The Cana-blog

The Scandal over Canadian Foreign Policy/Defence Scandals

2011-10-01T04:05:00.002-05:00

Two things have been embroiling Defence Minister Peter Mackay and Foreign Minister John Baird this week.

The man is too pretty to fly economy.

First, Mackay has been in hot water over his supposed use of private airplanes for travel – up to a total of $3 million dollars worth.

Second, John Baird has been in trouble for demanding special gold business cards which are different from the regular ones used be pretty much everyone else. (I ran into Jim Flarhety a few weeks back and I have his business card. He uses the normal one.) The extra-special cards were $400. (You can read the story in this hilarious Globe and Mail piece.)

There has been a lot of ink spilled over these two stories this week. In total, we’re talking about $3,000,400. Would I like $3,000,400? Yes. I really would. But is this a substantial amount of money in the great scheme of the Canadian budget? No.

In fact, the real scandal here is the fact that these issues are the scandal.

Canadian foreign policy is directionless. There is no grand vision, no idea of our place in the world... other than as a British colonial possession from sometime during the late 19th Century. It is comprised of a series of unfinished trade agreements and reacting to events in the world, only when we really have to. Baird’s sole experiment with boldness at the UN Conference on Disarmament was a total embarrassment and a disaster.

The Department of National Defence is now in a period of transition and contraction. One can only assume that this will mean even less resources for peacekeeping training and activity. But don’t worry – we have stealth skidoos.

There have been other scandals this week – A Canadians detained or prevented from returning home in Sudan and Libya. What did the government know? Who cares! John Baird WANTS GOLD ON HIS BUSINESS CARDS. Stephen Harper is worrying about "Islamicism" - as opposed to the Islamist threat to Canada. Genius - but don't worry, I'm sure no one noticed. (I'm glad he's so familiar with that which comprises the number one threat to Canada. Sleep well kids.)

Earlier this year I posted a list of 12 foreign policy questions that I would have liked the major parties to answer during the election. I do not think I am any closer to answering most of them. Our media is so often attracted by the quick scandal rather than the big picture, and I do wonder if any of these are even being asked? But maybe the public just better understands and is more interested in the scandals over shiny objects.

The US Department of Defense Law of War Manual: An Update

2011-08-21T07:27:00.000-05:00

They're updating this.

I have a report in the 2009 (they're a bit behind...just go with it) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law on efforts to produce a new service-wide US Department of Defence Law of War Manual. This would replace FM 27-10 and (should it ever see the light of day...just go with it) will be an incredibly important statement of US practice on the laws of war.

I consulted on and observed this project from August-December 2009 and I keep in contact with some of the editors. The description of the Manual (and estimate of delivery) are now outdated, but there is a good description of the process and methodology behind it. I can't go into any more details than that (there is a crazy on-going process) but it is "an update" for those who are interested. Here's the abstract:

One of the major legal instruments the US Department of Defense (DoD) will be relying on in terms of planning and carrying out its activities in the near future is a new law of war military manual which is expected to be published sometime in 2011. While on the surface such a document may not seem of critical interest to those interested in security/strategic studies or to humanitarian activists seeking to ban rather than regulate violence, there are important reasons to place a certain amount of emphasis on this DoD product and to expect that it will have a significant impact, especially on issues that are presently widely debated within the humanitarian legal community.

Riot without a cause : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

2011-08-11T04:30:00.001-05:00

Riot without a cause : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

The Sun News Network did an interview with me yesterday on the riots in London. I'm planning to do a blog about this in the future, but for now I would just highlight the fact that I think there is a problem with people using the riots as evidence to uphold beliefs they already had and certain preconceived ideas. But here's my $0.02 on the TV!

Using Social Media to Get Around Beijing's Censors - and Ottawa's!

2011-08-06T10:14:00.000-05:00

Yes, I did look for the most banal
social media graphic that I could find.

It was with a great deal of satisfaction that I read this story in the Globe and Mail on how the Canadian Embassy in China is using the Chinese-social media service, Weibo, to communicate with ordinary Chinese people.

After years of seeing Canada’s name dragged through the mud – in both the official media and online – over the refuge granted to Chinese fugitive Lai Changxing, the embassy used Weibo on Wednesday to post the entire Federal Court decision that resulted in the 53-year-old’s deportation to China last month after about a decade-long legal battle.

Unsurprisingly, the post disappeared almost as soon as it went up. (Can't have people finding out 'inconvenient' information, now can we, Beijing!) But what really encouraged me was the social networking strategy that the embassy described in the article.

The embassy's Weibo account is also one of the rare places where Canadian diplomats can write or speak (albeit in 140-character bursts, the maximum allowable length on the site) without having their words first edited and cleared in Ottawa. The frequency of the postings, combined with time differences, make it impractical for each item to be routed through headquarters.
“We [diplomats] are under tremendous pressure to innovate and to really understand who our audience is. We’re pretty convinced that reaching out to this group of largely young people who are interested in the world and interested in Canada relates directly to what we’re doing here,” Canada’s ambassador to Beijing, David Mulroney, said in an interview. The 56-year-old career diplomat said the online interaction with ordinary Chinese citizens was now “the single most important tool we have in understanding what this emerging generation in China is all about.”

