Ottawa to Close 4 Embassies in Africa

[nicky10013]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-mulls-closing-some-embassies-in-africa/article1792611/

Just weeks after losing a crucial vote for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, the Harper government is wrestling with a diplomatic move that could further damage its influence on the world stage.

The government is considering the closing of several Canadian embassies in Africa, a move that has triggered alarm among many foreign-policy activists. Up to four embassies – including those in Cameroon, Zambia and Tunisia – are said to be on the chopping block.

More related to this story

Since Canada has only 21 embassies in Africa today, the cuts would represent up to a fifth of its diplomatic posts on the continent. It would lead to accusations that the government is further neglecting Africa at a time of strained relations between Canada and Africa, especially after Ottawa failed to secure African votes in its bid for a Security Council seat.

There's something to be said about burning bridges. Either this government doesn't think it'll be in power in 2 years (which I don't believe), they don't know how international relations works, or are just being vindictive after the recent international failuers. Something tells me it's a combination of the last 2.

[Alta4ever]

If it happens, the closing of the embassies in Africa could be coupled with the opening of new embassies or trade offices in higher-priority regions such as Asia and Latin America. The Harper government has focused much of its attention on the emerging middle-income countries in those two regions, which are seen as more logical trading partners for Canada.

Funny you left this bit out.

[nicky10013]

Funny you left this bit out.

SO you're going to run diplomatic missions for Africa out of Asian missions? Considering how under-represented Africa is in terms of embassies, this is is just a ridiculous notion.

[Alta4ever]

SO you're going to run diplomatic missions for Africa out of Asian missions? Considering how under-represented Africa is in terms of embassies, this is is just a ridiculous notion.

Where did that come from, do you like making things up? Grow up.

[punked]

Liberals don't get this but those embassies cost money to run. So if you want to open a new embassy which you would like to be cost neutral as right now we have a bit of a money problem you have to close another one down. That or you cut programs some where. Now I would prefer if we instead pulled out of completely of Afghanistan and used that money for new embassies but it seems the Liberals will support keeping us there. So Nikki what do you cut? Or are you what some people call a tax and spend Liberal? Where is the savings?

[nicky10013]

Liberals don't get this but those embassies cost money to run. So if you want to open a new embassy which you would like to be cost neutral as right now we have a bit of a money problem you have to close another one down. That or you cut programs some where. Now I would prefer if we instead pulled out of completely of Afghanistan and used that money for new embassies but it seems the Liberals will support keeping us there. So Nikki what do you cut? Or are you what some people call a tax and spend Liberal? Where is the savings?

F-35s should do the trick. As for a dipper calling anyone and tax and spender - priceless.

[Alta4ever]

Liberals don't get this but those embassies cost money to run. So if you want to open a new embassy which you would like to be cost neutral as right now we have a bit of a money problem you have to close another one down. That or you cut programs some where. Now I would prefer if we instead pulled out of completely of Afghanistan and used that money for new embassies but it seems the Liberals will support keeping us there. So Nikki what do you cut? Or are you what some people call a tax and spend Liberal? Where is the savings?

Don't worry punked luckily the adults understand. I wonder why liberal fundraiser numbers keep falling. They just don't get it, the NDP did pretty good in the last quarter.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Alta4ever

[punked]

F-35s should do the trick. As for a dipper calling anyone and tax and spender - priceless.

Yah I know cause the NDP are only slashing budgets in NS you know that province next to NB. Remind me again they took a province with a 700 million dollar gap in their budget down to a 200 million in a year an half while the Liberals in NB went from 300 million to 700 million. Might be the reason the NDP have balanced 40-45% of all budgets they have written and Liberals 20-25%. Tax and spend. The NDP have always tried to be fiscally responsible and socially responsible at the same time. Oh and Please please please mention your favorite Liberal Bob Rea when talking about NDP not balancing budgets it will be just great with that fiscal wizard Dalton McGuinty in office. Yeah when I say tax and spend Liberal I mean it.

As for the F-35s fine by me, but it seems that the Liberals are committed to buying new jets to so that doesn't really pass here.

[nicky10013]

Don't worry punked luckily the adults understand.

You must really hate me. You apparently have me blocked but will even apparently agree with him just to try to make me look like an idiot.

Adults wouldn't pull this. Neither would real business people.

[nicky10013]

Yah I know cause the NDP are only slashing budgets in NS you know that province next to NB. Remind me again they took a province with a 700 million dollar gap in their budget down to a 200 million in a year an half while the Liberals in NB went from 300 million to 700 million. Might be the reason the NDP have balanced 40-45% of all budgets they have written and Liberals 20-25%. Tax and spend. The NDP have always tried to be fiscally responsible and socially responsible at the same time. Oh and Please please please mention your favorite Liberal Bob Rea when talking about NDP not balancing budgets it will be just great with that fiscal wizard Dalton McGuinty in office. Yeah when I say tax and spend Liberal I mean it.

As for the F-35s fine by me, but it seems that the Liberals are committed to buying new jets to so that doesn't really pass here.

