their development” and “African women are really more empowered now,” stressed Jean [Governor General cited in ‘Governor General Visits Canadian Troops at a Stop in Morocco,’ CTV News, 10 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061210/jean_africa_061210/20061210?hub=Qperiod].

And finally, it was in 2006 that Afghanistan at last emerged the main foreign policy story for the media, and likely the main foreign policy preoccupation for the government. Over the past week or so news has surfaced that Canadian troops have once again been involved in fighting across Southern Afghanistan, most recently taking part in Operation Baaz Tsuka. The opposition New Democratic Party and the Bloc have, over the course of this current government, demanded that Ottawa pull away from the military option and refocus on reconstruction in the Central Asian state. Harper’s position, simply, continues to be that doing so is utterly impossible. Reconstruction would be pursued, if only doing so were a realistic possibility. “The emphasis is on the military side because these people are in danger, because the strongest resistance in all of Afghanistan... What am I going to tell them [the soldiers]? Don't shoot? Go out and drop your weapons and start going out and delivering aid? I mean, it’s crazy,” argues the PM. And in the same televised remarks on 21 December 2006 Harper added he sees no chance that current conditions might improve in the foreseeable future. Harper said:

"Obviously we'd like the security situation to improve. Frankly, I don't think it will improve in the next 12 months. .. If we pull out today, if Canada, and those that are carrying the freight -- and there's seven or eight countries in the south that are doing most of the heavy lifting -- if we all leave, my prediction is we'll be back there in less than a decade …The Taliban represents not just a tyrannical force in Afghanistan but one that has made it clear it intends to spread violence and hatred throughout the world and has shown a capacity to do so in the past. I think if we leave, it will only come back to haunt us" [cited in ‘Canada Doesn’t See Safer Afghanistan in Next Year,’ Reuters, 21 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21176872.htm].

Canadians will likely be in Afghanistan for some time yet, and it is not inconceivable for our presence and mission to grow in coming years. Now comes news that the government is investing in new high-tech weaponry as “the Defence Department has agreed to buy six more 155-mm howitzers from British-based BAE Systems Inc. Most of the new guns will shipped overseas and are expected to join a battery from the 2nd battalion, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery from Petawawa, Ont., now deployed in the Kandahar region” [quoted from Murray Brewster’s ‘Canada to Send More High-Tech Guns to Afghanistan in New Year,’ CP, 21 December 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6d1ca270-b9ca-43d5-953d-cc9bec16f343&k=92799].

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-12-23T11:50:00.000-08:00

Canadian comedy goes to Afghanistan:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2006/12/11/critch-rockets.html

http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=36453

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-12-17T17:00:00.000-08:00

France's stay over?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061217/ap_on_re_as/france_afghanistan

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-12-05T18:01:00.000-08:00

Does Canada have an opinion?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-30T00:50:00.000-08:00

Call NATO “in Case of Emergency,” or Leaders Salute Captain Spaulding

The great American and comic genius Groucho Marx used to say “I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.”

On 29 November leaders from NATO countries wrapped up a two-day gathering in Riga, Latvia. Dominating the agenda and coverage of the event was the crisis in Afghanistan. This was to be expected; the war in Central Asia is the most important test of alliance unity facing the organization in years, if not in its entire 57-year history.

But perhaps even as ultimately important to the fate and future of NATO was what happened when discussion turned to the Balkans. Both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom dropped their insistence that Serbia’s and Bosnia’s association be barred until such time as those Southeast European states muster and demonstrate full cooperation with The Hague War Crimes Tribunal. And so the door has been opened to Sarajevo and Belgrade taking their first limited steps to membership, with leaders suggesting other Balkan countries may be invited to join in 2008. Of course, NATO leaders were quick to add that their actions were principled, and should in no way be interpreted to mean or even suggest they intend to be turning soft on the matter of Balkan war crimes, or on the need for accused war criminals to be brought to justice.

But the immediate test of unity and dominating talks was Afghanistan. Thus far the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Canada, along with the United States have put up with the brunt of fighting in Afghanistan’s volatile south. The plan, as Canada’s Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor has said over and over again in the past few months, was to entice other NATO partners to do their share for the effort. And it is precisely here that this latest NATO summit demonstrates how weak the organization has grown, and why there is an urgent need to continue with a membership drive, attracting whatever candidates may be willing or wanting to join.

To be sure, the selling job that NATO is doing is nothing short of spectacular. According to the latest dispatches, there is nothing but agreement, consensus, and the commitment to the war effort in Afghanistan is solid. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer summed up what’s going on noting, “it is winnable, it is being won, but not yet won.” The wording of a declaration agreed to by all 26 member nations observed, “We are committed to an enduring role to support the Afghan authorities, in cooperation with other international actors.” But British Prime Minister Tony Blair had stated bluntly NATO “credibility” was indeed “on the line” over Afghanistan. Eventually staunch hold-outs of additional troop deployment, including Italy, France and Germany did make concessions; however, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably the biggest opponent of any additional deployments did make clear German troops would not be shipped out of Afghanistan’s tranquil northern region except on a case by case basis and only “in case of emergency” [Citations in this paragraph from Caren Bohan and Marcin Grajewski’s piece ‘NATO Leaders Commit to Afghanistan for Long Haul,’ Reuters, 29 November 2006. Story posted at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061129/ts_nm/nato_summit_dc. For additional detail and background on the position taken by Italy, Spain, France and Germany see Paul Ames’ ‘NATO Can’t Agree on Afghan Troop Role,’ AP, 29 November 2006. Story posted at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_re_eu/nato_summit].

And so what in the end did take place was that “NATO leaders…[articulated] their determination on Wednesday to prevail over Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan while offering only small increases in troop levels and flexibility" [Cited in Sarah Edmonds and Mark John’s ‘NATO Leaders Determined to Succeed in Afghanistan,’ Reuters, 28 November 2006. Story posted at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061129/ts_nm/nato_summit_dc]. What happened was a victory for public diplomacy. As for unity and resolve? They may well be tested in the coming years, if not months and weeks. So far Canadian officials, including PM Harper, have seemed upbeat when commenting on what was accomplished in Riga [See, for example, Paul Koring’s ‘Meeting of the Minds: Bush and Harper Face Uphill Battles on the World Stage,” The Globe and Mail, 29 November 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061129.HARPER29/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/]. However, it was retired General Lewis MacKenzie who was among the first to go on record in speaking to the CBC noting circumstances may not be altogether rosy. According to the General, there are 32,000 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and the country “needs 30,000 more troops… We've got to dig in and protect the area we've taken from the bad guys. Our guys are kind of pinned to the ground and can't exploit success” [‘NATO Needs More Soldiers in Afghanistan,’ CBC News, 29 November 2006. Story posted at http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/29/nato-react.html].

By the way, Groucho also once said: “Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.”

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-28T00:12:00.000-08:00

A Month of Public Diplomacy

There may come a day when observers look back and note November 2006 might have been a defining time for this Tory government.

At last, finally, over the past three weeks or so, a foreign policy has begun to take shape. Several developments occurred, and taken together they bring up three very important questions. First, has Canada, after nearly a year of Harper administration and just over two years of Paul Martin dithering, finally come up with an actual foreign policy plan? Second, is this agenda, if in fact there is one, nothing more than public rhetoric with little or no substance to back it up? And finally, will Ottawa’s commitments in Afghanistan in any way constrain, limit, or impact any initiatives that seem to be surfacing?

There’s the case of North Korea. Around the middle of the month Marius Grinius, Ambassador to Seoul, travelled to Pyongyang with the very specific mission of trying to help pressure the North into walking away from its nuclear arms program and returning to talks with the international community. David Mulroney, a Harper advisor on foreign affairs, summed up Ottawa’s aim: “We've dispatched our ambassador to Pyongyang…to deliver a strong message to North Koreans to ask them to cease, to give up their weapons and return to the six-party talks” [for the reference to Mulroney’s statement and details of the story see Jennifer Ditchburn’s ‘Canadian Ambassador in North Korea to Press Anti-nuke Message’, CP, 18 November 2006. Story posted at http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11/18/2404943-cp.html]. But just how much of Canada’s initiative was merely reaction to Washington pressure? At the time Grinius’ trip North made headlines, news broke that American officials were interested in having Canadian ships, in having “the Canadian Navy's help patrolling the high seas and searching cargo vessels for illicit nuclear material going to or from North Korea.” While Ottawa could agree North Korea needed to back down from its nuclear program, officials were “not yet ready to announce details of any deployment of ships” [cited in Jeff Sallot’s ‘U.S. Asks Canada to Help Restrain N. Korea,’ The Globe and Mail, 18 November 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061117.NUKES17/TPStory/TPInternational/America/].

And then there are dealings with Beijing. Over a week ago Foreign Minister Peter MacKay assured Canadians relations with the Middle Kingdom were not “deteriorating.” In fact, he said: “We have good relations with China. We value that country as we do other countries. They are a major power when it comes to the economic relations that we deal with…Of course we're, at the same time ... duty-bound, I would suggest, to raise issues of concern, whether they be human rights issues, whether they be consular cases” [Cited in ‘Relations with China Aren’t Deteriorating: MacKay,’ CTV News, 19 November 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061118/korean_visit_061119/20061119?hub=TopStories]. But…

…It was at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Vietnam that strains in the relationship appeared. On 19 November 2006 PM Harper finally met with Chinese President Hu Jintao, for a pull-aside. Indications were that a dialogue between Harper and Hu was to have taken place days earlier, but Beijing balked, reportedly taking issue with the Canadian side intending to raise the topic of human rights. And when the meeting finally did take place, it lasted about fifteen minutes. Harper used the occasion to discuss the case of Huseyincan Celil, a Canadian citizen originally from China imprisoned by Beijing on suspicion of having ties to Muslim radicals in Xinjiang province. Was the exchange a friendly one? According to Harper, he had “a very frank discussion with President Hu of China, [and] a distinct impression, if I may say that, that the Chinese aren't used to that from a Canadian government, but I can’t speak for them…The fact of the matter is that neglecting human rights has not opened a lot of doors either. Obviously we don't think you get anywhere by short changing your values” [Harper cited in Wikinews, 20 November 2006. Story posted at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper_meets_with_Chinese_President_Hu_Jintao_during_APEC_summit].

And next came input from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. On 23 November 2006 he made public an economic plan that included the observation that “there may be rare occasions when a particular foreign investment might damage Canada's long-term interests.” Some observers state this is aimed directly at China. According to at least one report, some “analysts say the Conservatives are especially worried about China gaining too much of a foothold in Alberta, where at least two Chinese companies already hold small stakes in oil sands interests” [Cited in ‘Tories Consider Blocking Some Foreign Investment,’ CTV News, 25 November 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061125/foreign_investors_061125/20061125?hub=Canada].