In other words, aside from trying to get around Beijing's censors, Canadian diplomats are able to get around Ottawa's! (I'm pretty shocked that no one in the CPC has had a heart attack about this yet. "What!? Canadian diplomats thinking and taking the initiative for themselves?! NOOOOO!!!!")

DFAIT is one of the most competitive programs in the Canadian government. Although I personally find DFAIT employees to often act like they're members of some kind of bizarre religious order, they are also smart as hell and have done wonderful things when Ottawa lets them.

I hope this is not just a new way for Canada to connect with the broader world, I also hope it shows that the Harper Conservatives should give their DFAIT staff a little more free reign. This is creative and awesome diplomacy at its best. The kind of thing we were good at not so many years ago.

Abdullah Khadr, Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism: Or what I was really trying to say

2011-07-30T10:06:00.000-05:00

I was quoted in a story in the Globe and Mail on Abdullah Khadr (older brother of Omar who is in Guantanamo Bay) and the government's attempts to extradite him to the US to face terrorism charges. They definitely got the quotes alright but I think the summary of my argument was a bit mangled; I'm not sure this was the first time that due process has been considered in a terrorism trial. I was suggesting that Canadian courts have been very sympathetic to the concerns/needs of the government/security services (ie: on rules of evidence during the Toronto 18 trial, etc) and that this is a marked change from that.

Anyway, I have expanded on my views in a Duck of Minerva Post. Just don't read the comments on the Globe and Mail site. *shudder* People is crazy.

Toronto the Divided or Solving the City's Problem with The Handmaiden's Tale on Four GIGANTIC wheels

2011-07-29T06:49:00.002-05:00

You're welcome, Toronto.

As I write this, there is a marathon session in the Toronto Council over spending cuts. I’ve been following the debate on Twitter via @Torontoist who have been great with the coverage.

One of the things that has struck me a lot this week is the way that people are dividing themselves in Toronto – into Ford Nation and Not-Ford Nation. Or as if Toronto has suddenly become a city divided not by NASCAR fans wearing sleeveless shirts and effeminate Margaret Atwood latte sippers.

For any internationals out there, Robert Ford is the Mayor of Toronto. He is essentially a populist leader who was elected on the basis of cutting taxes, improving conditions for drivers (rather than mass transportation) and dramatically cutting spending and programs. He has cultivated an image of being the little-guy ready to go to bat with the slogan “Respect for Tax Payers”.

Bob Ford has not, however, had a great PR week:

Rob Ford flips off mother and child while illegally speaking on a cellphone while driving
His partner in crime (and brother), Doug Ford (who is described by some as the power behind the throne) trashed internationally acclaimed author Margaret Atwood after saying he would gladly close down libraries in his ward. (Good take on this at TorontoLife here)
Apparently, during an all-night budget session on Friday, Mayor Ford said about a children’s author with a book called “Words that Start with B” – “I can think of another word for her”.

Part of this behaviour is symptomatic of the fact that Ford Nation does not seem to be an open club. You can’t join if you are a feminist, gay or if you’re not a tax-payer. You can’t join if you like reading novels that qualified for major international prizes. And sadly, if you’re not in, you’re the enemy. And if we’ve learned anything this week, Rob Ford does not treat his enemies with respect.

Read more »

Six Years of Gay Marriage in Canada and the World Did Not End

2011-07-20T16:15:00.001-05:00

Fact: 6 years after gay marriage

Happy Cat is still happy.

Cross-posted at Duck of Minerva

It’s the 6th anniversary of gay marriage in Canada and – financial meltdowns in Europe and America aside – the world hasn’t ended. Society has remained intact. Babies are being born, flowers are blooming, a Canadian hockey team still can’t win the Stanley Cup and otters are still cute.

Actually, Canada is more than fine. In an article in the Calgary Herald, Naomi Lakritz argues:

While divorce rates have increased greatly since the introduction of Divorce Laws in 1968, actual divorce rates have been decreasing in Canada since the 1990s. The 50 per cent (failure rate) fallacy is false . . . In Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, the Yukon and Nunavut, the total number of new divorce cases has declined six per cent over the four-year period ending in 2008/2009," says an IMF news release.
Indeed, while divorces per 100,000 population reached 362.3 in 1987, they were down to 220.7 per 100,000 in 2005, the year same-sex marriage became law. So much for the myth that same-sex marriage would aid the dissolution of straight marriages. They dissolve quite nicely on their own, thanks to their internal dynamics, such as domestic violence, alcoholism, gambling and infidelity. These figures, by the way, come from such eminent sources as the Vanier Institute of the Family and Statistics Canada.
And, according to Statistics Canada, "the number of marriages in the country was 149,236 in 2006, down nearly 2,000 from the previous year, but up from 148,585 in 2004." Looks like some sort of minor demographic blip occurred there in 2006, but that figure is still up from 2004, when much of the silly fearmongering was taking place prior to Bill C-38 being passed.
Indeed, a November 2009 report entitled Divorce: Facts, Causes and Consequences, by Anne-Marie Ambert of York University in Toronto, found that "divorce rates have gone down substantially during the 1990s and have remained at a lower level since 1997, with minor yearly fluctuations."