Pssssssssssst. Just so you know....there aren't too many fans of Bob Rae within the Liberal Party.

As for the jets, even if you can save 3-4% on costs on the jets, you can run those embassies for quite a while.

[punked]

You must really hate me. You apparently have me blocked but will even apparently agree with him just to try to make me look like an idiot.

Adults wouldn't pull this. Neither would real business people.

Hate to tell you this but real business will support this. Economically speaking it makes sense. The Canadian economy is not the economy of the US or china. In fact the Canadian economy is much like a third world economy we are based on resource extraction we then take those resources and sell them. We are quite good at this have have a lot of resources. So opening markets to sell those resources to in Asia and South America is very important.

The African economy is in direct competition with the Canadian economy as it to is based on resource extraction. We are not going to be selling diamonds, uranium or anything else to them because they are rich in resources. They take them out of the ground and sell them to the same places we do. There is much more room for growth other places because like it or not the African economy has no need for the stuff we produce the countries that do are industrialized and growing fast. It is a reality I expect the people that run this country to recognize.

We will not be sending our oil, potash, or uranium to Africa so they will send us computers, ipods, and electronics back. However we will with Asia, it is a brave new world.

[punked]

Pssssssssssst. Just so you know....there aren't too many fans of Bob Rae within the Liberal Party.

As for the jets, even if you can save 3-4% on costs on the jets, you can run those embassies for quite a while.

And if you scrap them and it costs 3-4% more (as it did the last time the Liberals did that) we are looking at cuts somewhere else. I mean I haven't seen any evidence we could save money on the fighter jets. Now the real question is why are we buying them at all? But if your party is in favor of it they better show me they are going to save me money not cost me more like they did in the 90s.

[nicky10013]

Hate to tell you this but real business will support this. Economically speaking it makes sense. The Canadian economy is not the economy of the US or china. In fact the Canadian economy is much like a third world economy we are based on resource extraction we then take those resources and sell them. We are quite good at this have have a lot of resources. So opening markets to sell those resources to in Asia and South America is very important.

The African economy is in direct competition with the Canadian economy as it to is based on resource extraction. We are not going to be selling diamonds, uranium or anything else to them because they are rich in resources. They take them out of the ground and sell them to the same places we do. There is much more room for growth other places because like it or not the African economy has no need for the stuff we produce the countries that do are industrialized and growing fast. It is a reality I expect the people that run this country to recognize.

We will not be sending our oil, potash, or uranium to Africa so they will send us computers, ipods, and electronics back. However we will with Asia, it is a brave new world.

So Canadian resource companies wouldn't want access for the development of natural resources in Africa if given the opportunity? Of course there are business opportunities in Africa. The notion that Africa is a barren continent not worthy of investment with either time or capital is one of the reason why the region is chronically underdeveloped.

[nicky10013]

And if you scrap them and it costs 3-4% more (as it did the last time the Liberals did that) we are looking at cuts somewhere else. I mean I haven't seen any evidence we could save money on the fighter jets. Now the real question is why are we buying them at all? But if your party is in favor of it they better show me they are going to save me money not cost me more like they did in the 90s.

Considering there aren't any penalties as the contract hasn't been signed, the notion we'd pay more after an actual tendered process is silly.

[punked]

So Canadian resource companies wouldn't want access for the development of natural resources in Africa if given the opportunity? Of course there are business opportunities in Africa. The notion that Africa is a barren continent not worthy of investment with either time or capital is one of the reason why the region is chronically underdeveloped.

What Canadian companies would you be talking about? Half the resource companies in this country are Chinese and the other half are American. At this point I should mention that when the Liberals invent a time machine maybe they can use that argument because China has already snapped up most of those African resources.

I am not saying we shouldn't invest in Africa I am saying our money as a country is better spent else where. We don't need more resources, we have more then our people can take out of the ground so lets find a place to sell those instead of getting in some sort of bidding war with China which BTW is the place we need to sell our resources in the first place. This whole argument seems over your head.

Again I would like to find the money some place else to, but at this point in time any NEW costs need to be Cost neutral which means tough choices for any government.

Edited November 10, 2010 by punked

[Alta4ever]

Why would a business man want to invest in politically unstable countries? Who would want their risk their investment in a country where in month, a year, or five years the government may just national the resource and nullify the companies ownership? Its called risk assessment.

As for the fighters, cancel this current purchase and put the contract out for tender, tell me who else is going to build an F-35 other then Lockheed Martin? I'm sure they just hand the design over to a competitor to build after investing in it so heavily.

But this has been gone over top to bottom in another thread. Liberals just don't get it.

[nicky10013]

Why would a business man want to invest in politically unstable countries? Who would want their risk their investment in a country where in month, a year, or five years the government may just national the resource and nullify the companies ownership? Its called risk assessment.

As for the fighters, cancel this current purchase and put the contract out for tender, tell me who else is going to build an F-35 other then Lockheed Martin? I'm sure they just hand the design over to a competitor to build after investing in it so heavily.

But this has been gone over top to bottom in another thread. Liberals just don't get it.

