Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canada is all MUSCLES

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Canada is all MUSCLES

    Canada's comeback


    January 2007 | 130 » Opinions » Canada's comeback

    The country that used to be synonymous with soft power is getting more muscular

    Peter Shawn Taylor

    Peter Shawn Taylor is an editorial writer at Maclean's magazine
    Defending the Northwest passage was an easier job in centuries past. The impenetrable Arctic ice kept everyone out until 1906, when Roald Amundsen finally conquered the passage.

    More recently, however, a warming climate has made the idea of a circumpolar shipping route a real possibility. It has been speculated that the Northwest passage could be open for commercial traffic in as little as 15 years, nearly halving the distance by ship between Tokyo and London. For Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, that means more effort is required to keep it Canadian.

    Long-standing US policy holds that navigable straits such as the Northwest passage are international waters—and the US ambassador to Canada has taken pains to remind Canadians of this in recent months. It is a position that has earned him sharp rebukes. "We will defend our sovereignty over all our territory—including the islands, waterways and resources of the high Arctic—even if that conflicts with US claims," Harper told the Economic Club of New York in September.

    Harper has also publicly defended Canadian sovereignty in the case of New Brunswick's Head Harbour passage, near the eastern maritime border with the US. He has committed Canada to barring dangerous liquefied natural gas tankers hoping to reach American ports through the Canadian channel.

    Such strong and direct positions have come to characterise Canadian foreign policy under Harper's leadership. After a generation in which Canada's international relations rested on soft power and multilateralism, a much more robust Canada is emerging on to the international stage.

    Stephen Harper has been in power for less than a year, and his minority Conservative government could fall at any moment. Yet he has surprised critics and supporters alike by the speed with which he is redefining Canada's international image. He has strongly aligned himself with the war in Afghanistan, signing Canada up for a more aggressive and lengthier role. The 2,300 troops engaged in the "bandit territory" around Kandahar represent Canada's biggest overseas deployment since the Korean war. In a departure from the typical Canadian peacekeeping role of the last 25 years, Canadian military leaders have asked to fight in a danger zone, and have suffered 39 fatalities since August 2005.

    The new administration in Ottawa has also repudiated the Kyoto protocol, backed Israel and presented the Dalai Lama with honorary Canadian citizenship, giving China a slap over its human rights record in the process. As Harper told the Economic Club: "Make no mistake: Canada intends to be a player."

    Despite his strong words on the Northwest passage, Harper has also set about repairing relations with the US. He was able to negotiate a softwood lumber trade deal, settling a long-festering and expensive dispute between the two countries that had confounded the previous Liberal administrations of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. He has worked to establish a cordial personal relationship with George W Bush, abandoning the frequent anti-American stances of Liberal regimes.

    Whether all this is a good thing or not depends on your political perspective and ideas of Canadian character and identity. "We have seen major improvements over the past year," says Michael Hart, a trade expert at the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa. "Adults are finally in charge."

    For fans of the old Canadian traditions, the new stance is perplexing. Robert Wolfe, a politics professor at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, laments the new asymmetry. "They scold China on Tibet, yet you would never catch Harper making nasty comments about Guantánamo," he notes. Harper's stand-offish approach to the EU—he declined a summit in November with EU leaders, because of disagreements over Kyoto—also worries Wolfe, who recalls that longtime Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau (1968-79, 1980-84) worked hard to build EU relations as a means of diversifying Canada's foreign policy away from the US.

    And yet with his bolder expressions of Canadian interests and strong support for the military, Harper may simply be winding the clock back past Trudeau to a more muscular time for Canada. At the end of the second world war, for instance, Canada had the third largest navy in the world, 1m men in uniform and a strong bond with the US. This gave the country an outsized influence on world affairs. Only during the Trudeau era did Canada's approach to foreign policy become so marked by the emphasis on soft power.

    "However shocking it may seem, the relationship with the US is the only one that matters for Canada," stresses Hart. "And we have lost a lot of influence in Washington over the years." The two countries are the largest trading partners in the world, and their security is tightly interwoven. Solidifying Canada-US relations is thus the foundation for a coherent foreign policy.

    Where previous Liberal governments often defined Canadian policies simply as the opposite of whatever the Americans were proposing, Harper has the confidence to express an independent Canadian view. His personal and party policy tendencies largely overlap with American positions on issues of trade, western values and international security—all of which will inevitably give him more clout with the White House. But that doesn't mean he won't feel obliged to disagree on other matters, such as the defence of the Northwest and Head Harbour passages.