So clearly ALL of the predictions of the religious right have come true…. in that they haven’t. At all.

Considering that less than 30 years ago that many people were arrested, committed or persecuted for homosexuality in many Western countries, the progress has been impressive, (no matter what might be coming out of the mouths of Tea-Partiers. A list of countries/regions/areas/cities with same-sex marriage or civil unions is impressive and growing. Even if it is a little patchy in America, there is clear momentum in support for equal marriage rights. Obama supporting the Respect for Marriage Act is a positive (if slightly delayed) step forward.

Obviously, it’s not a totally rosy picture. It’s still a crime punishable by death in 7 countries and homosexual acts are outlawed by 113. The Uganda situation is particularly odious. But even the UN Human Rights Council has taken the step of passing its first resolution on LGBT persons in June. Even if there is still a lot of work to do, there seems to be a decent amount of momentum (and opposition).

And best wishes to New Yorkers getting ready to take the plunge!

Internet Famous! Canadian International Council Twitterati List

2011-07-19T14:43:00.000-05:00

The Canadian International Council has included me on their list of Canadian Foreign Policy tweeters. I'm really honoured to be in fantastic company. Lots of great names and worthy follows. They did a great job of putting the list together - and including academics - a category missing from the Foreign Policy list!

Check it out and follow away!

Confusing "bold" with "leadership" and "listening" with "agreement": It's still amateur hour for the Conservatives

2011-07-12T02:51:00.000-05:00

Chief Political Advisor to FM John Baird

What is leadership at the UN? Apparently it’s storming out of things when people we don’t like are there.
Canada has made the decision that it will “boycott” the UN Conference on Disarmament while North Korea is the chair.

Does it make sense that North Korea is the chair? No. Of course it doesn’t. It’s a state that has actively engaged in illegal trade and development of weapon, constantly threatens its neighbours and is a threat to international security.

So Canada has announced that it will boycott the meetings (until the middle of August due to the UN CD’s bizarre rules).

On the surface, this is a noble decision. We believe in the UN as a functional agency that can bring about real change – we will not tolerate that which makes a mockery of our vision of it. After all, who doesn’t cringe when they see Syria or Libya take control of various human rights bodies. It has also garnered a lot of international attention.

But is this leadership?

Read more »

Off With Their Heads-of-State! (Briefly) making the case for getting rid of the monarchy in Canada

2011-07-08T07:43:00.002-05:00

I will not deny that I do love this hat, though.

Dan Gardner [EDIT: the man in question has pointed out that I have spelled his name wrong. My apologies.] has an article in the Ottawa Citizen about how former Governor General of Canada, Michaëlle Jean (*shock*) somehow tried to make herself the head of state by apparently not having enough pictured of QEII hanging up at her fancy house, Rideau Hall.

Just a few years ago, the Governor General's website was festooned with glorious colour photographs of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean. But the Queen? There wasn't a single photograph of the Queen on the website of the Queen's representative. In fact, there were almost no references to the Queen at all, and one could easily get the impression that the esteemed Michaëlle Jean was, in all but name, Canada's head of state.

This leads our stalwart defender of the crown to conclude: "I cannot see how that can be read as anything but confirmation that the Governor General sees her role 'evolving' to become the actual head of state."

Yes. Michelle Jean was trying to orchestrate a coup.

Leaving aside the utter ridiculousness of this assertion (truly, the mind boggles, but I guess you don’t sell a lot of newspapers by making un-sensational claims), Gardner then proceeds to make the case for the monarchy in Canada:

Read more »

Putting the "Me" in Media: People sometimes think I'm worth quoting

2011-06-27T02:29:00.001-05:00

Not so-much Canada-stuff, but I have been quoted in the media recently.

First was with the very cool Chris Albon (who blogs here and tweets here) who had a piece on the Atlantic Wire blog on the disturbing trend of targeting healthcare workers in the Arab Spring. (My take: it's bad and crazy illegal to target healthcare workers)

Second, the Christian Science Monitor interviewed me (from a plane that was about to take off to Canada) on Obama's visit to London. I'm on the second page.

Please feel free to bask in my wisdom, oh internets!

Missing the Mark: Worst argument against the SDF ever?

2011-06-01T09:07:00.000-05:00

The Mark has a particularly badly informed article by Laura Beach on corporate (*gasp!*) funding of universities in Canada. She takes particular issue with SDF funding (which is probably going to be cut in the next budget anyway)

The main channel for military funding to social and political science departments is the Security Defence Forum (SDF). Established during the Cold War by DND, the SDF exists to distribute department funds to Canadian political and social science departments through “centres of expertise.” In return for funding, centres are expected to produce academic articles, conduct media interviews, publish Op-Ed articles, participate in conferences, and host a number of events to reach out to the public. The impartiality of funding allocation for research topics is seriously questionable, and casts doubt on the objectivity and academic freedom of these centres.

Beach's proof? Someone with corporate ties sits on the SDF board!

Read more »

Less than Zero: Canada and the Arab Spring (and why it matters, darn it!)

2011-05-27T06:39:00.000-05:00

Couldn't we at least send face paint?