Why would want to countries invest in unstable countries? Returns. Nigeria is pretty damn unstable, yet millions go in because of what they can get out. The investment is worth it.

As for the F-35, who said we have to buy an F-35? Anywho, that's a debate for the other thread. The point here is that embassies aren't so expensive that the money can't be found to run them and the return on that investment could be lucrative in terms of international prestige, easier access for businessand future international cooperation in a situation that might arise.

Like I said, you just don't burn bridges. Recalling ambassadors and shutting down embassies is just that.

Edited November 10, 2010 by nicky10013

[punked]

Considering there aren't any penalties as the contract hasn't been signed, the notion we'd pay more after an actual tendered process is silly.

Jesus it really isn't. If we look in a 2010 price at the bottom of a globe recession we stand to gain a not bad price when things like material and labor costs are factored in. Right now oil is at 85 bucks a barrel and going up. If we fight out an election, get our house in order we are looking a new Liberal government putting out the tender at the earliest in 2012. Now we are adjusting for inflation, a hopeful world recovery in the economy and labor costs going up. It is not crazy to think that a jet in 2012 will cost 15-20% more in 2 years. That is what happened last time even with out the penalties factored in. So unless I get a commitment of a cheaper price of the Liberals resign you will have to excuse me of thinking this is all smoke and mirrors and the jets are not going to cost less anyhow.

Now give me a party that asks why we are buying jets and that is a debate I am willing to have. Acting like these jets are going to get cheaper as costs go up those is silly.

[nicky10013]

Jesus it really isn't. If we look in a 2010 price at the bottom of a globe recession we stand to gain a not bad price when things like material and labor costs are factored in. Right now oil is at 85 bucks a barrel and going up. If we fight out an election, get our house in order we are looking a new Liberal government putting out the tender at the earliest in 2012. Now we are adjusting for inflation, a hopeful world recovery in the economy and labor costs going up. It is not crazy to think that a jet in 2012 will cost 15-20% more in 2 years. That is what happened last time even with out the penalties factored in. So unless I get a commitment of a cheaper price of the Liberals resign you will have to excuse me of thinking this is all smoke and mirrors and the jets are not going to cost less anyhow.

Now give me a party that asks why we are buying jets and that is a debate I am willing to have. Acting like these jets are going to get cheaper as costs go up those is silly.

It was just an example of where we get the money. Turning this into a debate on the F-35 is going way off topic.

[punked]

Why would want to countries invest in unstable countries? Returns. Nigeria is pretty damn unstable, yet millions go in because of what they can get out. The investment is worth it.

Countries that need resources (Like China) will take that risk. There is no reason for a country like Canada to invest in Africa to get Zinc out of the ground there when they can just dig a hole in NB. Seriously Africa makes sense for a number of countries. Canada is not one of them. There is nothing in the ground there we can't get here, and the good thing about getting here is you know a 6 year old didn't dig it out.

[nicky10013]

Countries that need resources (Like China) will take that risk. There is no reason for a country like Canada to invest in Africa to get Zinc out of the ground there when they can just dig a hole in NB. Seriously Africa makes sense for a number of countries. Canada is not one of them. There is nothing in the ground there we can't get here, and the good thing about getting here is you know a 6 year old didn't dig it out.

So you see absolutely NO need for diplomatic representation in Africa?

[punked]

It was just an example of where we get the money. Turning this into a debate on the F-35 is going way off topic.

This is just the problem. It is the wrong example, but it is the example the Liberals will give everytime. They say "vote for us we will runt he country the same but a little better somehow" but they never tell us how that how is. At least when we get into a NDP conservative debate the NDP gives the how. They say "our priorities are different" and I think Canadians can respect that even if they don't vote NDP they get it. With the Liberals it is more of the same, why vote for them if it is more of the same or if it is just criticizing every decision even if they would have made the same one. That is my point.

[Alta4ever]

Apparently someone has no idea what a risk assessment is.

Here is the one for Nigeria

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24626475/A-Country-Risk-Assessment-of-Nigeria

[nicky10013]

This is just the problem. It is the wrong example, but it is the example the Liberals will give everytime. They say "vote for us we will runt he country the same but a little better somehow" but they never tell us how that how is. At least when we get into a NDP conservative debate the NDP gives the how. They say "our priorities are different" and I think Canadians can respect that even if they don't vote NDP they get it. With the Liberals it is more of the same, why vote for them if it is more of the same or if it is just criticizing every decision even if they would have made the same one. That is my point.

Neither you or I are Liberal or NDP policy makers. It was a suggestion off the top of my head and not a policy proposal. I'm flattered that you think I hold such sway within the party that what I'm saying is.

As for the NDP giving the how, I've never actually heard a solid policy proposal from anyone representing the NDP here.

[nicky10013]

Apparently someone has no idea what a risk assessment is.

Here is the one for Nigeria

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24626475/A-Country-Risk-Assessment-of-Nigeria

Oh, I know the risks of doing business in Nigeria. It's a pretty hairy area. Yet, no matter what you say in terms of risk, we still do business there.