And finally there’s the case of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, who recently showed what other Tories, perhaps even Stephen Harper, may have to learn. Before attending November’s UN Climate Conference, Ambrose’s running commentaries about what would constitute action for the Environment portfolio consisted of savaging ongoing initiatives and blaming the previous Liberal administration for anything that was wrong with the environment. As public diplomacy, the strategy proved an utter failure. For instance, Ambrose had major problems with the Kyoto Accord, dismissing it as unworthy at worst or unworkable at best. She had particular issues with Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism or CDM “under which industrial countries can earn emissions credits by financing clean technology projects in developing countries,” insisting CDM “is little more than a recipe for corruption and wasted money.” But Ambrose’s problem and undoing was that almost nobody else in the world agreed, and what might be said to a target audience in Canada for domestic consumption amounted to diplomatic suicide once peddled in an international forum. Over the past months Europe, continuing to cite Canada as among the worst polluters, intensified criticism following several of Ambrose’s November performances.

So is there any hope that Ambrose and the rest of the Tory Caucus will respond with concrete actions? Is a policy change in the offing? Well, that’s unlikely. But what is certain is that rhetoric has changed as a result of Ambrose having learned lessons about public diplomacy. By late mid-month, she “indicated strong interest in the European Union's experiment in international emissions trading, a program which she has in the past described as a failure. Her officials say there are plans for a Canada-EU workshop on the topic as early as next month.” She also said Canada may come to rely on CDM, and while not necessarily embracing Kyoto did remark she was studying it and “learning” [All citations in this paragraph and the paragraph immediately preceding taken from ‘Ambrose Drops Hints that Canada’s Position on Kyoto may Be Changing,’ CP, 20 November 2006. Story posted at http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=2457194].

Lessons? Paul Martin found out, the hard way, that a bilateral relationship with a neighbour, once mismanaged and neglected, could contribute to ending one’s career. All signs are that Stephen Harper has learned from his predecessor’s mistakes. And does November show the current PM’s aim is to expose the world to an aggressive Canadian diplomacy? If so, he will first learn that events outside Ottawa and far away from Cabinet meetings may be well beyond his ability to even influence. Current developments suggest the world is about to become far more complicated. At least three potentially major conflicts are threatening to break out across the Middle East. A proxy war may be unfolding in and around Somalia. Media are only starting to report the obvious, —that a civil war, perhaps a year old already, is destabilizing Iraq. And then there’s Afghanistan. So if the Tories manage to stay in power, will they come to learn and even respect the limitations of middle power diplomacy?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-25T21:28:00.000-08:00

Is your investment welcome in Canada? Money, morality, and foreign policy...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061125/foreign_investors_061125/20061125?hub=Canada

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-22T08:30:00.000-08:00

President George Bush="Dangerous Internationalist"? What's PM Stephen Harper's part in all this?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061122.REPO22-2/TPStory/TPInternational/America/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-20T14:20:00.000-08:00

The key to world security?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15811697/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-18T10:58:00.000-08:00

Canada goes North

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-11-18T132919Z_01_PEK256174_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-KOREA-NORTH-CANADA-COL.XML

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061117.NUKES17/TPStory/TPInternational/America/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-17T08:59:00.000-08:00

Just like Gouzenko?

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,9294,2-10-1462_2031716,00.html

Maybe

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/cdn-spies.html

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-11-12T13:45:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan and Rising Violence (violence x "fourfold"):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-10-31T13:22:00.000-08:00

Foreign Policy, or Peter and Belinda?

“Don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.”
--Basil Fawlty (John Cleese)

Are we close to a federal vote, say maybe 6-8 months away? The fact that minority governments traditionally last under two years says this may be the case. The fact that politicians are not really talking about Afghanistan may be another sign.

In the US, where mid-term elections are about a week away, we may be witnessing something that could materialize when Canadians go to the polls. Both Democrats and Republicans find themselves steering away from talking Iraq, suggesting those vying for office may hold opinions about the conflict that diverge, and significantly, from what many in the public are thinking and worrying about. In other words, the majority of Democrats and some Republicans, while perhaps critical of how the Iraq campaign is being handled, may already have concluded involvement in the war must go on, thereby reducing the need for a broader public debate or input. In this climate, the more voters can be focussed on social issues, the better—at least for those, most especially incumbents, running for office. And if the subject of war cannot be avoided altogether, then debating or talking about it just might be left for “the campaign's final week” [See David Espo’s ‘Dems Counter Bush Attack with Iraq Ads,’ AP, 30 October 2006. Story posted at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061031/ap_on_go_pr_wh/election_rdp].

In recent days Canadians have been served up media saturation of an incident in which Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay allegedly insulted former love interest and current Liberal MP Belinda Stronach. Is this the kind of issue that may provide a preview of any upcoming campaign? It is a social issue, impacting many ordinary people who found offence in what took place.

The time so far spent by the political elite dealing with Peter and Belinda has been so great, even the Speaker is been made weary: “Commons Speaker Peter Milliken has bowed out of the dispute between Belinda Stronach and Peter MacKay, saying it's not his job to decide who's telling the truth in the tangled affair…Milliken refused today to refer the matter to a committee for further investigation, or to demand an apology from MacKay.” And all this is happening because some members of the opposition insist, while the minister denies, “MacKay suggested during a raucous exchange two weeks ago that Stronach, his onetime girlfriend, is a dog” [cited in “Speaker Done with MacKay-Stronach Affair,” CP, 30 October 2006. Story posted at http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/10/30/2176083-cp.html].

But couldn’t the Foreign Affairs Minister be speaking about Afghanistan instead of arguing he slighted no one? There appear to be compelling reasons to do so. Canada’s commander in southern Afghanistan, Brigadier General David Fraser, who is handing over command to Major General Ton Van Loon of the Netherlands on 1 November 2006, explains why more discussion may be badly needed. In an interview, Fraser tells us “This environment [in southern Afghanistan] is more dangerous than I've ever seen anywhere else in the world…Over here, everybody is a target. The Taliban respects nobody. A reporter, the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN, military, Afghan. Everybody is an equal target of opportunity for them” [Fraser cited in ‘Canada’s Top Soldier Hands over Command,’ CP, 30 October 2006. Story posted at http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2006/10/30/2175174-sun.html].

Or does General Fraser account for why Canadians may hear even less and less about geopolitical hot zones? After a sudden rise in Canadian casualties some months ago, Tory support slipped and subsequently plunged, only beginning to rise in the past few weeks, and following a rather lengthy period of Conservatives dealing publicly as little as possible with Afghanistan and the war. The Tories are committed to the mission, as is the Liberal Party. Should Michael Ignatieff become the next Liberal leader, it may prove difficult if not impossible to distinguish his position on Afghanistan from PM Stephen Harper’s. Any Harper-Ignatieff pairing in the next election will push Afghanistan out of the limelight.

But what about the other federal party, the New Democratic Party? Won’t Jack Layton want to talk about the war? After all, until about a month ago Layton had been the most vocal about what needs to be changed in Afghanistan. He has talked about retooling the mission; focussing on diplomacy and reconstruction; finding a role for the principles of conflict resolution and peacekeeping; and has even injected an element of realpolitik into the public dialogue by stating many Afghan groups, including those viewed as hostile, may be brought into discussions if the cause of peace might be advanced. All this, while true, is very far from meaning the NDP wants to take on Afghanistan as the main issue in the next election. Furthermore, the NDP, at least for now, has stayed very far away from suggesting that it even wants to court the anti-war vote, a constituency that may be rather large in Canada. Instead, the party has opted to deal with the war as a means of simply testing for a public response of sympathy for party positions/platforms. The NDP has not invited debate; it has merely sought out reactions that may serve to inform the party of what posture to take when and if the issue of the war arises. The NDP, in other words, appears not to be seeking policy inputs, but public reactions that might show what already formulated positions will be the most marketable.

In short, in order for foreign policy, and especially the mission in Afghanistan, to have a defining impact in the next election, two obstacles need to be cleared. First, the war needs to become at least as much a focus as social issues. This is next to impossible, though not completely out of the question. Second, the way in which parties formulate their policy will have to change. And to even think this might change would require much, much more than a leap of faith. The connection between interest groups who create policies marketed to parties will define how and if Afghanistan appears in the public domain, with the voting population existing as the arena for test marketing those policies. Individuals will be asked to react to policies, and not to debate them. A leader or candidate demanding an opinion that requires only a yes or no response is not inviting discussion, merely soliciting a reaction. We may be asked: Do we need to be in Afghanistan? Should we set a timetable for withdrawal? Should we be bound by any timetable? Should Canadians be peacekeepers? None of these types of questions demand debate, requiring only the yes or no reaction.

If any leader or candidate might really want public input, she or he might ask us: why exactly was the decision to get involved in Afghanistan made and what might be the consequences of a withdrawal? This, however, simply will not happen. Foreign Affairs Minister MacKay might have a very prominent role in the elections. But no one should be surprised if we best remember his participation in terms of appearances in Liberal attack ads featuring Belinda Stronach.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-10-29T14:31:00.000-08:00

Where Were We?

About six months ago the price of a barrel of oil was reaching $75US and set to go higher. According to many analysts, the possible geopolitical problems posed by Iran and that country’s determination to join the nuclear club meant at least a $15 premium had to be included in the oil price. And so where are we today? A barrel of oil has slipped under $60, just might dip even further before rebounding later this autumn, but Iran is still Iran. Teheran does not have the bomb, nor is likely to acquire one in the very near future, but “Iran officially confirmed that it has stepped up uranium enrichment by injecting gas into a second network of centrifuges, a state-run newspaper reported Saturday” [cited in AP, 28 October 2006. Story posted at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15444915/].

And there’s North Korea. Back on 9 October 2006 Pyongyang authorities announced they had successfully tested a nuclear device. At first there was speculation this event might trigger the collapse of the world system: there would be an Asian arms race; the international community might attempt to blockade; or, the international power dynamic had shifted with a new multi-polar global system poised to replace existing realities in no time. By 11 October it became clear world civilizations would not melt down, and the goings on of rather low-key public diplomacy came to dominate headlines. There was even suggestion that the rather muted blast detected by several nations and certainly emanating from North Korea might not have been nuclear at all. The explosion was far too small, a sign that either something had gone wrong or that the test had consisted of nothing more than a conventional device, with the North striving to con the international community into thinking otherwise. But now there is confirmation, and Pyongyang has the bomb. “South Korea said it verified that North Korea's bomb test on Oct. 9 was nuclear, backing up an earlier confirmation by the United States…South Korea reached that conclusion through analysis of tremor wave data, by detecting traces of radioactive matter, and by looking at data provided by the U.S. government…” [“South Korea Verifies North Korea’s Oct. 9 Bomb Test as Nuclear” by Heejin Koo, Bloomberg, 25 October 2006. Story posted at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a4SJrfl6KYzw&refer=japan]. And North Korea is still North Korea.

But what’s really going on? Some reports suggest some parts of the West may be attempting to take a step back from war. The world may be just as unstable as it was six months ago, perhaps even more, but can or will diplomacy take over as the means for conflict resolution? Are some politicians sincere when they suggest changing plans or approaches in war zones and potential war zones is happening right now?