Yesterday I pontificated on and speculated a bit about Canada and the Arab Spring. The main points of my rant argument were:

Canada has been slower than its allies to express support for the Arab Spring
Canada has not articulated any kind of policy towards the Arab Spring despite its leadership in the Libyan mission.
Canada should express unequivocal support for peaceful democratic transition, condemn attacks and violence against peaceful protesters and feel free to make its views known if it would seem that any of these transitions take on an illiberal/dangerous character.

Anything else that Canada could contribute in terms of money or support would be good. And it was speculated yesterday that Harper would lay out more of a vision as to what Canada’s response would be.

So what happened?

Read more »

Six Months later, Canada develops a policy on the Arab Spring

2011-05-26T06:32:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Stephen Harper is going to use the G8 summit to define his government’s position on the Arab Spring. Way to go guys! Only 6 months after the fact. Glad to see the Government of Canada taking the most important developments in the structure of international politics since 1989 so epically seriously.

What we still don’t know is whether Harper will actively or tepidly support the Arab Spring.

A couple of quick thoughts.

First, I don’t think Harper has any problems with carving out his own stance on the issue. He was clearly out of step with all of his Western allies (and other Canadian political parties) with his very lukewarm support for the Egyptian protestors – a stance clearly inspired by Harper’s strong support and concern for Israel’s security.

Read more »

The Economist on Canadian vs American attitudes towards immigration

2011-05-21T14:41:00.001-05:00

This is how you have to write your immigration test.

The Economist’s "Democracy in America Blog" has a fascinating (and flattering?) look at Canadian attitudes towards immigration.

As a matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.

Cana-dammerung: A belated final post on the Canadian Election

2011-05-19T04:34:00.001-05:00

Cry the beloved country.

Cross-posted at Duck of Minerva

Well it’s been just over two weeks since the Canadian Election – and I am much overdue for the long promised third installment of the snoozefest series that I started. In some ways I’m glad I waited to write my reply: first, because I was contemplating throwing myself off of Tower Bridge. In a moment of panic on the morning after the election I formed the Government of Canada in Exile (please join!) but I think I have calmed down now and have a new appreciation for the UK visa renewal process. Second, because I wanted to actually spend some time thinking about the implication of Canada’s first majority government since 2006.

So, what did I think?

Basically nothing. I actively ignored it. I’ve been bogged down with exams, international affairs (that OBL thing) and not quite willing to face up to the fact that Canada just handed this guy a majority mandate.

So, what am I making up off of the top of my head?

Lots!

2011 Canadian Election Results explained

2011-05-19T03:39:00.000-05:00

The best explanation of the Canadian election so far - via Saideman's Semi-Spew

I, for one, am happy to come from Scared White People Land.

Baird as FM Reports: A first overly-emotional reaction (Ohpleasegodno.)

2011-05-17T22:09:00.000-05:00

Even with syphilis, this bear may have been a better choice.

I'm due for a post on the election (coming!) but it would seem that the Globe and Mail is reporting that John Baird will be named the new Minister of Foreign Affairs...

If Canada wanted someone to make us more likable to an international community that has not exactly been super impressed with us lately, surely there must have been a syphilis-ridden half dead polar bear available?

For non-Canucks, this is like that time when the George W. Bush administration put John Bolton at the UN. Baird will make up for the lack of offensive facial hair with even less tact and diplomatic skills.

The only good news I can think about right now is that Harper seems to like and trusts Baird So this may actually be good for DFAIT - a symbol that a terribly used/neglected ministry might be getting attention.

At the same time, Harper likes Baird because he's a laser cannon that's been used to shout out dissent and find and crush opposition with the gentle touch of the Iranian security forces. It may mean that Harper wants to do something big, knows there is going to be a lot of dissent (the new "Office of Religious Freedom?!", even tougher stance on Israel/Palestine?) and will need someone to calm the masses... with screaming and hurled abuse.

Dear international community. Please ignore us for the next 2.5 years. There will be nothing you want to see here.

Quick Post on Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T02:52:00.001-05:00

The best thing to do with any breaking news is to speculate about it as much as possible without really knowing any of the facts.

Actually, here there is just one important fact: Osama bin Laden is dead.

The first and obvious point is that this does not end the War on Terror. There are a lot of reasons as to why this is the case, but suffice to say in a quick post that this isn’t like GI Joe finally took down Cobra. The Global War on Terror is comprised of many different strategic facets. In the short term, the risk of terrorism may actually have significantly increased.

My co-Duck blogger, Charli Carpenter has dismissed the significance of this:

My immediate take: they've done a masterful job at playing the media and making a huge story and enormous nationalistic success out of a single operation in a vast and endless war, that apparently will have no impact on our foreign policy.

I agree and disagree. As I said above, this probably won't have huge War on Terror strategic implications (other than a heightened risk of terrorism in the West). However, I also think there are some important things to consider that make this more of a significant event than what Charli is perhaps implying.

First, if bin Laden was where they say he was (some kind of military town?) I think the Pakistani’s will have some explaining to do as to why they hadn’t found him earlier. I mean, this wasn’t exactly a cave – or maybe a strategy to hide in plain sight? I think there may be some significant fallout for US-Pakistani cooperation - something that already wasn't fantastic.

