Is Harper fed up of Bush?

[August1991]

That's how the Quebec press (Gesca) is playing this.

Stephen Harper l’a fait savoir clairement avant son départ pour le Japon, mercredi dernier, à Ottawa, en présence du premier ministre français, François Fillon : ce n’est pas avec George W. Bush que les choses avanceront au G8 sur la question des changements climatiques.

Link

I think La Presse is right.

Canada is typically the interpreter of the US to the Europeans. Harper is going to tell the others that Bush will be gone in a few months and next year, it will be either McCain or Obama. Harper will then have to explain who these two guys are to the assorted Europeans.

(As a Canadian, what would you say?)

On the environment and climate change, Harper is right to say that everyone is better to wait until next year. (Harper's problem is to explain "why" to the others in the G8. How to explain that Obama/McCain will be different? Foreigners fundamentally don't get America.)

Need an example?

"Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather," says a senior Administration official. "It was like something out of 1984."

Link

Such is the divide between America and the rest of the world. Around the table, Harper has to explain it to them. We get it.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canada is typically the interpreter of the US to the Europeans. Harper is going to tell the others that Bush will be gone in a few months and next year, it will be either McCain or Obama. Harper will then have to explain who these two guys are to the assorted Europeans....

The role as "interpreter" has less to do with policy communication for Europe and much more to do with the longstanding tug-o-war for Canada. It's not about the United States at all, but rather Canada's precarious role and squeeze between America and Europe....a contest lost long ago in favor of the Americans.

I was watching President Bush and Prime Minister Fukuda at a live Q&A from the G8 conference this morning at 3AM on C-SPAN and Bush was very straighforward, more clearly stating policies compared to Fukuda, who actually deferred to Bush (e.g. attending Beijing Games opening ceremonies). It's not so much that the American presidents need any interpretation, it's that the "rest of the world" doesn't always like that which has been clearly communicated. This is an American trait....be direct and blunt. Nuance and complexity are the working tools of lesser gods.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada is typically the interpreter of the US to the Europeans. Harper is going to tell the others that Bush will be gone in a few months and next year, it will be either McCain or Obama. Harper will then have to explain who these two guys are to the assorted Europeans.

Seems to me Harper was more than happy to suck up to Bush before he was on his way to becoming a lame duck, so perhaps it's not so much that he's tired of Bush, but rather that he's just already preparing to suck up to the new POTUS.

But I really don't think Harper needs to explain to the rest of the summit that the U.S. will be electing a new president this fall-- I think the "assorted Europeans" already know there's an election coming up and Bush will be gone in January and either McCain or Obama will be the new President-- I think they already know who McCain and Obama are. I don't think they need Harper to fill them in about the United States. I don't think they live in a cave; I think it's a safe bet to assume that they listen to and read the news.

Edited July 6, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems to me Harper was more than happy to suck up to Bush before he was on his way to becoming a lame duck, so perhaps it's not so much that he's tired of Bush, but rather that he's just already preparing to suck up to the new POTUS.

Roger that....if the PMs of the world don't like the POTUS, they can just wait for the next train, which run like clockwork.

But I really don't think Harper needs to explain to the rest of the summit that the U.S. will be electing a new president this fall-- I think the "assorted Europeans" already know there's an election coming up and Bush will be gone in January and either McCain or Obama will be the new President-- I think they already know who McCain and Obama are. I don't think they need Harper to fill them in about the United States. I don't think they live in a cave; I think it's a safe bet to assume that they listen to and read the news.

Indeed....there are even international partisans taking sides, clearly thinking that they know their fate with either candidate's positions upon inauguration. I think what they hate most is the realization that there could/would be change for America...on America's terms...not theirs...and they are powerless to impact the decision....even if they try.

[August1991]

But I really don't think Harper needs to explain to the rest of the summit that the U.S. will be electing a new president this fall-- I think the "assorted Europeans" already know there's an election coming up and Bush will be gone in January and either McCain or Obama will be the new President-- I think they already know who McCain and Obama are. I don't think they need Harper to fill them in about the United States. I don't think they live in a cave; I think it's a safe bet to assume that they listen to and read the news.

They don't live in a cave, but then US politics are not so obvious to foreigners outside of North America.

For example, the Japanese and Europeans seem to think that they can get a climate agreement at this G8 summit. With Bush, it ain't gonna happen and Harper alone seems to know this. OTOH, at the next summit in Italy, when Obama/McCain will represent the US, it'll be a whole different story.

Foreigners, even supposedly well informed and savvy ones, don't really understand how the US President exercises power or how the Congress can limit that power.

To make a comparison, how well does anyone in the US (even political junkies) understand the relationship between, say, the French president and the French PM?

I recall the story of a microphone left on at one of these things and Chretien being overheard explaining to several European political types how and why Congressmen from a particular district have much more face time with the President than any foreign leader.

US politics are complicated and difficult to fathom (just think of the primary system) and one of the few people around the table in Japan right now who understands US politics is Stephen Harper. Bush isn't going to explain it to them so that task falls to Harper.

Apparently, Harper has given up on Bush as an agent of climate change. I think that's the gist of the OP.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Apparently, Harper has given up on Bush as an agent of climate change. I think that's the gist of the OP.

If PM Harper knows so much about US politics, then surely he would know the reasons why the Kyoto Protocol was DOA in the US Senate (95 - 0) long before President Bush was ever elected, and that any new climate change treaty has to pass through the same gauntlet.

President Bush (and the Senate) have long maintained that without participation of big developing countries there will be no deal. Nobody needs PM Harper to explain the obvious.

[August1991]

If PM Harper knows so much about US politics, then surely he would know the reasons why the Kyoto Protocol was DOA in the US Senate (95 - 0) long before President Bush was ever elected, and that any new climate change treaty has to pass through the same gauntlet.

Uh, BC, that was kinda my point above.

I will say that I'm impressed that Harper managed to keep this summit on track in PR terms. Officially, they have an agreement on reduction by 2050 - which you'll notice is also the timeframe of our Conservative government.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh, BC, that was kinda my point above.

Sorry, but I still don't follow your reasoning. Why would the Prime Minister of a nation that has done even less about climate change than the USA try to garner support from GWB as a "change agent"? Domestic politics?

Today the PMO is awarding itself the usual Canadian back slapping as supreme negotiator at the G8 conference for a 2050 reduction goal (in principle). It doesn't mean jack, but plays well back home in Canada.

I will say that I'm impressed that Harper managed to keep this summit on track in PR terms. Officially, they have an agreement on reduction by 2050 - which you'll notice is also the timeframe of our Conservative government.

See above.

[Oleg Bach]

Sorry, but I still don't follow your reasoning. Why would the Prime Minister of a nation that has done even less about climate change than the USA try to garner support from GWB as a "change agent"? Domestic politics?

Today the PMO is awarding itself the usual Canadian back slapping as supreme negotiator at the G8 conference for a 2050 reduction goal (in principle). It doesn't mean jack, but plays well back home in Canada.

See above.

Harper is not fed up with Bush - Bush has simply outlived his usefulness.

[Leafless]

Harper is not fed up with Bush - Bush has simply outlived his usefulness.

Have no fear.

Harper like Bush won't be trading in his his cowboy boots any time soon.

The pasty face crowd will be working alone.