Canada’s work in Afghanistan has been directed by the PM and, one may argue, Defence. Foreign Affairs, while having some interests in Central Asia, is far from playing as important a role. Over the past several months Tory officials, including Minister O’Connor, have underscored the significance of the Canadian military effort, usually making the point by stressing other NATO countries may need to step up their involvement, especially in Afghanistan’s violent southern regions. But there are times when Ottawa seems to want to downplay war fighting. There is hope, rebuilding, and peace that can be offered Afghanistan’s downtrodden. For instance, on 22 October 2006 media reported that Josee Verner, “Canada's international co-operation minister paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan mere days after Canadian funding of reconstruction work in that country came under criticism” [cited in “Minister Visits Afghanistan for Aid Announcement,” CTV News, 22 October 2006]. While there to show support for troops and reconstruction workers, Verner also did meet with school children, had a photo-op, and announced projects in Afghanistan would receive an additional $10 million in funding.

But to actually take a step back from war? Is such a thing really possible? Some seem to think so. And those who advocate walking away are not just peace protesters. Only a few weeks ago, General Richard Dannatt, Britain’s new chief of the army, said UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Iraq policies were “naïve” and “called for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems…” [Cited in AP, 12 October 2006]. Could Dannatt’s remarks be sage advice for Canadians in Afghanistan?

In 2006 Canadian casualties in Afghanistan mount. Over at least the past two months there have been suggestions that time is running out on efforts to win over Afghani hearts and minds, and that any further delays in doing so may result in local populations embracing and welcoming back the Taliban. Any arguments for a Taliban resurgence seem to say that the violence to date may pale in comparison to what might yet come. And then there is Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who, on or around 22 October 2006 warned the coming months may be the bloodiest yet for foreign troops [CTV News, 22 October 2006]. Even Al-Qaeda is warning Canada to move its military out of Afghanistan “or face terrorist attacks similar to 9/11, Madrid and the London transit bombings…The text of the threat suggests that al-Qaeda is aware of divisions within Canada over the mission, pointing to public opinion polls and opposition within Parliament” [cited in Stewart Bell’s “Al-Qaeda Warns Canada,” National Post, 28 October 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=e9f20f44-ec19-470c-9ac3-6c79218d4d91&k=70612]…

…And so Afghanistan is still Afghanistan.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-10-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

Foreign Minister Peter MacKay urges a cautious approach, but stresses North Korea's nuclear test is "very alarming":

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061009.wcdnreax09/BNStory/Front

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-10-08T12:48:00.000-07:00

Stephen Harper and a scripted Peter MacKay tell us things can work out in Afghanistan. Sure, they admit there are grave, serious problems; however, the bigger picture suggests things may be either fine or can and will work out. So who is this General Richards? What is he really saying, why is he saying it, and does he really know what he's talking about?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061008/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-10-03T07:31:00.000-07:00

"Poles (polls) are for dogs"?

Peter MacKay says:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061002.wmackay02/BNStory/National/home

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-09-30T20:20:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-29T13:50:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-02T08:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-30T12:36:00.000-07:00

Jack and Gilles

If you thought Canada’s military is overstretched, under funded, and barely capable of making its commitments in places like Afghanistan, you’d be wrong. At least, that could be what NDP leader Jack Layton might have you believe. Layton, who used to advocate that Ottawa needs to send peacekeepers to Darfur, has accessed “an internal government document obtained through access to information laws that he said shows that Canada has military capacity to spare.” Good news for Darfur? Well, not necessarily, as Layton now argues Ottawa could dispatch up to 1,200 peacekeepers to help enforce the Lebanon ceasefire. “We have the capacity, but the prime minister hasn't said so…We have asked the Harper government to, first of all, tell the truth.” According to Harper, Canadians are demanding that peacekeeping role in the Middle East: “It's an important objective for Canadians…They want Canada to be concerned with peacekeeping” [CP, 28 August 2006. Story posted at CTV News at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060828/lebanon_troops_060828/20060828?hub=Canada].

Before this July, chances were that no parliamentary leader would think too seriously of turning his attention to foreign affairs as way of lifting party fortunes at the Tories’ expense. But Layton isn’t the only one to come to the conclusion that exploiting foreign policy issues may help at the polls.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Gilles Duceppe, now says the honeymoon with the Conservatives is over. And, he insists, the Tories have no one to blame but themselves and their “amateurism.” In fact, Duceppe suggests Tory ineptitude will prompt Quebec voters to re-examine their support for the Harper government, and when the next election is called Conservatives should not be surprised if their base in La Belle Province were to evaporate.

This time, it isn’t only social policy that might sink Harper. According to Duceppe, Harper is making critical errors in foreign policy, mistakes which promise only to alienate the PM from the average Quebec voter. “He’s [Harper’s] aligning himself more and more with (U.S. President George) Bush and that goes against Quebec’s values,” says Duceppe. It is the cocktail, the combination of social and foreign policies that may prove lethal: “Duceppe cited as examples the war in Afghanistan, Harper’s rejection of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the idea of making 10-year-olds criminally responsible and the unresolved problem of the so-called fiscal gap between the federal government and the provinces. ..The Bloc leader also said the war in Lebanon shows the gulf between Quebecers and Harper, who showed strong support for Israel at the start of the month-long war” [cited from ‘Honeymoon Over, Duceppe Tells Harper,’ CP, 28 August 2006. Story reprinted by The Toronto Star and posted at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1156758429034&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News].

But just how well would Duceppe fare in a foreign policy debate? Undoubtedly he would not be without his critics. Already his appearance in Montreal on 6 August 2006 at what has been dubbed a “pro-Hezbollah” demonstration has attracted attention and drawn fire. Alan Baker, Israel’s ambassador to Canada, upbraided the Bloc leader for his participation in the rally, sending a letter noting “shock and disappointment” and saying “I find it inconceivable that the leader of a major Canadian political party lends support and associates his name and that of his party, to a demonstration that glorifies a terror organization that has been outlawed in Canada and that shamelessly seeks the elimination of the state of Israel” [quoted in John Ward’s ‘Israeli Ambassador Blasts Bloc Leader for Joining Hezbollah March,’ CP, 15 August 2006. Story reprinted in The National Post and posted at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cab5bb68-304d-454d-ba46-e38893829eec&k=46662].

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-08-28T06:41:00.000-07:00

In Trouble?

There may be a very good reason why Canadian politicians are reluctant to talk about foreign policy, openly or otherwise. Very simply, when they attempt to do so, they often manage to find themselves in trouble with either the public or their party, or with both their party and public.

Earlier this month PM Stephen Harper seemed to be floundering. He made remarks during the 34-day Israeli-Hezbollah conflict that caused his popularity to dwindle and, some suggested, make it next to impossible for him to hope to form a majority government, either now or way off in the future. Very briefly, Harper, in acknowledging that Israel had a right to self-defence, observed that country had taken a “measured” response against Hezbollah. He made the remarks shortly after conflict erupted on 12 July 2006, but as the war dragged on, fewer and fewer Canadians seemed to share this opinion, triggering the slide in Tory fortunes.

But it was until about the 22nd of August that the Liberals had a deputy foreign affairs critic; his name is Borys Wrzesnewskyj. In late August, he was in Vancouver attending a Liberal Party retreat, an event that ought not to have fuelled negative press for the party. But the Ontario MP, who had only a week or so earlier gone to Lebanon on a fact finding mission, bravely, perhaps misguidedly, ventured an opinion on the Middle East which included the foreign policy insight that Canada might wish to consider holding talks with Hezbollah. The trouble, and perhaps Wrzesnewskyj was unaware, is that Hezbollah, under Canadian law, is deemed a terrorist organization.

Reaction to what Wrzesnewskyj said was immediate, scathing, and almost all of it came from fellow Liberals. Interim Liberal leader Bill Graham, referring indirectly to what had happened, simply observed that Liberals support the policy of keeping Hezbollah where it belongs—squarely on the terror list. But at least two contenders for the party leadership, Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett, demanded the deputy resign, and that he do so at once. Matters were not helped when some media began reporting that Wrzesnewskyj had advocated legal changes which would amount to removing Hezbollah from the list, an allegation and reports that the now former deputy critic flatly denied. The Liberal party image was even further tarnished when Tories noticed their opportunity [for a much more detailed account of the background presented here, see ‘Liberal Caucus Retreat Turns Into Middle East Debate,’ CTV News, 22 August 2006].

And so Tory MP Jason Kenney, parliamentary secretary to the PM, simply said, for the public record, that Liberal blundering showed for all to see just how unqualified to form a government the Liberal Party of Canada had become. “The Liberal Party of Canada cannot claim to be prepared to be ready to govern Canada if they can't establish a coherent position on such a clear cut issue as the terrorist nature of Hezbollah,” said Kenney, who also likened Hezbollah to the Nazi Party [cited in ‘Liberal Caucus Retreat Turns Into Middle East Debate,’ CTV News, 22 August 2006]. What should have been a quiet retreat and low-key strategy session turned into a very public nightmare for Liberals.

With Wrzesnewskyj gone, some of the notoriety has died down. And his departure came just as suddenly as the malaise he triggered within Liberal ranks. Graham, who had asked his MP to explain the meaning of the comments made, said, “He did that and in the course of doing that, he tendered his resignation as associate critic [of foreign affairs], which I accepted in the circumstances… Therefore, I consider that matter closed” [cited in ‘Wrzesnewskyj Out,’ The Globe and Mail, 24 August 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060824.LIBSBORIS24/TPStory/National].

But what about the Tories? Again, according to some sources Harper’s early position on the Middle East conflict caused support to drain away, especially in Quebec, where “a Léger Marketing poll released July 20 found that… 67 per cent of respondents opposed Prime Minister Harper's (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) decision to support Israel's armed intervention in Lebanon. Thirty-three per cent of the 724 respondents in Quebec supported Mr. Harper's position and 14 per cent did not know” [cited in ‘PM Harper’s Pro-Israel Stance Risks Winning in Quebec,’ by Simon Doyle, in The Hill Times, 31 July 2006. Story republished by Vancouver Indymedia and posted at http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=node/1679]. In reaction, the Tories sought to moderate their tone, at first by having Harper argue his initial “measured” observation was made long before the conflict began widening [see ‘Israel-Lebanon Conflict’ in PM Stephen Harper’s biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper]. Then, for at least a few weeks, Tories attempted to stay mainly clear of the Middle East, and to refocus.

There was, for example, Arctic sovereignty to promote. In early-mid August Harper travelled to Iqaluit, Nunavut to once more make the case that exerting control over Canada’s northern frontier was key now, and destined to become even more critical in future. “This will become more important in the decades to come because northern oil and gas, minerals and other resources of the northern frontier will become ever more valuable,” he said [cited in ‘Harper Says Stronger Presence Needed to Defend Arctic Sovereignty,’ by Dene Moore, CP, 12 August 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=4bf0dc13-4e35-4830-8410-24df652abcdf&k=53643].