Second, and importantly I think that this is a symbol (rightly or wrongly) that the US will pursue those who commit terrorist acts. It may make removing troops (rightly or wrongly) easier; certainly easier than it would be if bin Laden was still alive. That shadow (one of many) is at least no longer a concern.

Finaly, as CNN's Ben Wedeman tweeted out today: "Dictators and tyrants will surely miss #osamabinladen: he was such a great excuse for repression."

(Possibly)… More to come…

Seeing the Smartphone for the Electorate: The Mace on CPC Strategy

2011-05-01T06:42:00.001-05:00

The Mace has an interesting post on why the Conservatives have campaigned rather poorly - despite having more money and resources than any other party. I'll quote at length because it's pretty sharp and very good:

Conservative strategists are utter imbeciles when it comes to opening their war chest to the cheapest and most effective counterbalance to the danger of an ignited 34-44 demographic, the second largest growing social media participant group. That counterbalance is targeted online advertising.

The Conservative advertising strategy throughout the campaign has been a heavy emphasis on massive blanket TV spots. Fine. Television is the heart, the intestine, the lungs of campaign advertising. We have already talked about how their production machine has shifted mid-stride to confront the recent NDP surge. But social media is the new nervous system, the thyroid, and the pancreas. The Conservatives have demonstrated an inability to ascertain and respond to the strength of the NDP momentum, the new manifold on which people make decisions. Their response could have been swiftly accomplished through a noise campaign of massive facebook and YouTube blanket ads for pennies a glass. Their not doing so betrays their internally antiquated groupthink and focus on highly personal and creative attacks rather than a wide ranging public engagement strategy. When even the Chosen One is saying that the revival preacher is failing to connect to Canadians, the Conservatives could at least follow through on their cynicism backed by treasure and sprint back on a road of bones. NDP strategists should be congratulated for using their resources so effectively, especially given the obvious window by their generous counterparts.

By showing that they had no endgame strategy in the event their character assassination of Michael Ignatieff backfired by re-igniting complacent left wing voters, the Conservatives have exposed a conceit all their own. The blind trust they placed in their hatchet men has proven to be their undoing. The closed rallies, the barbs of the lurker scandal, all of this pales to an oversight that will have them kicking themselves in the months to come. With just under $20M probably spent so far in this campaign, an extra half million on an avalanche of impressions,5 second YouTube spots, and Google ads might have been the counterpunch they needed. Every time I see Conservative staffers on TV, they’re always huddled intensely, rattling away on their BlackBerries and their iPhones. It stuns me that so cunning and well resourced an organization cannot see the smart phone for the electorate. In this, the NDP has played the player, not the game.

The 2011 Canadian Election: Lessons Learned and Mindless Amateur Speculation

2011-05-01T05:51:00.002-05:00

Canadian democracy rests in this man's hands.

Cross-posted at Duck of Minerva. Because I like bothering the 95.6% non-Canadians on that site.

Yesterday I provided a fully superficial background and survey of developments regarding the 2011 Canadian Election. The short version is 1) We’ve had a series of minority governments. 2) Stephen Harper probably thought he could get a majority, and now that does not seem likely though it is still possible. 3) The NDP has ‘surged’, probably at the Liberal’s expense, but also very much at the expense of the Quebec nationalist/separatist Bloc Party and possibly even that of the Tories (who may have expected disappointed Liberals to flock right rather than left.)

In other words – no one has any idea what is going to happen. ThreeHundredandEight has a post on what would happen if the parties achieved their ‘vote ceiling’ ie) how many seats they would get if everyone who says they are going to vote for them actually does. So a majority government for the Tories is still possible (they have a pretty dedicated party followers. One might say rabid, but that is unkind. Just don’t date any...)

So, based on the fact that we are in electoral terra incognita if the polls are right, what can we possibly say we have learned from the election?

The 2011 Canadian Election: I don’t even know

2011-04-30T04:12:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted at Duck of Minerva.

Last year I was much better at blogging about the UK General Election. I thought it was going to be incredibly boring, but then there was the rise of a third party in an unexpected way which changed the balance of power.

This year with Canada’s turn to re-stack the deck, I thought the election was going to be incredibly boring, but then there was the rise of a third party in an unexpected way which very well may change the balance of power.

It’s always a bit hard for me to gage the interest/reaction of Duck readers about the election. Apparently about 4.6% of the hits to the Duck are from Canada. So I don’t know if people know or care. Even the venerable Dan Drezner managed to tweet out “FT headline "Crowds Cheer Royal Newlyweds" rivals "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative" in its sheer banality” to which all I can say is, take off, eh?!

Over three posts I am going to reflect on the Canadian election: 1) the set up 2) what we have learned 3) the result (after the result on 2 May). Let the mindless speculation begin!

Some Recent Duck Posts:

2011-04-28T05:17:00.000-05:00

I've come back to Blighty for the exam season and haven't had much time to blog here. I have, however, a few posts up at the Duck of Minerva. One on the most recent Guantanamo revelations via (not) Wikileaks (apparently). Another on answering Dan Drezner's challenge to pick three books to give to aspiring US presidential candidates. Finally, a bit of nonsense - with a little bit of sense - Could Mummar Gaddafi's clothing be considered cultural property under the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention?