    At the same time as Harper maps out a more aggressive international projection of Canada, however, his internal concept of Canada is becoming blurred. In an effort to outflank separatist forces in Quebec, Harper recently steered a controversial motion through the House of Commons recognising that the Québécois "form a nation within a united Canada." Explicit recognition that Quebec's unique social, cultural and political traditions constitute nationhood may eventually damage Harper's foreign policy. It could, for instance, lead to multiple Canadian viewpoints and an undermining of the legitimacy of national symbols and beliefs. Quebec's government has long demanded its own voice on certain international issues, such as support for the Kyoto protocol, and its new "nation" status may embolden these claims.

    And yet it appears Harper will pay no political price for his move. His chief rival is the newly minted federal Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, who in early December narrowly defeated Michael Ignatieff, the pro-Iraq war former academic, for the Liberal crown. Dion also supported the Quebec nationhood motion. So if Harper can turn his recognition of Quebec as a nation into increased political support from that province, he will be well on his way to a big majority in the next election—giving him the time and political capital necessary to complete his remaking of Canada's place in the world.
    End of the article
    http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=8141
    So, Canada is transforming from a soft power to a muscular one!

    Comments please!


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    Soft power. How I loved that term. At the height of soft power, we had over 5000 people overseas engaging in combat operations.

    However, I'm not sure I like the current hoorah climate. Before when we're quiet, we punch above our weight and said nothing. Now, we're chastising our allies for not doing enough and begging for help.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ya, the one thing Harper has done right. We need to protect arctic sovereignty. When you hear about how so many countries are sending investigative expeditions regarding oil into OUR arctic waters, and we turned a blind eye to it.......its a big problem. Lets expand CFB Alert, and build a couple more big bases in the arctic. My worry is that they'll start mining operations one day, and think that "what is Canada gonna do anyway", and then take away OUR oil money.

      I have a very interesting proposition:

      If you dont graduate from high school, you should be conscripted for a year. And throw them all into arctic bases. It kills two birds with one stone: youth crime, and military numbers.

      But to be brutally honest, I admire Charles De Gaulle's "third power model" for France. Maybe one day lol..............
      Last edited by ajtigger; 13 Jan 07,, 20:20.
      "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
        Ya, the one thing Harper has done right. We need to protect arctic sovereignty. When you hear about how so many countries are sending investigative expeditions regarding oil into OUR arctic waters, and we turned a blind eye to it.......its a big problem.
        And we know each and everyone of them and when do they go - in the summer.

        Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
        Lets expand CFB Alert, and build a couple more big bases in the arctic.
        What for? What are you going to station them with?

        Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
        My worry is that they'll start mining operations one day, and think that "what is Canada gonna do anyway", and then take away OUR oil money.
        They ain't going to anything of the sort. No one is disputing our ownership of the area, just the right of free passage. The waters in and out of the Northwest Passage are purely Canadian. We know who goes in and out of the Northwest Passage.

        Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
        If you dont graduate from high school, you should be conscripted for a year. And throw them all into arctic bases. It kills two birds with one stone: youth crime, and military numbers.
        No thanks, I don't want anyone in my command who doesn't want to be there. We're combat forces, not babysitters. I have a hell of enough time trying to get people ready who wants to get ready. I don't have time to spare to waste money on those who don't.

        Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
        But to be brutally honest, I admire Charles De Gaulle's "third power model" for France. Maybe one day lol..............
        And you know what we think of that walking disaster.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          And we know each and everyone of them and when do they go - in the summer.
          We need to increase our oil expeditions to that area. And restrict those of foreign countries.

          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          What for? What are you going to station them with?
          I dunno. Do something. Lets make any country who tries to investigate here feel threatened and scared. Lets patrol the area with airplanes and destroyers. Lets keep that oil money for ourselves.

          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          They ain't going to anything of the sort. No one is disputing our ownership of the area, just the right of free passage. The waters in and out of the Northwest Passage are purely Canadian. We know who goes in and out of the Northwest Passage.
          The Americans are.

          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          No thanks, I don't want anyone in my command who doesn't want to be there. We're combat forces, not babysitters. I have a hell of enough time trying to get people ready who wants to get ready. I don't have time to spare to waste money on those who don't.
          Well, many European countries do it. In fact, they make everyone do it. What--in your view, do we have enough men in the forces?
          Last edited by ajtigger; 13 Jan 07,, 21:25.
          "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
            We need to increase our expeditions to that area. And restrict those of foreign countries.
            Why? Most are these are scientific expeditions and the few that are not are joint prospecting missions. The science are shared and the prospecting are done via private capital. We get the benefits without spending one cent.

            Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
            I dunno. Do something. Lets make any country who tries to question are arctic sovereignty feel threatened and scared. Lets patrol the area with airplanes and destroyers.
            If you want to plant a flag, the Northern Rangers do that quite nicely. 10 snowmobiles and Inuits wearing red caps does wonders. We've restricted the Aurora flights to about twice a year but the entire area is under NORAD watch. There has not been a case when a Russian bear came too close that it was not chased away by American or Canadian CF-18s.

            Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
            The Americans are.
            They're challenging the right of free passage, not the ownership of the land, ie ships using the NWP are not subject to Canadian customs and safety laws.

            Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
            Well, many European countries do it. In fact, they make everyone do it.
            And you will note that they're moving away from conscript forces to professional ones. There's a reason why the Brits and Canucks are the two most deployed armies in NATO. There's no political backlash for sending non-volunteers into harms way.

            Comment


            • #7
              They're challenging the right of free passage, not the ownership of the land, ie ships using the NWP are not subject to Canadian customs and safety laws.
              I don't think that's true. The US has this "20 km rule" or something like that, which states that all ocean territory that is a certain distance away from shore are international waters.
              "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

              Comment


              • #8
                It would be nice to come to some sort of a compromise on the territorial water dispute so we can put all that behind us and move on.
                Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                Comment


                • #9
                  That's free passage. The EEZ extends 200 miles and the ownership of the LAND is not in question. However, until someone comes up with the technology to deal with ice packs that can sink an aircraft carrier or the ice packs go away, it's a non-issue.

                  What--in your view, do we have enough men in the forces?
                  Presently, we have the minimum needed to do our missions. The combined services could use 10-20K more people. I, personally, would like to see us return to the 120,000 Cold War days with reconsituting the 1st Canadian Division but me old dinosaur is just harping about the good old days.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Dont worry, there wont be no free water in the summers, Global Warming is a farce. The world goes through warm and cold spouts, its only natural. Tell the poor suckers in Winnipeg today about Global Warming, they'd tell you to shove it up your arse.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Where previous Liberal governments often defined Canadian policies simply as the opposite of whatever the Americans were proposing, Harper has the confidence to express an independent Canadian view.
                      I've been preaching this for years, I've been sick and tired of the preveous governments, most of them Liberal, taking this stance in reguards to a national policy's.

                      Harpers a refreshing relief to all this insanity.
                      Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                      -- Larry Elder

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Canmoore View Post
                        Dont worry, there wont be no free water in the summers, Global Warming is a farce. The world goes through warm and cold spouts, its only natural. Tell the poor suckers in Winnipeg today about Global Warming, they'd tell you to shove it up your arse.
                        I think you need to get YOUR arse into a grade 11 chemistry class.

                        Oh, and by the way, Canada's period of soft-power (and it did exist, whether you would like to admit it or not, in many diplomatic respects), the Americans have wanted to do nothing but gain a monopoly on CANADIAN industry. Such is the nature of those expansionists. We really need to stop selling our successes to the Americans and slowly develop a strong, characteristically CANADIAN industry with characteristically CANADIAN products, and Canadian solidarity in commerce. Canada is to America what Newfoundland is to Canada, and Canada would do well to learn from Iceland's economic formula since independence.
                        Last edited by ajtigger; 16 Jan 07,, 02:29.
                        "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Actually, no, there are serious challenges to global warming theories and chief amongst them is that is it man-made. A single volcano can throw more junk into the air than man could do in a century.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
                            ...the Americans have wanted to do nothing but gain a monopoly on CANADIAN industry. Such is the nature of those expansionists.
                            You think the US wants a monoploy on Canadian businesses? Do you have any examples?

                            I have done quite a lot of business with Canadian companies over the years, and have always had excellent relationships. This is the first time I have ever heard a Canadian say something like this. Do you have any business background ajtigger? Do you work for a company that trades with the US?

                            What do you mean by "expansionists"? Do you think the US has laid claim to Canadian territory? Or that there is intent to? Or are you just referring to business?
                            "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ajtigger View Post
                              Oh, and by the way, Canada's period of soft-power (and it did exist, whether you would like to admit it or not, in many diplomatic respects),
                              For every instance you care to mention where Canadian soft power succeeded, I will show you the Canadian military muscle behind that success.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X