Then, either by design or through good fortune, the Tories blundered onto the windfall served up by social issues. In August Harper failed to attend a six-day International AIDS Conference in Toronto, prompting headline writers to “lambaste” the PM for doing so. Dignitaries and high-profile Canadian public figures joined with those making denunciations, describing the PM’s decision as everything from “inappropriate” to “a slap in the face.” UN envoy Stephen Lewis said, “In a very real way it's a slap in the face to the international community of activists and scientists and researchers and advocates and agencies all gathered to deal with the single greatest problem on the planet… Instead he (Harper) sends a surrogate health minister -- it's just profoundly inappropriate and I think it's a measure of the government's commitment to (fighting) the disease” [cited in ‘Harper Lambasted for Skipping AIDS Conference,’ CTV News, 13 August 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060813/aids_conference_060813/20060813?hub=Politics]. For about a week the media dwelt on Harper’s decision to avoid the AIDS conference. And if they found themselves preoccupied with that issue, at least the press wouldn’t be focussed on the Tories and the Middle East.

Some observers and interested parties suggest that given the state of the world and the rising importance of international affairs, foreign policy debates may just find themselves pushed to the top of parliamentary agendas [see, for example, http://www.pej.org/html/print.php?sid=5184]. But one major party has already imploded over foreign affairs, while the other finds itself either incapable or unwilling of making the linkages between foreign policy, advocacy, and public reaction and opinion.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-08-19T20:33:00.000-07:00

And so why drag film, cinema into discussions about world affairs?

Thanks for all the comments, reactions and questions. A few have been wondering about a piece I posted some time ago, linking film and foreign policy. There was also the issue of great war films, and I think I accidentally left Elem Klimov’s Go and See (Idi I smotri) off my list of great war films.

But mostly the questions have been about why link foreign policy and film. I was planning to write a fairly lengthy response, but couldn’t get a brilliant essay out of my thinking. So instead of composing something, I’ll just post this brilliant piece by Michael Kaufman, originally published in The New York Times on 7 September 2003, which should answer most questions.

Michael Kaufman is one of the finest, nicest people you’ll ever meet. He’s also one of the best writers to have ever worked for the NYT. He’s authored several books, including an outstanding biography of George Soros. About a decade ago I had the great pleasure and privilege of working with Michael in Prague. It is with his kind permission that I post his essay, which is as timely right now as it was when it first appeared:

What Does the Pentagon See in 'Battle of Algiers'?

By MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN

CHALLENGED by terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare in Iraq, the Pentagon recently held a screening of ''The Battle of Algiers,'' the film that in the late 1960's was required viewing and something of a teaching tool for radicalized Americans and revolutionary wannabes opposing the Vietnam War.

Back in those days the young audiences that often sat through several showings of Gillo Pontecorvo's 1965 re-enactment of the urban struggle between French troops and Algerian nationalists, shared the director's sympathies for the guerrillas of the F.L.N., Algeria's National Liberation Front.

Those viewers identified with and even cheered for Ali La Pointe, the streetwise operator who drew on his underworld connections to organize a network of terrorist cells and entrenched it within the Casbah, the city's old Muslim section. In the same way they would hiss Colonel Mathieu, the character based on Jacques Massu, the actual commander of the French forces.

The Pentagon's showing drew a more professionally detached audience of about 40 officers and civilian experts who were urged to consider and discuss the implicit issues at the core of the film -- the problematic but alluring efficacy of brutal and repressive means in fighting clandestine terrorists in places like Algeria and Iraq. Or more specifically, the advantages and costs of resorting to torture and intimidation in seeking vital human intelligence about enemy plans.

As the flier inviting guests to the Pentagon screening declared: ''How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.''

The idea came from the Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, which a Defense Department official described as a civilian-led group with ''responsibility for thinking aggressively and creatively'' on issues of guerrilla war. The official said, ''Showing the film offers historical insight into the conduct of French operations in Algeria, and was intended to prompt informative discussion of the challenges faced by the French.'' He added that the discussion was lively and that more showings would probably be held. No details of the discussion were provided but if the talk was confined to the action of the film it would have focused only on the battle for the city, which ended in 1957 in apparent triumph for the French with the killing of La Pointe and the destruction of the network.

But insurrection continued throughout Algeria, and though the French won the Battle of Algiers, they lost the war for Algeria, ultimately withdrawing from a newly independent country ruled by the F.L.N. in 1962.

During the last four decades the events re-enacted in the film and the wider war in Algeria have been cited as an effective use of the tactics of a ''people's war,'' where fighters emerge from seemingly ordinary lives to mount attacks and then retreat to the cover of their everyday identities. The question of how conventional armies can contend with such tactics and subdue their enemies seems as pressing today in Iraq as it did in Algiers in 1957. In both instances the need for on-the-ground intelligence is required to learn of impending attacks.

Even in a world of electronic devices, human infiltration and interrogations remain indispensable, but how far should modern states go in the pursuit of such information? Mr. Pontecorvo, who was a member of the Italian Communist Party, obviously felt the French had gone much too far by adopting policies of torture, brutal intimidation and outright killings. Though their use of force led to the triumph over La Pointe, it also provoked political scandals in France, discredited the French Army and traumatized French political life for decades, while inspiring support for the nationalists among Algerians and in much of the world. It was this tactical tradeoff that lies at the heart of the film and presumably makes it relevant for Pentagon study and discussion.

But this issue of how much force should be used by highly organized states as they confront the terror of less sophisticated enemies is far from simple. For example, what happens when a country with a long commitment to the Geneva Convention has allies who operate without such restriction. Consider the ambivalent views over the years of General Massu, the principal model for the film's Colonel Mathieu.

In 1971, General Massu wrote a book challenging ''The Battle of Algiers,'' and the film was banned in France for many years. In his book General Massu, who had been considered by soldiers the personification of military tradition, defended torture as ''a cruel necessity.'' He wrote: ''I am not afraid of the word torture, but I think in the majority of cases, the French military men obliged to use it to vanquish terrorism were, fortunately, choir boys compared to the use to which it was put by the rebels. The latter's extreme savagery led us to some ferocity, it is certain, but we remained within the law of eye for eye, tooth for tooth.''

In 2000, his former second in command, Gen. Paul Aussaresses, acknowledged, showing neither doubts nor remorse, that thousands of Algerians ''were made to disappear,'' that suicides were faked and that he had taken part himself in the execution of 25 men. General Aussaresses said ''everybody'' knew that such things had been authorized in Paris and he added that his only real regret was that some of those tortured died before they revealed anything useful.

As for General Massu, in 2001 he told interviewers from Le Monde, ''Torture is not indispensable in time of war, we could have gotten along without it very well.'' Asked whether he thought France should officially admit its policies of torture in Algeria and condemn them, he replied: ''I think that would be a good thing. Morally torture is something ugly.''

At the moment it is hard to specify exactly how the Algerian experience and the burden of the film apply to the situation in Iraq, but as the flier for the Pentagon showing suggested, the conditions that the French faced in Algeria are similar to those the United States is finding in Iraq.

According to Thomas Powers, the author of ''Intelligence Wars: American Secret History From Hitler to Al Qaeda'': ''What's called a low-intensity war in Iraq brings terrible frustrations and temptations--the frustrating difficulty of finding and fixing an enemy who could be anyone anywhere, and the temptation to resort to torture to extract the kind of detailed information from prisoners or suspects needed to strike effectively. How the United States is dealing with this temptation is one of the unknowns of the war.

We are told that outright torture is forbidden, and we hope it is true. But as low-intensity wars drag on, soldiers tell themselves, 'We're trying to save lives, no one will ever know, this guy can tell us where the bastards are.' '' If indeed the government is currently analyzing or even weighing the tactical choices reflected in ''The Battle of Algiers,'' presumably that is being done at a higher level of secrecy than an open discussion following a screening of the Pontecorvo film.

Still, by showing the movie within the Pentagon and by announcing that publicly, somebody seems to be raising issues that have remained obscure throughout the war against terror.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-08-12T21:53:00.000-07:00

Reacting to the Middle East crisis:

www.nonviolenceinternational.net

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-08-09T22:40:00.000-07:00

Breaking news, from London:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-08-03T12:13:00.000-07:00

"Deadly Day in Afghanistan"

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=acd97810-21b4-4dbc-a43e-eed398d76636&k=62576

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-07-31T15:17:00.000-07:00

Stephen Martin? Paul Harper?

At last, there are analysts emerging with the argument that Stephen Harper’s Conservative version of foreign policy differs only marginally from the Liberal variant offered up by predecessor Paul Martin. And all it took for this to happen was a major crisis in the Middle East.

Really the only factor that might distinguish the current from the former PM is passion. Harper, the argument goes, is determined, and at all costs, to show solidarity with Washington’s understanding of the ongoing dispute between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Martin may have sympathized with the Americans and Israelis, but his chronic dithering would surely have gotten in the way, derailing or diluting his enthusiasm and commitment. As James Travers notes, “It was Liberals, not Conservatives, who began sliding away from the United Nation's Middle East consensus. Harper only completed a controversial transition that now places Canada alongside George W. Bush in offering what amounts to blanket approval of Israeli actions.” In addition, “an insider's joke circling among diplomats and bureaucrats is that the new government has tilted Canada's support for Israel from the 110 per cent of Paul Martin's era to 150 per cent” [cited in James Travers’ ‘Harper’s Foreign Policy Hits Home’, The Toronto Star, 29 July 2006. Story posted at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154123417327&call_pageid=968332188774].

Last week a stray Israeli bomb killed four UN observers in southern Lebanon, among them one Canadian. Both UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Harper responded immediately. For his part, Annan could not rule out the possibility that the bombing may have been deliberate. And just as quickly, Harper dismissed any notion that it would be possible to conclude there may have been intent, adding the real question to focus on is why observers were left in a war zone.

And so what we may have now is a situation where Stephen Harper and Paul Martin share a common fate. Both ascended to this country’s top political office, but it may yet turn out neither one stays there for very long. It seems not to be policy, not to be substance that endangers careers. Rather, style rules over substance. Martin’s dithering made him erratic, though he clearly felt it necessary to walk away from Jean Chretien’s foreign policy legacy. Stephen Harper, adopting as his own most of what Martin sought to accomplish, appears as a resolute, firm, stubborn PM. Perhaps too firm, too stubborn. Where Martin seemed malleable, Harper now comes across as inflexible and uncompromising. And so, there is speculation that Harper’s posturing during this Middle East crisis may just end up costing him his government. At the very least, it may end up costing him votes in the one province where he seems intent on making the greatest inroads.

According to Simon Doyle, writing for The Hill Times, “Prime Minister Stephen Harper is risking his chances of winning Quebec by taking a pro-Israel position on the Middle East crisis and allying himself closely with the foreign policy of U.S. President George W. Bush, say critics.” Doyle, who does note that governments rarely if ever implode over just a single issue, goes on to point out that “Christian Bourque, vice-president of research at Léger Marketing in Montreal, said the media in Quebec have played up the conflict as ‘World War III’ and Lebanese Canadians have been very vocal…Mr. Bourque said one of the largest Lebanese Canadian communities is in Montreal, which is influencing how the media are relaying the news. The situation has been intensified by the death of a Lebanese-Canadian family of seven visiting Lebanon, who was recently killed in an Israeli air strike, he said” [cited in Simon Doyle, ‘PM Harper’s Pro-Israel Stance Risks Winning Quebec,’ The Hill Times, 31 July 2006. Story posted at http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/july/31/quebec/&c=1].