Enjoy! (If only Gaddafi's outfits.)

Standing Up for Multiculturalism? or “Where I find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister of Canada and that the dirt won’t come off.” (Duck of Minerva)

2011-04-16T09:06:00.000-05:00

I have a post up at the Duck of Minerva on multiculturalism, Canada and the UK. It was inspired by a column in the Toronto Star today on Steven Harper's surprisingly robust defence of multiculturalism (especially against Gilles Duceppe) in the Canadian electoral debates.

I'm not a huge Harper fan, but I think he spoke, well and forcefully for multiculturalism. Ignatieff is good on these issues and human rights (I've read enough of his stuff to know), but to his credit, I think that Harper may have done a slightly better job at keeping it "riz-eal" for the Canadian public.(So not necessarily a better argument, but perhaps phrased better.)

Finally, I'd not consider myself an expert on multiculturalism, but I so like to think that I have read a good chuck of liberal theory. And as a Canadian, I've been exposed to the idea for some time. I really do believe that UK PM Cameron has it wrong. Multiculturalism isn't some kind of ultra-pluralist relativism (and no one should be able to define it that way - advocates or detractors). Used as a facilitator of exhange and integration, I think it can be a good way of promoting integration and having a healthier and safer society.

Is an “Office of Religious Freedom” really a good idea?

2011-04-08T11:45:00.001-05:00

Today Stephen Harper announced that his government would support an “Office of Religious Freedom” in DFAIT.

Perhaps the biggest foreign-policy promise is to track religious freedoms in other countries.
The Conservatives are promising to establish a $5-million office of religious freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to monitor religious freedom around the world “as a key objective of Canadian foreign policy.”

I’ve mixed feelings about this. I believe that religious freedom is important as a fundamental human right. People should be allowed to express their faith (or non-faith). And supporting human rights is a good and traditional Canadian foreign policy,

However, I wonder if this is really a good idea or in Canada’s national interest?

Read more »

How fares "lawfare"? (Duck of Minerva)

2011-04-07T20:13:00.000-05:00

I have a post on "lawfare"/international law/laws of war up at the Duck of Minerva.Shorter me: I'm not sure that "lawfare" is a particularly useful concept. Check it out!

Two Links: Al-Shabaab's first women recruits; More on International Justice and Libya

2011-04-04T09:30:00.001-05:00

Last week there was a story in the news about a Canadian man who was stopped from leaving the country out of a concern that he was on his way to Somalia to fight with Al-Shabaab. Today in the Toronto Star there is a report that two Toronto teenagers are missing and are now believed to have done the same. And it’s not just any two teenagers – one is thought to be the 19-year-old niece of the current Prime Minister of Somalia.

While this is the first known case of women being recruited by the Shabaab in North America, it’s not clear if Mohamed’s niece was specifically targeted by the terror group because of her family links.

It's pretty easy to deduce two major concerns here. First, what clearly makes this case different is that it’s two women that have gone. I can’t imagine that it’s a pleasant situation for them - even if they still want to be there. The other major concern is that this is another successful recruitment for Al-Shabaab in recruiting Somalis to their cause.

These recent incidents involving Toronto residents have rattled the Somali diaspora and community leaders fear other young people will be targeted as long as they feel alienated in North America.

Two links: Intervention and Justice in Libya

2011-04-02T08:06:00.000-05:00

Topics today aren't directly related to Canadian foreign policy, but relate to the activities in Libya which Canada is very much participating in.

Last week I wrote a rebuttal to Margarete Wente's piece on R2P. Taylor Owen and Anouk Day do the same at the Canadian International Council blog:

Before going through her case, which warrants response, it's worth remembering what R2P is and is not. Emerging from a Canadian funded commission in 2001 into how the international community should react in the face of crimes against humanity and genocide, the concept is meant to put a degree of conditionality on the notion of sovereignty. The sovereign rights of states, R2P argues, are conditional on the protection of civilians against large-scale slaughter. If this protection is not provided, the international community can legitimately breech sovereignty in order to protect the civilians in harm.
What R2P is not, is a blank check to invade. It is a threshold that can be used to guide Security Council endorsement for humanitarian interventions. It is a principle that was ratified by the UN General Assembly, not an idea unleashed from the ivory tower. It did not apply to either Iraq or Afghanistan. It would have applied to Rwanda. It applies in Libya, and likely in the Ivory Coast.

Why we need to debate foreign policy in elections: Lessons from the UK 2010 General Election

2011-04-01T10:55:00.000-05:00

I have a post up at the Duck of Minerva on why we should have a debate on foreign policy based on last year's largely foreign-policy-free UK election.

Shorter me: Despite the fact that foreign policy did not play a major role in the campaign, the UK coalition government has made major foreign policy decisions that have substantial ramifications for the UK as a whole. The lesson here is that even if only discussed in terms of vague principles, we should have a foreign policy discussion during the election.

Two Quick Links: Amnesty International is mad and Harper on Libya

2011-04-01T09:10:00.001-05:00

Amnesty International has released a new report on Canada's track record on human rights, called "Getting on the 'Rights' Track". (See what they did there?) According to their website:

“In recent years there has been a decline in Canada’s international human rights leadership,” notes Shetty. “There has been erosion of Canada’s past policies including a principled and non-partisan reputation in the Middle East. There was opposition to a declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. And action on economic, social and cultural rights including the right to water has faltered.”
What should be done, the report notes, is for Canada to develop Middle Eastern foreign policy positions that are grounded in equal recognition of the universal human rights of all peoples in the region. A strong human rights framework must guide efforts to tackle maternal mortality. Work must be undertaken to develop an implementation plan for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. And Canada must act on economic, social and cultural rights. These rights must be protected by allowing individual international level complaints by Canada ratifying the Optional Protocol to the ESC Covenant. And Canada must recognize the right to water and sanitation in international law.

I have written about the "right" to water here. Shorter me: I'm skeptical. How could you possibly enforce that? But such reports are valuable and good reference for thinking about and assessing our foreign and domestic policies.

Secondly, and more briefly, PM Stephen Harper answered a question on Libya, stating that Canada would not be contributing "boots on the ground":

"We're not putting boots on the ground but we are working very closely with our allies to enforce United Nations resolutions and to try to see the departure of Mr. Gadhafi from power.
"We have all been clear that he has lost legitimacy and he needs to go for the benefit and for the welfare of the people of Libya."

Not a big surprise. With so many losses in Afghanistan, I'm sure the last thing the PM (and Canadian public) want is more troops in unstable areas abroad for vague reasons.

Two articles: some foreign policy (but not really), and Ramesh Thakur is angry.

2011-03-31T06:34:00.000-05:00

Embassy Magazine’s Carl Meyer’s has a good round up of the foreign policy discussion so far on the campaign. Shorter Embassy Magazine: It’s not much. It probably won’t be much. But Meyers argue that although such issues may not be central, they are making “cameo issues” in the campaign. Harper is speaking on security and stability and Ignatieff is speaking about restoring Canada’s reputation, presumably damaged with Harper’s security and stability policies.

But, Meyer’s article concludes that Canadian foreign policy is probably not going to play an important role in the election, has historically not played an important role in Canadian elections, and likely will never play a role in Canadian elections.

"Conservative voters like us to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in military operations," said Environics founder Michael Adams. "New Democrat and Bloc voters generally take the opposite view. Liberals are often stuck in the middle."
This, in a nutshell, lays out the way many Canadian voters look at their different federal parties when it comes to foreign policy, and that description can be adapted to a variety of issues. That could explain why foreign policy is reduced more to a narrative than specific issues in Canadian election campaigns.
Still, Mr. Graves argues that at any times, many international issues could be top of mind for voters, or very close to it. At the moment, however, they are all background noise to the more media-hyped issues of coalitions, the Canadian economy and the policy announcements.

So much for my list? More thoughts on this, and lessons/implications from the UK 2010 General Election soon...

In the meantime, Ramesh Thakur has a pretty damning article about the Harper government on The Australian website.

Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy.

I take it his experiences in Canada haven't been that awesome, but ouch! Still, it reminds me of the time a friend once complained to me, that Harper prorogued parliament and all Canadians did was worry about shoveling snow from their driveways.

In the No: Looking for an information balance during the election campaign

2011-03-30T09:04:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Globe and Mail had two articles (here and here) on the dearth of foreign policy news that we can expect during the election.

Convention typically constrains governments’ role on the world stage during election campaigns, as they are expected to refrain from making new international commitments, and there are concerns it could over-politicize international relations.

There are two implications of this (as the articles point out.)

First, there will be a downplaying of major foreign policy activities during the five week election campaign, including NOT sending Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon to London to go to the Libya summit. (Apparently we were represented by our UK High Commissioner... and this means that the PM and his wife will not be able to attend Will and Kate's Wedding in London. UK - you're welcome!)

Read more »

Morality, R2P, the nature of conflict and the emerging "Obama Doctrine"

2011-03-28T20:53:00.001-05:00

[Cross posted at Duck of Minerva]

There’s been some really interesting posts here on R2P in the last few days. At the risk of kicking a dead horse – although I hardly think this horse is dead - I’d like to raise a few points. (I've actually been writing this post over the past few days, and was going to post it later in the week, but Obama's speech tonight made me want to post it earlier. You know, because hasty blogging is always a good thing.)

Most of my thinking has been on the issue of consistency/inconsistency with regards to R2P. I think I agree with Charli, there is no consistency requirement when it comes to R2P. For better and for worse, the case presently being made for R2P in Libya is that the international community is acting where it can when it can. The better part of this is that it’s relatively easy to protect civilians from conventional military forces (tanks, planes, etc) and this is why I think we see the action in Libya. Boots on the ground are not required, and if they were, it's clear that they're probably not coming. As Obama said tonight, boots on the ground would entail a situation where the "dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next."

The worse part of this, as implied by Obama's speech, is that it is still very hard to end civil wars/ethnic strife (such as that of Rwanda – which provoked so much soul-searching about humanitarian intervention in the first place). And this is why we aren’t really seeing any intervention in Côte d’Ivoire – because everyone knows it would be a hot mess.