And some of the latest polling data indeed suggest the Tories may be less endearing to the electorate, and that probably because of their handling of international affairs. According to John Wright, vice president of Ipsos Reid, “the numbers suggest foreign policy has put a dent in Harper's popularity. His government's support dipped most in the three areas of the country Quebec, Atlantic Canada and B.C. which recent polls have shown are most uncomfortable with his Mideast and Afghanistan policies.” Perhaps the news is most painful for the Tories in Quebec, where the Ipsos Reid numbers say the Bloc now has support of 41% of those polled, compared to only 27% for the Conservatives (and 21% for the Liberals). Only months ago, growing speculation hinted Conservative support might overwhelm the Bloc in Quebec. Now nationwide support for the Tories stands at 39%, down from 43% in May. In all, “the drop was 12 points each in B.C. and Atlantic Canada, and six points in Quebec.” Harper may still have a 60% approval rating, but Wright stresses there is “nothing in the poll results [that] should encourage Harper to want an early election” [all citations and Ipsos Reid data cited in this paragraph appear in Norma Greenaway’s ‘Mideast, Afghanistan Underpin Conservative Slip in Polls,’ The National Post, 31 July 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=68958da6-4a40-4887-805e-d2057b99b80a&k=62697].

In the latest developments, Foreign Minister Peter MacKay says “The United Nations could help ‘pave a path to lasting peace’ in the Mideast if the international body approves a proposal to send a large intervention force to southern Lebanon” [‘MacKay Pushes for UN Force,’ CP, 31 July 2006. Story published in The Toronto Star and posted at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1154339411277&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pagepath=News/World]. MacKay, however, does not say if Canada will be directly involved in any peacekeeping, intervention force. In the Middle East, fighting continues into a twentieth day, and Israeli PM Ehud Olmert now says there will be no ceasefire. In neighbouring Syria, President Bashar al-Assad has instructed the country’s army to raise its readiness level, saying his support is with the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-07-17T13:23:00.000-07:00

From the Middle East to Pyongyang

The G-8 has been meeting these past few days, but world events have completely overtaken the significance of that gathering. For PM Stephen Harper, it is his first appearance among some of the most powerful leaders on the planet. Harper, among the newest members of this select group, has played a very low-key role. When the past week is reviewed in future, both Harper’s performance and the whole G-8 affair may well be forgotten.

Nearly seven days ago Israel responded to the cross-border kidnapping of two its soldiers by holding Hezbollah to account. In the time that’s passed, violence has escalated, lives have been lost, and infrastructure in parts of Lebanon has been razed. Now with talk of a ceasefire, there may be, at least temporarily, a stepping back from the brink.

Much of the international community has described Hezbollah’s actions as amounting to terrorism, and Israel’s right to protect itself has been recognized. And Israel has made clear its actions are aimed not against either Lebanon or its government, but squarely against Hezbollah. Stephen Harper, speaking from the G-8, noted that Israeli actions have amounted to “a measured response.”

Over the past several days governments have acted to begin withdrawing their citizens from what some observers claim is already a war zone. Canada is no exception, now working on securing ships to ferry Canadian nationals to safety. On 16 July 2006 media reported 7 Canadians were killed in Lebanon, and at least six others seriously wounded.

Some analysts speculate that what may now be shaping up in the Middle East is only a very small part of a much larger affair. Robin Wright, writing for the Washington Post on 16 July 2006 suggests “For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether…For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East” [‘Strikes are Part of a Broader Strategy’ by Robin Wright. Story posted at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13884768/].

And with the Middle East now taking centre-stage, North Korea seems all but forgotten. Yet it was only weeks ago that Pyongyang grabbed international headlines and stirred panic in some parts of the world. Timed to coincide with Americans’ celebrating their July 4 holiday, Pyongyang test-fired seven missiles, including one long-range missile that may have the capability of reaching North America.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-07-07T05:47:00.000-07:00

George, Stephen and "the history of mankind"...

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=2310791&lid=hp3

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-06-28T09:50:00.000-07:00

So far, all indications are this may just be a summer with few surprises. This week, the Harper government is making announcements about the billions of dollars to be spent on the military, commitments made earlier by the Liberals. And then there’s another story that is likely to resurface, which just may have a serious impact for/on Canada’s foreign, and possibly immigration, policies. It involves 17 terror suspects.

I’ve written about this issue, and a version of my piece, which follows, appears in the upcoming issue of Belgrade’s Vreme (as Kandski dzihad - Terorizam u domacoj radinosti by Sten Markovic).

Canada’s Terrorist 17?

According to estimates, Canada has a Muslim population of roughly 750,000. Almost all of these people were shocked and outraged by what recently took place. Islamic Community leaders stress they do not condone violence, and over the past days have renewed calls for public officials and law enforcement agents to join with them in efforts to combat radicalism.

And Canadian government leaders have also said those who have been apprehended conspired, but their actions had nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with faith.

Some of the details remain murky, but what we do know is that beginning 2 June 2006 police launched a wave of arrests in southern Ontario that eventually led to a total of 17 alleged terrorists being rounded up. All are either Canadian-born or have legal status, resulting in what many officials have dubbed “a home-grown” terror threat. Five of the accused are just youths, high school students. Canadian privacy laws protect their identities.

For at least several days, these developments not only made headlines across Canada, but much of the world as well. At first many Canadians seemed to be in shock over what had been planned. In a rather surprising twist, it was an attorney for at least one of the accused who went public with the news that his clients would be accused of kidnapping leading politicians; blowing up key targets, including Parliament or possibly the Toronto Stock Exchange and other landmarks; demanding that Canada withdraw its roughly 2,300 soldiers from Afghanistan or face dire consequences; and attempting to carry out a plot to kidnap and behead the Prime Minister.

Some information about the accused is now on the public record. The leader, or spiritual mentor, appears to be the eldest of the group. He’s 43-year-old Qayyum Abdul Jamal, originally from Pakistan. He led prayers, occasionally, at Mississauga’s Al-Rahman Islamic Centre Mosque and presumably converted the 16 others to radical causes. There at the Al-Rahman Mosque this reportedly sullen man was known for impassioned rhetoric emphasizing sacrificing for Islam, and for stressing the point of view that Muslim peoples remain the targets of Western repression. The first two to be arrested, in a warehouse while making preparations for deploying a truck bomb, were 19-year-old Saad Khalid and a youth co-conspirator. Steven Vikash Chand, alias Abdul Shakur, is reported to have some military training, having served in the Royal Regiment of Canada.

Within days of the arrests, it became clear to some people that the apprehended may not have been the most competent of radicals. The group may have been extremely motivated, but they were lacking when it came to any ability to carry out their schemes. In fact, some might suggest that much of how they operated undermines claims of this cell being a dire threat to public safety and national security. First of all, the gang seemingly conspired in broad daylight, with undercover agents being aware of their operations at least six months ago, and possibly even as far back as two years ago. Some of their tactics were utterly outlandish, involving such schemes as deploying remote controlled model cars, completely outfitted with lethal explosives. Then there are reports of at least one of the suspects insisting on taking pilot training prior to be talked out of that approach, after being reminded that such tactics just might draw too much unwanted attention from authorities. And, when Khalid and his accomplice were arrested, they were preparing cardboard boxes for what they thought would be a shipment of three tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to be used to destroy a target building. In fact, Canadian security agents, aware of the plot down to seemingly every detail, managed to intervene and substitute the fertilizer with a completely harmless substance. Just as Khalid and his associate were preparing a bomb that might have contained three times as much fertilizer as used in the Oklahoma bombing, police descended and rounded up the 17 during the course of the evening of 2 June.

Then there are supposedly divisions among the conspirators, which, unconfirmed reports suggest, were conveyed in email messages and chat room discussions. Some wanted to bomb targets, while others allegedly wanted to make use of firearms in kidnappings. There was possibly much discussion before a compromise was reached, as the woud-be terrorists agreed on both guns and bombs. But again, many of the discussions were carried out across the internet, in broad daylight, with security officials monitoring.

The fact that no one was hurt may also be a factor contributing to the arrests being ripe fodder for humourists. The fact there was no tragedy might have lent circumstances ideal for comedy. And even here, the event transcended Canada’s borders. For at least several evenings American late night comedians used what was going on in Canada to gain audience laughs. Jon Stewart, host of the popular Daily Show, a mock news broadcast, used his forum to question the judgment if not the sanity of the terrorist 17. He asked, how could they possibly dislike Canada, a country so innocuous? The point, said Stewart, was that saying you hate Canada is about as meaningful as “hating toast.”

Many observers noted that even Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized there was much humour in the situation. At one point a reporter asked him what he thought of the death threat, and what was his opinion about the terror suspects wanting to behead him? Harper replied there was no news here, and that he could live with any threat, so as long as it didn’t come from his own Conservative caucus. Days later he refined his position, saying that he could withstand any threat, but that such things were having a profound emotional impact on his family.

In reality, what had happened with the arrests of 2 June was as far from comical as possible. Once again, across international borders, just how serious the development was become clear within a matter of hours. At first, official Washington lauded Ottawa, noting the arrest of the 17 showed just how serious Canada’s commitment to fighting terrorism really was. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the arrests proved “Canada is on the job.” But soon Harper’s joke came back to haunt him. American politicians seemed to be lining up to suggest Harper was ultimately not serious about recognizing how meaningful a threat terrorism really was and is. Such sentiments were even echoed by Canadian politicians. Liberal Member of Parliament Mark Holland, representing a Toronto constituency, spoke to the Canadian public broadcaster, the CBC, saying, “I'm very concerned about the amount of play in the U.S. that the threat Canada poses as a ‘gateway to terrorism.’” Harper’s fellow Conservative Party members were also quick to stress how serious the matter was. Tory MP from Ontario Peter Van Loan described the activities of the arrested 17 are “very serious,” and quickly added that he felt what they did was not “the only threat out there.”

Indeed Van Loan was far from the only one concerned about how serious the threat just might be. Again, the implications went well beyond Canada’s borders. Within days of the arrest of the 17, British police acted, making their own arrests. At first the BBC reported the British terror suspects had ties to the Canadians, but UK officials have not confirmed this. And there are accounts the Canadians had ties in the United States, to other suspected radicals in the South. Indeed, because of those ties to possible terrorists in the US, FBI officials reportedly alerted the Canadians of the possible threat, allowing Canadian security officials to begin monitoring some time ago. And after what happened in southern Ontario, security forces worldwide reacted, moving against suspects or intensifying investigations and crackdowns in such far-away places Sweden, Great Britain, and Bosnia, to name but a few locations.

We may not really know exactly who they are until the trial begins, but analysts are already starting to weigh in about just what might have motivated the Canadian 17. Most speculation suggests the suspects had no direct ties to terror master Osama bin Laden or the Al Qaeda network. To be sure, the Canadian terror suspects may regard bin Laden as their hero, as their inspiration. Perhaps they found some wisdom in his speeches and actions. Perhaps they were moved by what they regarded as the accomplishments of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. It’s very likely Abdul Jamal, the man identified as their leader, converted them to extremism. It is also very likely the radicals devoted much time to extremist literature and media, which may have prompted them to explore Jihadist videos. Perhaps they may be counted in that tiny number of Muslim Canadian youth that seeks to display its true allegiances by attending Mosque services decked out in military fatigues.

The real question that the arrests point to is this: the 17 may be just the tip of a much larger iceberg, and so just how extensive are Canada’s terror networks, and just what is the nature of their ties and contacts around the globe? Both the federal police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or RCMP, and Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, decline to be specific, but say that investigations are ongoing and future arrests cannot be ruled out. Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, Chair of the Senate Committee on National Security, has himself responded to developments by saying, “It’s not over…It’s very much stay tuned.”

On 11 June 2006 media report that just a day earlier Prime Minister Harper met with Muslim community leaders behind closed doors, where exchanges were frank, and that Harper evidently took extensive notes. Some in attendance suggested American Mosques were responsible, responsible for shipping extremist literature and ideas north across the border, and thus radicalizing Canadian youth. In its 11 June 2006 coverage of the meeting The Calgary Sun quoted Farzana Hassan-Shahid, a member of the Canadian Muslim Congress, who dealt openly with just what she thought it was that made young Muslims want to destroy Canada, their own country. It was not good enough to just denounce acts of violence, said Hassan-Shahid. “It's about time Muslims owned up to the fact it's a Muslim problem…We need to be more proactive, rather than issue statements of condemnation,” said Hassan-Shahid.

Fifteen of the 17 terror suspects, shackled, made their first court appearances on 3 June 2006. This story is just beginning.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-06-25T13:07:00.000-07:00

Out for Summer

Parliament will recess for summer. Despite performances by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, PM Stephen Harper is in charge. In fact, Harper’s political career is unscathed. And I suspect this observation is valid when his records on both domestic and foreign policy are considered. But it is an especially valid claim for his foreign policy work.

Perhaps Harper’s high ratings have something to do with the fact that his first months in office have been given over to putting in place obligations and policy commitments made by the ousted Liberal government. Predecessor Paul Martin wanted troops in Afghanistan; Harper is behind the mission. Martin sought a deal on the softwood trade with the US; Harper, very possibly, perhaps, has one. And then there’s the opposition. So far, Harper has no better allies than the parties across the floor. Their divisions are his strengths. The New Democrats, in being vaguely against the Afghan mission but staunchly behind the troops, send out messages that, very likely, resonate with few voters. Then the Bloc, when it does comment on Afghanistan, opposes, though oddly seems to find itself in a position where articulating a proactive foreign policy agenda, be that Quebec-centric or national in scope, is turning out a much more difficult prospect than perhaps even they suspected. And the Liberals? They remain at war internally. Most oppose Afghanistan, even though their former government sent troops, while those poised to take over the party leadership at the upcoming convention back Canada’s role. And inter-party alliances? Any threat to Harper? Not likely. With the Liberals coming apart, the New Democrats seem to sense a chance of winning over disaffected Liberals and possibly even forming opposition after the next election. But to do that, the NDP will focus on social issues, and Harper will direct the foreign policy agenda.

Public opposition to Harper? So far there doesn’t seem to be any serious mass opposition to a thing he’s done. There have been a few anti-war protests that have attracted thousands [see, for example http://www.stopwar.ca/], but concern over Canada’s policy in Afghanistan isn’t occupying our national psyche, and certainly doesn’t find expression on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis. According to most surveys, the majority of the Canadian public has not supported the war, but this has not translated into a backlash against Harper. And in fact, there is some recent evidence, in the form of polling data, that suggests Canadians’ support for the Afghan mission is growing in recent weeks, from some 40% to now 48% claiming to approve of Canada’s role [See for example, http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12227].

Parliamentarians may be off to their summer barbecues, but the world won’t stand still. Daily headlines say Iraq, even after the passing of key Al Qaeda leaders such as Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, is a much more violent place than before. Afghanistan, too, is heating up. The latest issue of Newsweek explains Mullah Dadullah Akhund, the new Taliban leader, is ramping up the violence and brutality in his country. Taliban recruiting videos, say Newsweek writers Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai in their piece “In the Footsteps of Zarqawi” for the 3-10 July 2006 issue, show a fighter who may be more vicious than any Iraq counterpart, and “the most revolting footage shows a gang of Dadullah's thugs slitting the throats, one by one, of six Afghans they accuse of spying for the Americans. As each head is severed, it is grabbed and placed facing the camera, atop the torso of the victim's sprawled corpse” [Story posted at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13531827/site/newsweek/]. Developments in Afghanistan are taking an increasing toll on Canadians there, and perhaps most recently “clashes with the Taliban forced Canadian troops to cancel plans to hold medical clinics Saturday in villages west of Kandahar City” [CP, 24 June 2006].

And then there are those trade issues. According to one source, Harper is facing “more grief over [the] stalled softwood deal” [See piece “Harper Gets More Grief over Stalled Softwood Deal,” by Peter O’Neil and Gordon Hamilton of CanWest News Service, published in The Vancouver Sun, 23 June 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=66d0a679-fecc-42e7-ad6e-9fa1469c3d1e&k=81991]. One of the latest tensions is triggered by recent evidence that suggests, “the U.S. government would use the proposed lumber accord as a tool to interfere with provincial forest management policies, especially B.C.'s new market-based timber pricing policy” [cited in http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=66d0a679-fecc-42e7-ad6e-9fa1469c3d1e&k=81991].

Will Harper be able to get safely past summer on only barbecue chicken and burgers?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-05-31T19:28:00.000-07:00

Now They Tell Us

Somehow I think I’ve heard all this before. But when and where? And who said all this back when? And why should it sound so familiar?

First, some senators called him a “stooge,” of and for American interests. Foreign Minister Peter MacKay disagreed, vehemently. Actually, what MacKay said about Afghan leader Hamid Karzai was that “first of all, I don't believe President Karzai is a stooge” [cited in Mike Blanchfield’s ‘Senators Grill MacKay over Afghanistan Policy,’ National Post, 30 May 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e0b1cfcb-e20b-4b68-9e81-bf7a2b4a0d41&k=22656]. All the name-calling came about when some senators held hearings about our policy in Central Asia. According to at least one report, the scene, at one point, looked something like this:

‘Insults, both deliberate and unintended, along with partisan sniping and skepticism marred Senate hearings on Afghanistan on Monday, as one senator called President Hamid Karzai a “'stooge”' and Canada's foreign affairs minister suggested Afghans live in houses unfit for cattle.’ [Cited in http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e0b1cfcb-e20b-4b68-9e81-bf7a2b4a0d41&k=22656].

MacKay kept insisting that great progress, much rebuilding, was and is taking place across Afghanistan. Supposedly the membership of the Senate National Security and Defence Committee remained at least somewhat skeptical, perhaps after hearing testimony from one general who argued Canadian troops would be needed for at least twenty years. And one diplomatic source estimated it might just be “five generations” before the country would resemble anything fixed [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e0b1cfcb-e20b-4b68-9e81-bf7a2b4a0d41&k=22656&p=2].

Meanwhile, on 30 May 2006, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor spoke before a Commons Committee, dropping the bombshell that Canada was in fact not at war in Afghanistan. So what are Canadians doing in the Central Asian country? According to O’Connor, “The military has to conduct a range of activities. I don't consider this war…We're engaged in helping people move products around, we're helping them build houses, we're helping advise the police. And when we're attacked, we attack back [cited in Jim Bronskill’s ‘O’Connor Defends Role in Afghanistan,” The London Free Press, 31 May 2006. Story posted at http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2006/05/31/1607410-sun.html].

And in the very latest on the Afghanistan front, there’s news that our Commander-in-Chief, Governor-General Michaelle Jean has asked not once, but twice, to visit the Kandahar region. Both times she has been turned down. It seems “Jean was told conditions on the ground were too dangerous to permit a trip to the region” [cited in Alexander Panneta’s ‘Jean Told Not to Visit Troops in Afghanistan,’ CP, 30 May 2006. Story republished by The Toronto Star, 31 May 2006, and posted at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1149027010275&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pagepath=News/World].
Again, just what are Canadians doing in Afghanistan?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-05-22T09:32:00.000-07:00

Harper’s Problem

PM Stephen Harper has a serious problem. And that’s not necessarily all bad. In fact, it may be something that helps him at the polls, when Canadians go to vote in just over a year. It may also be the thing that keeps the opposition so divided that it is made incapable of challenging the Tories in the next election.

Harper’s problem is foreign affairs. Without a doubt, he now controls the agenda so firmly that he can confuse the opposition whenever he decides to bring global issues to the forefront. Only days ago the Tories announced there would be a Commons vote to extend the Afghan mission into 2009. While some suggest this move came as a total surprise, it did follow an earlier secret trip by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay to Afghanistan where local officials urged MacKay to promise Canadians would remain for at least two more years [See ‘MacKay in Afghanistan for Surprise Two-day Visit,’ The Globe and Mail, 9 May 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060509.wafghan0509/BNStory/Afghanistan/home]. The opposition parties, the very same parties that only months ago demanded clarity and votes, now said the time wasn’t right for such a move. Harper, completely unflustered, then added that no matter the outcome, Canada would complete its current mission and stay for at least another year. Then, if needed, the question of extending the Canadian mission yet again could be taken to the public, presumably at election time. The New Democrats and Bloc, clearly stunned by what was happening, resolved to vote against the Harper initiative. The Liberals, the same party while in government that had made commitments to Afghanistan, freed up its MPs so members could vote their conscience. In the end, Harper won, narrowly, with 149 endorsing his motion to 145 against [For coverage of the vote see Michael Den Tandt’s ‘Death Clouds Afghan Debate: Harper’s Motion to Extend Mission Squeaks Through with Liberal Help,’ The Globe and Mail, 18 May 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060517.w2afghan05171/BNStory/National/]. The Liberals seemed the most injured by this process, as many of their current crop of leadership hopefuls voted against, signaling the Liberal brain trust understands little about foreign affairs, saw the latest vote as only an exercise in making an appeal to the electorate, or is somehow controlled by the spirit of Carolyn Parrish.

The Bloc is mostly quiet about foreign policy, especially on matters of war. Jack Layton and the NDP seem to be groping for something to say on the issue, concluding that statements about rotating out of Afghanistan and into Darfur will trigger some wave of public sympathy. So far, the NDP is lost. In fact, most members of all three opposition parties seem to want the issue of foreign affairs to just disappear, so that valuable political capital can be redirected back to social issues debates.

So is Stephen Harper making a dangerous gamble? At least twice in our history, debates about war have nearly torn this country apart. By bringing up Afghanistan, and perhaps being brazen in doing so, is Harper risking another national malaise? Hardly. While some perhaps would like to make the case that his behaviour is likely to trigger a crisis, there is a big difference. In times past, the public was engaged in the whole issue of war, conflict, and foreign affairs. It was rather easy to mobilize masses and opinion when key issues bubbled to the surface. Today, most if not all the public (and press and pressure groups) worries about social issues, and find having to discuss foreign affairs an inconvenience. In this climate, Harper is not only alone, but is at liberty to shape foreign policy any way he sees fit.