Read more »

12 Foreign Policy Questions I’d like answered in the election (in case we decide to stop being farcical as a nation.)

2011-03-28T08:32:00.003-05:00

With our pretty decent life-style and (relatively) half-decent economy, it is clear that the politicians are going to be talking about nothing at all. (Exactly why the Canadian media reporters are allowing PM Harper to make this about a non-existent coalition is beyond me.)

So, as we begin our inevitable decent from the ~~sublime~~ ridiculous to the ridiculous, here are 12 random foreign policy questions that I would like someone (anyone?) ask/answer in a meaningful way. (For the record, I would also like a pony.I figure that I have about as much chance of either happening.)

Is ‘human security’ still a Canadian Foreign Policy priority? Should it be?
Given that Canada has had a difficult time over its policy on climate change, how should Canada work with the international community on promoting our national interests (tar sands) and agreements on reducing carbon?
Despite the strict austerity measures the coalition UK government is taking in its budget, it has "ring fenced" or protected the Department for International Development (DFID) from cuts. With the cut-backs coming, what will be your party's strategy for development and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)? And what should be it's priority areas?
What should be Canada’s plans for re-engaging with the United Arab Emirates, if any?
Reports suggest that the Harper government has considered closing several embassies in Africa. Would a government under your party do this? How should Canada engage with Africa?
What should Canada’s priorities for the Americas be?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the ‘common security’ perimeter that has been proposed with the United States?
Should Canada continue its’ mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011? If so, in what capacity? And how would a Canadian mission there be able to operate without any military support/protection?
How should Canada (meaningfully) balance its’ commitment to human rights with its engagement with China?
Should Canada return to a “peacekeeping” tradition?
Under Harper it has been alleged that Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East has been 'tilted' more towards supporting Israel than assuming a traditionally 'neutral' stance. Should Canada be more supportive of its democratic ally, Israel, or return to its more neutral stance to engage all parties? Why? Or can you propose an alternate stance?
What should the top three foreign policy priorities for Canada be (excluding Arctic sovereignty)?

These are just some of several important questions that could be (but probably won't) be asked of our potential leaders. Does anyone else have any suggestions?

Margart Wente is wrong on R2P

2011-03-26T21:00:00.001-05:00

Marget Wente has an article on R2P and Libya. Shorter Margaret Wente: she’s not a fan.

This doctrine is known as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P for short) and was endorsed by the United Nations in 2005. It mandates that the “international community” is morally obliged to defend people who are in danger of massive human-rights violations. It’s rooted in Western guilt over the failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda. R2P is the moral underpinning of the war in Libya, and it’s the reason why people such as Paul Martin, Roméo Dallaire, Mr. Rae and Mr. Axworthy have been so amazingly eager for us to rush into battle….
R2Pers aren’t just guilty of amnesia. They’re also ignorant. They know less about the tribal politics of Libya than they do about the dark side of the moon. To them, all Arab nations look alike. They got so excited about the Arab Awakening that they assumed the rebels in Libya were not much different from the protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. This hopeful story line has been reinforced by sympathetic Western reporters on the ground, even though they have no idea who the rebels are, either. On closer inspection, it turns out that at least some of them are not too nice. They’re happy to round up suspects and use Moammar Gadhafi’s former prisons in much the same way he did.

Wente raises some good questions in her larger article. First, she points out that no one in the opposition can be bothered to actually question Canada’s participation in the Libyan conflict. Canadian politicians, by and large, are going to be too busy waiting for each other to screw up their lines and go-offline in the election campaign rather than question the viability of the mission in Libya.

Read more »

Since there is nothing else going on in the world, let's talk about Canada!

2011-03-26T07:56:00.003-05:00

International politics is such a bore these days, right? Good thing we have Canada to spice things up for us!

There were two interesting developments yesterday for those living in the northern end of North America. First, it was announced that a Canadian, Maj. Gen. Charles Bouchard, will be heading up the NATO mission in Libya. My first thoughts about this were that the choice represents an interesting compromise. Canada, the (French?) vanilla ice-cream of the Western alliance (normally boring, but safe and reliable) represents a non-American and non-European choice. Yet, since the Americans clearly did not want a high-profile position on the mission, this seems to have settled a rivalry between the UK and France. I suppose Bouchard, who represents a country of both English and French sensibilities (and an ability to speak both languages) was an even better compromise then.

Read more »

First Post!

2011-03-25T22:38:00.000-05:00

This is the latest reincarnation of a website that I have maintained (on and off) since 1996. Although I blog at the very cool Duck of Minerva on international relations issues, I wanted a website where I could ~~rant~~ write about Canadian issues for a Canadian audience. While I’ve generally received excellent feedback from my fellow Duck bloggers on my Canada-posts, I do worry about whether or not I’m providing enough background or whether those who are non-Canuckistani are just bored with our North of the 49th neuroses.

I’ll probably be doing a lot of linking and a certain amount of cross-posting. My hope is to post at least a few times per week – probably linked though Twitter.

I look forward to your feedback and comments (keep it spirited and friendly, eh?)