And so Stephen Harper’s real problem may be that when he dwells on foreign affairs, he has so few people in this country who will engage. He’s finding things lonely at the top. Certainly there are a few groups and institutions looking at policy; there are vested interests that include officials in the military, and there are those groups that see linkages between terrorism, immigration, and foreign affairs. But the public? The masses?

Over the past month or so Canadian media have written about monumental developments in foreign affairs; however, no ink has been devoted in this context to Afghanistan, Iraq, or indeed the frictions within the Western alliance, or tensions between the West and former Cold War rival Russia. Instead, it is “historic” that Quebec is getting a broader international profile. During the first week of this month, reports surfaced explaining that “Quebec will get a greater role on the international stage with a semi-formal presence at a United Nations agency [UNESCO], Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced Friday.” Charest was quoted saying “Today, we are writing a page of history…For Quebecers, this agreement on the promotion of cultural diversity is the most beautiful victory in the history of Quebec diplomacy and is also one of the best examples of federalism in the history of the country” [cited in CP, 5 May 2006].

Almost surely Harper was aware that during the first week of this month global diplomatic relations had reached a very low point. Almost certainly the matter of how to deal with Iran was the cause, but how the affair found public expression came about with Washington finding fault with Moscow’s ability to advance human rights issues. This enraged the Russians, forcing them to make noises about a renewed cold war and prompting President Vladimir Putin to say in a speech: “Where is all this pathos about protecting human rights and democracy when it comes to the need to pursue their own interests?… We are aware what is going on in the world. Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, it eats without listening, and it's clearly not going to listen to anyone” [Putin cited in Steve Gutterman’s ‘Putin Zings U.S. Back After Criticism,’ AP, 10 May 2006]. But precisely these kinds of diplomatic developments went either unnoticed or just briefly mentioned by the Canadian media.

So while Harper can, has, and will throw the opposition into disarray with foreign policy, he likely has to wait until visitors show up before he can discuss and have a meeting of the minds on global affairs. Perhaps he had just such an occasion when Australian PM John Howard arrived days ago. Harper and Howard spoke about several issues, from energy and environmental concerns, to terrorism to foreign policy. Howard stressed that our two countries shared much in common, had historical ties, and were forces for good in the world. Yet he noted cooperation needs to be strengthened. And then, on 18 May 2006, speaking to the Commons, Howard said, “The United States has been a remarkable power for good in the world. And the decency and hope that the power and purpose that the United States represent in the world is something we should deeply appreciate” [Howard cited in CTV, 19 May 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060518/howard_canada_060518/20060518?hub=TopStories].

And indeed over the past week Harper and Howard came across as being the same, as identical twins, on crucial geopolitical issues. Howard expressed his concern that a new Teheran law forcing non-Muslims to wear specific colours in public was transforming Iran into something like Nazi Germany. Harper did the very same, using language that might have come from the Australian’s speech. In his comments, Howard, from Ottawa, said “If that (the report) is true, I would find it totally repugnant…It obviously echoes the most horrible period of genocide in the world's history and the marking of Jewish people with a mark on their clothing by the Nazis, and anything of that kind, would be totally repugnant to civilised countries. If it is the case, it's something that would just further indicate to me the nature of this regime. It's a calculated insult, if it's true, not only to Christians but most particularly to Jews” [Howard cited in The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 May 2006. Story posted at http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/howard-compares-iran-to-nazis/2006/05/20/1147545561673.html].

Perhaps some day Harper will have to translate his foreign policy posturing into some kind of greater commitment. When he does that, he will have to find a way of engaging a broader segment of the Canadian population, and that part that is either capable or willing to see that the social issues that defined the political landscape of the 1990s can be placed aside. When and if that happens, Harper will have a different set of problems. For now, the problem he has means good things for him, as he can manipulate the opposition using foreign affairs. But what happens when he needs to involve the public, has to find public relations advice, and needs a foreign minister who actually understands something about geopolitics and can make contributions in debates that involve questions of balance of power? Will those problems, should they materialize, help or harm the Tories?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-04-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-27T19:42:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-19T16:46:00.000-07:00

And the "President" says...

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

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-04-11T17:18:00.001-07:00

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

2006-04-09T13:46:00.000-07:00

More war?

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

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-04-03T06:50:00.000-07:00

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

2006-03-31T12:20:00.000-08:00

Harper, A Fox, and A Bush; or Three-way Among the Ruins

Today, 31 March 2006, the North American Summit concludes. This time around, Mexican President Vicente Fox and his US counterpart George Bush meet with our new PM. In many ways, this meeting is much more like its predecessors than anything new. There is more time for photo ops than actual policy discussion. Much of what’s talked about has been discussed in the past. Softwood lumber looms paramount for Canada, and Harper observes “I also reminded the president [Bush] that the Canadian position is very clear…If we don't see a resolution, Canada will pursue all its legal options as well as providing financial support for its [lumber] industry” [Harper cited in Jennifer Ditchburn’s “Harper and Bush Agree to New Talks to End Canada U.S. Softwood Standoff,” CP, 30 March 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=d385d64f-4b6e-49c1-9705-22164937ed11&k=68239]. Security, trade, and employment also made it back on the agenda.

Yet there are signs this gathering may mark a subtle departure from the past. First, there are the cosmetic differences. Harper is the new amigo in this club, having been leader only a few months. At this point, Fox is the lame duck, preparing to leave office in a few months or so; term limits prevent him from seeking reelection. And while issues such as security and terrorism may be the topics that grab some headlines today, demographics, only beginning to surface, may suggest what future meetings may be forced to address. Already the issue of immigration is a major topic for Americans, where the situation of “illegals” is being addressed in Congress while the Three Amigos meet. “The matter [Mexican migrant workers in the U.S.] is in the Congress of the United States and that is where the decision will be made…It is no longer between President Bush and President Fox,” said Fox [cited in msnbc.com, 30 March 2006. Story posted at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12080211/]. But migration is also important to Canada. With an aging population, it is likely that within a decade or so, this country will have to worry about bringing workers into the economy just to be able to sustain modest growth. Can Mexico help us solve our problems? Will that country become a source of skilled labour that could help keep the Canadian economy afloat? What was Fox thinking, pressing “Canada to allow more Mexican workers into the country to fill job sectors that faced work shortages[?] Canada and Mexico already have an agreement on seasonal workers that sees thousands of Mexicans work in the agricultural industry every year” [http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=d385d64f-4b6e-49c1-9705-22164937ed11&k=68239].

Harper may have unwittingly divulged the ambivalent nature of this latest Three Amigos meeting. Standing in front of one Mexico’s great symbols of the past, the Mayan ruins of Chichen Itza, he noted how this setting inspired visions of North America’s future.

In other, unrelated news, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay announced on 29 March 2006 that Ottawa has cut off aid to to the Palestinian Authority now run by a Hamas government. “The stated platform of this government has not addressed the concerns raised by Canada and others concerning non-violence, the recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap for Peace,” said MacKay [cited in Bill Rodgers’ “Cut Off: MacKay,” The Winnipeg Sun, 30 March 2006. Story posted at http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/03/30/1511995-sun.html].

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-03-29T12:54:00.000-08:00

A Trip to Afghanistan…and What Came Later

He did make it. A few weeks ago PM Stephen Harper went to Afghanistan, on the way to Pakistan, visited with troops, and explained Canada stood firmly behind their mission. On 13 March 2006, speaking to about 1,000 soldiers, he promised we wouldn’t be leaving any time soon, adding “our work is about more than just defending Canada's national interests. Your work is also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country…There will be some who want to cut and run, but cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way…We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country” [Stephen Harper’s speech cited in “Canada Committed to Afghan Mission, Harper Tells Troops,” CBC, 13 March 2006. Story posted at http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/13/harper_afghanistan060313.html].

Some had described his arrival as a “surprise,” though the story of his intention to visit the war-torn Central Asian state had gone public well in advance. Certainly the details of when he would set foot in the country were kept well guarded, though signs surfaced days and weeks beforehand that Harper would honour his word and appear in Kandahar. A team of Tory advisors, media noted, had embarked on a scouting mission sometime around early March. In addition, major Canadian networks sent their anchors and news teams there to report for the week or so just preceding the visit.

At first, there seemed to be a unanimous response to what Harper had done. His actions were brave, showed resolve, and for days he, celebrated in mainstream media accounts, became the closest thing to a hero parts of Canada had seen in many years. But that didn’t last.

By the end of the month, he seems to be on the defensive. He even acknowledges he has trouble comprehending why some Canadians feel the military should not even be in Afghanistan. Speaking during a television interview, Harper stated he simply didn’t fully understand those Canadians who seem to oppose the mission. “In this case, I'm not sure what the case would be for not being there…The entire world signed on to this mission when, because of the former regime in Afghanistan, thousands of people were killed in New York City, including a couple of dozen Canadian citizens…They brought home to us how real the threat of terror is to our own country” [Harper cited in Brian Laghi’s “Afghanistan is ‘Our War’ Too, Harper Says,” The Globe and Mail, 25 March 2006. Story posted at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060325.wxharper0325/BNStory/National/].

Certainly for a rather long time Canadians have been given opportunities to grow accustomed to the idea of troops in Afghanistan. And just how did that happen? More specifically, just how was it resolved that soldiers were to be deployed? It seems that as the Canadian constitutional order has evolved, so have certain powers and authorities been transferred to different centres. A long time ago, the monarch could simply send for soldiers. As the King’s (Queen’s) powers waned, the right to deploy troops devolved to the PM. And so former Liberal PM Paul Martin decided to partake in the Afghan conflict. No debate, I believe, was necessary, though Martin did not conceal any of intentions. In fact, the Commons was notified, there was an informational debate, and what followed was an almost deafening lack of interest by politicians and media at the time.

But over the past month or so, media coverage of war zones, notably Iraq and Afghanistan, has picked up. For the most part, what’s missing is coherent analysis. There are human-interest stories, featuring issues such as the life of a soldier in Afghanistan. The hostage rescue in Iraq made headline news for a few days [See, for example, Reuters 29 March 2006. Story posted at http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6577211&cKey=1143356951000], and since stories from or about that country have fallen off the front page. Most interestingly, about a few weeks ago, there were reports featuring Landstuhl, Germany. The US military hospital is located there, and the implication may have been that Canadians, given circumstances, need to be more familiar with that facility [On this point, see coverage posted on the Free Dominion website. Search ‘Landstuhl’ at www.freedominion.ca]. And indeed, casualties are mounting; all signs suggest this trend will not be reversed any time soon [See, for example, “Edmonton-based Soldier Killed in Taliban Attack,” CanWest News Service, 29 March 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=35e1bc54-12dc-4ec7-80b1-dd573bca9de6].

And then there’s the debate issue. Now some leaders are on record saying that given the recently changed nature of the mission in Afghanistan, there must be public discussion. The response from the Harper government is to say no debate will be held. The troops are there now, says the PM, and any second-guessing would only serve to undermine their resolve and morale. After some dithering, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay now agrees. The Bloc foreign affairs critic and several members of the NDP caucus are on record calling for a debate, noting that a change in the mission requires this. As for undermining troop morale? Those who call for the parliamentary debate suggest it be focused more on educating an ill-informed Canadian public, an aim they say could in no way translate into a negative impact on the troops. And what about the Liberals? At this stage, Afghanistan may be important to them, but resolving internal frictions and deciding on a new leader are the priorities. Former Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanj has called for debate, but Liberal foreign affairs critic Stephane Dion agrees with Harper.

So far NDP Leader Jack Layton seems to be most persistent in calling for a public discussion over what’s happening in and around Kandahar. Just days ago he observed that “when the decision was made, actually in the middle of the election, that through NATO there would be a new deployment and Canadian soldiers would be sent to the south of Afghanistan, we suggested at that time it would be important to have a debate as soon as Parliament could convene…We need to support our troops by making sure that we're very, very clear as Canadians what the mission is and, of course, it originally was supposed to be a NATO mission, but NATO has not taken charge yet” [Quoted in “Layton Demands Debate Over Afghanistan Mission,” CTV News, 26 March 2006. Story posted at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060326/layton060226/20060326?hub=TopStories].

But what of any analysis of what’s taking place in the Central Asian country? For instance, what might be the motives behind the calls to hold a public debate? Is there even anything realistic behind any assumption there may be a possibility, given logistics, that Canadian troops now can withdraw? And, perhaps most important, does making one trip to Afghanistan and insisting on no debate amount to an actual foreign policy?

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-03-28T12:12:00.000-08:00

Stephen divorces democracy?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060328.wcabsec0328/BNStory/Front

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-03-23T09:33:00.000-08:00

Hostages Rescued. Were any Canadian special forces involved?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=f67aae88-7c9f-4302-b0e8-6cdbecd47452&k=5030

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-03-16T08:42:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_re_as/afghan_mullah_omar

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-03-12T16:12:00.000-08:00

He made it. Harper's in Afghanistan. What now? What next?

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=c0e9dd85-5cb8-450f-b2bd-acb289d41ad8&k=52821

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-03-07T11:28:00.000-08:00

Is our Foreign Affairs Minister floundering? Will there be a debate?

http://www.cknw.com/news/news.cfm?dir=national&file=n030637A&n=1

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-03-01T02:53:00.000-08:00

"Surprise"...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11590973/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-28T09:28:00.000-08:00

First Impressions

The plan is to travel to Brussels for visits with senior EU and NATO officials. But first, Canada’s new foreign minister, Peter MacKay, arrived in London and met with British leaders, including Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The two covered a range of issues. They discussed the situation in Iraq, mentioning the status of Canadian and other international hostages. And so did MacKay, on this his very first trip abroad, manage to clarify or cloud any possible questions about the direction of Canadian foreign policy?

On the one hand, MacKay, responding to reporters, stated, “I do not foresee Canada having a more active military presence ... in Iraq.” And so what will be the direction of policy? To that, there was no clear answer. He did, however, stress that in recent years he thought, “both domestically and internationally, Canada may have lost its focus.” Our new mission in Afghanistan, described as “significant” by Straw, was a source of pride. And again, on Iraq, there could be much more involvement, though the focus would be on humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. Overall, when world affairs is at issue, MacKay observed: “What I would suggest is that we can play a more significant role” [MacKay and Straw cited in Paula Adamick’s “Canada Can Play ‘More Significant Role’ in Global Affairs, MacKay Says, CP, 24 February 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9054e5ca-55f2-40ae-9512-8cecd1670392&k=64480].

And how was this for a first impression? Did our new Foreign Affairs Minister actually intend to offend certain parties during his first months on the job? One journalist, noting MacKay opted not to head south on his first visit, asked if this was intended as a snub. “This was not meant to be a slight to anyone…It was simply one country had to come first. So here I am in the U.K….We are not dodging at all our relationship with the United States,” came the reply [cited in http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9054e5ca-55f2-40ae-9512-8cecd1670392&k=64480].

Before heading to Brussels, the Minister made a stopover in Turin, where he participated in the 2006 Olympic closing ceremonies and met with athletes. He arrived in Belgium on 27 February and will come home 1 March [for details of the entire trip, see http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?publication_id=383688&language=E].

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-27T08:15:00.000-08:00

Balkans Update: Could this explain all the reports about a 'deal' and The Hague?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=a2f7287b-b2f4-4b30-a40a-1632a10638b7&k=68206

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-22T14:03:00.000-08:00

Archduke Franz ‘Harper’ Goes to ‘Qandajevo’?

One wonders, are Canada’s Colonels handling more than defense issues? Are they also working the foreign policy portfolio? At least a few world leaders have made trips to some the most dangerous parts of the planet, but they have kept their plans secret to the last possible moment. I suspect they’ve had very sound reasons for doing so. Has new PM Stephen Harper noticed this? I may get back to answering this, but first I’ll digress.

Former PM Paul Martin dithered over too many things, most especially foreign policy. When it came to the outside world, particularly relations with the United States, he came across as not knowing what he wanted, how he wanted it, why he wanted it, and when he wanted it. Arguably even more adept at dithering and conveying indecisiveness was former Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.

Now, some have already argued that the administrations of Stephen Harper and Paul Martin share many attributes in common. Perhaps at a surface level this may be true. For one, Harper has demonstrated his ability to pander to Liberals in a fashion more Liberal than Liberal. Here I mean the defection of David Emerson. No sooner had Emerson been elected a member of the Paul Martin Team than he crossed the floor to join the Tories, to take up a cabinet post. His reasoning: he was an apololitical technocrat, remains one, and insists that trading his allegiances, seemingly within minutes of being re-elected, will allow a member from one of Canada’s three largest cities to serve in cabinet and work for his Vancouver-Kingsway constituents and the rest of the country more effectively. Too bad about not being a politician. Emerson’s mandate likely means he’ll have to negotiate the softwood lumber issue, and Washington, while not short on technocrats, is a notoriously political environment.

In other respects there appears a Martin-Harper continuity. Martin didn’t exactly go out of his way to turn foreign affairs into a job where knowledge of issues translated into influence. Pettigrew was rewarded, and in now a relatively long-standing tradition knew rather little about the international community. In fact, his predecessor, Bill Graham, was somewhat knowledgeable, just might have improved on the job, but was rotated out, and served in Defense [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Graham]. In keeping with tradition, Harper rewarded former Progressive Conservative leader and now prominent CPC member Peter MacKay with the plum job. MacKay knows little about international affairs, and admits as much [There’s no foreign policy in MacKay’s past, prompting some to speculate right after the election that he might become the next Justice Minister. For background on the new minister see ‘The Conservative Cabinet: A Political Balancing Act,’ CBC, 6 February 2006. Story posted at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/cabinet.html]. He does, however, promise to be a quick study. His performance to date suggests the learning curve will be steep [I’d think his recent mishandling of the Iraq-hostage issue is more than just a mistake. See, for example, ‘MacKay Apologizes for Raising Hopes of Hostages’ Families,’ CBC, 22 February 2006. Story posted at http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/22/mackay060222.html].

Now here’s where the main difference between Martin and Harper can be divined. While Martin dithers, Harper strives to come across as decisive, even oblivious to perhaps the fact there are important distinctions between being decisive and reckless. Our Stephen knows what he wants, when he wants it, and how he wants it. He also knows where he wants to be. That place is Afghanistan [‘Harper Considering Afghanistan for First Foreign Trip,’ CP, 17 February 2006. Story posted at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b6938a36-1151-4332-abfd-69aea127361b&k=87917]. Evidently all it took for him to be convinced that a trip to that war-torn country was much needed was a meeting with military officials, who argued, seemingly masterfully, that a visit by the PM would go a very long way to improving troop morale. And not only did Harper suggest he would travel, before 3 April 2006, but intimated he may in fact go to Kandahar, the most dangerous region in that most dangerous country. Perhaps plucking out MacKay to serve in foreign affairs was a way for Harper to break with a rather longstanding tradition: it used to be that a PM would be the one to manage affairs with Washington, leaving some if not much of everything else for foreign affairs. Could MacKay be Harper’s way of saying that the PM will deal with the whole of the rest of the world, leaving foreign affairs downgraded more than ever, and competent only to fulfill largely ceremonial functions?

It may well turn out that any planned trip to Afghanistan never takes place. It may be that Harper takes up an offer or opportunity to go to Washington. No matter. The mere fact the news of such an adventure emerged establishes that Harper has much to learn about the world outside Canada’s borders, geopolitics, foreign policy…perhaps even such basic things as keeping a dangerous mission a secret just as long as humanly possible. If he’s been decisive about Afghanistan, one could also ask how decisive he has already been on other critical issues. For instance, has Harper already blundered away our ability to use energy as a bargaining chip? What promises have already been made?

Bill Graham is now interim Liberal leader. At a time when this country probably needs someone at the top with a feeling for foreign affairs, one might ask whether or not Graham is interested in the Liberal job on a more permanent basis. He has a background, and his existing serious shortcomings can be filled in within a reasonable period. Meanwhile, no matter what happens, Graham could consult with Harper on foreign policy, and he wouldn’t even have to emulate Emerson to do that. Little doubt Harper resents this suggestion; however, he could make use of every bit of help someone like Graham could offer. Paul Martin dithered himself out of office in almost record time. Harper seems to want to crash and burn, and is working on doing so until he finds himself out of office, and in almost record time. But for posterity… I suspect he just might hang around a little longer than his predecessor.

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-20T15:48:00.000-08:00

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and a new NORAD treaty:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/20/1453347-cp.html

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-18T11:45:00.000-08:00

Archduke Franz Harper??

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=b6938a36-1151-4332-abfd-69aea127361b&k=87917

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-15T08:52:00.000-08:00

The General...

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=97fffc3a-2dfe-43fd-a62e-339d962a3b07&k=8773

And the new guy...

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-02-15T131013Z_01_N15172899_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-POLITICS-WILSON-COL.XML

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-11T00:40:00.000-08:00

It's well worth reading. This is one Tory's take on the new emerging Conservative era:

http://www.garthturner.com/weblog/

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-10T06:30:00.000-08:00

Is Stephen Harper thinking he may want to cut his losses?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/08/emerson-riding060208.html

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-06T12:49:00.000-08:00

Less than a day on the job, and already Stephen Harper converts a Liberal and sees a role for Stockwell Day that isn't Foreign Affairs:

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=b9bb2f2b-d4f1-4c4f-acf8-a00f1ac369e6&k=85053

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-02T12:27:00.000-08:00

PM Paul Martin checks out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060202/wl_nm/politics1_dc

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com

2006-02-01T00:10:00.000-08:00

Who wants to be a Liberal?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=46514f7c-45bb-443c-afc6-a626ffc5a585&k=99500

Posted by Stan Markotich
Send comments to stanmarkotich@yahoo.com