Harper & Foreign Affairs

[August1991]

Harper is right to extend our mission in Afghanistan (as long as it is a training mission). Our troups have expertise and can train Afghans. The Americans can now assume the heavy lifting.

Harper is right to name John Baird as MFA. Baird needs the experience, and a break. The Pearson bureaucrats need a housecleaning and Baird can clean house.

Harper is right on the neo-natal care policy. It will matter in domestic politics. Harper is also approaching the foreign aid question right: measureable results.

Harper is right on Libya. Our military can do it, and they are part of a broader mission. They are doing something good.

Harper is right on Israel. Harper was right to remind the G8 table (soft Europeans/American) of some basic truths.

----

Foreign affairs are largely irrelevant to Harper's re-election. As Nixon famously said about the Italian lira, "There ain't a vote in it."

Nevertheless, outside of electoral calculations, it is good to know that our federal PM is doing the right thing.

Harper is proof that the best MFA is someone with little travel but strong domestic ties. Or maybe, it just shows that Harper is a quick study.

Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991

[RNG]

Harper is right to extend our mission in Afghanistan (as long as it is a training mission). Our troups have expertise and can train Afghans. The Americans can now assume the heavy lifting.

Harper is right to name John Baird as MFA. Baird needs the experience, and a break. The Pearson bureaucrats need a housecleaning and Baird can clean house.

Harper is right on the neo-natal care policy. It will matter in domestic politics. Harper is also approaching the foreign aid question right: measureable results.

Harper is right on Libya. Our military can do it, and they are part of a broader mission. They are doing something good.

Harper is right on Israel. Harper was right to remind the G8 table (soft Europeans/American) of some basic truths.

----

Foreign affairs are largely irrelevant to Harper's re-election. As Nixon famously said about the Italian lira, "There ain't a vote in it."

Nevertheless, outside of electoral calculations, it is good to know that our federal PM is doing the right thing.

Good on you!

[Bonam]

Foreign affairs are largely irrelevant to Harper's re-election. As Nixon famously said about the Italian lira, "There ain't a vote in it."

Well, there are some votes in it. My gramma, for one, loves Harper because of his foreign affairs.

[betsy]

Harper did the same thing again! He got them G8 leaders to remove referral to the 1967 borders from the communique. Obama's nose must be out of joint, since that's a very direct and public show of opposition - before world leaders - to his so-called peace resolution.

I feel so proud of my PM!

He's not a puppet, nor is he afraid to "rock the boat" and lose the approval of the world community - something all Opposition parties are so worried about!

Edited May 28, 2011 by betsy

[Remiel]

Harper is proof that the best MFA is someone with little travel but strong domestic ties. Or maybe, it just shows that Harper is a quick study.

How does this follow from your other premises? You have staked yourself on the premise that foreign affairs do not matter to domestic politics, and then suggest that someone who is (supposedly) strong in domestic politics is the best person to manage foreign affairs. This ignores the fact that outside of the la la land of domestic politics, foreign affairs do matter, and that the goal of foreign affairs is to manage relations with foreign actors. Thus, the qualifications for a minister of foreign affairs are, in part, dictated by what makes sense abroad, rather that what makes sense at home.

[Smallc]

Harper did the same thing again! He got them G8 leaders to remove referral to the 1967 borders from the communique.

Obama doesn't want Israel to go back to the 1967 borders. He never said that he did.

[RNG]

Obama doesn't want Israel to go back to the 1967 borders. He never said that he did.

He did say that was the starting point. He then had to backpedal a little and talked about land swaps and all. Didn't you read Benny's response and the reaction of the Israeli media?

Edited May 28, 2011 by RNG

[Smallc]

He did say that was the starting point. He then had to backpedal a little and talked about land swaps and all.

He didn't backpedal at all. That was in his initial speech.

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper did the same thing again! He got them G8 leaders to remove referral to the 1967 borders from the communique. Obama's nose must be out of joint, since that's a very direct and public show of opposition - before world leaders - to his so-called peace resolution.

I feel so proud of my PM!

He's not a puppet, nor is he afraid to "rock the boat" and lose the approval of the world community - something all Opposition parties are so worried about!

A lot of people say Harper likes to suck up to the US because their policies can often be similar, especially in foreign affairs.. I don't think this is quite the case. I think the US gov and Harper/CPC simply have similar ideological views, which means their policies can be similar, especially compared to the left-wing parties that make up the rest of the House of Commons. Harper's opposition to Obama's stance on Israeli-Palestinian relations shows this.

[eCitizen]

Ha'aretz is reporting this morning that Harper blocked the 1967 border idea at the G8 because Netenyahu asked him to...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asked-canada-pm-to-thwart-g8-support-for-1967-borders-1.364635

I guess that makes him Bibi's b1tch.

[Remiel]

Ha'aretz is reporting this morning that Harper blocked the 1967 border idea at the G8 because Netenyahu asked him to...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asked-canada-pm-to-thwart-g8-support-for-1967-borders-1.364635

I guess that makes him Bibi's b1tch.

I saw that yesterday. I do not think Netanyahu was entirely unjustified in taking issue with the proposed statement mentioned the 1967 borders but not other elements Obama had mentioned, though it does seem on balance that it was highly questionable for Harper to go along with it.

[eCitizen]

Indeed. In his press conference, Harper said that he wanted it blocked because it was unbalanced, but if that were the case, he could have fought for the inclusion of a statement saying that Hamas must officially recognise Israel - something that would probably have gotten support from the other leaders. He didn't do that and the revelation by Ha'aretz is embarrassing.

[betsy]

Indeed. In his press conference, Harper said that he wanted it blocked because it was unbalanced, but if that were the case, he could have fought for the inclusion of a statement saying that Hamas must officially recognise Israel - something that would probably have gotten support from the other leaders. He didn't do that and the revelation by Ha'aretz is embarrassing.

Isn't Hamas officially declared a terrorist group? If so, why should he give recognition to it at all?

[Shady]

He didn't backpedal at all.

He did backpedal the next day. Go watch his speech at AIPAC.

[eCitizen]

Harper is right to name John Baird as MFA. Baird needs the experience, and a break. The Pearson bureaucrats need a housecleaning and Baird can clean house.

: : :

Foreign affairs are largely irrelevant to Harper's re-election. As Nixon famously said about the Italian lira, "There ain't a vote in it."

Now THAT's an interesting reason to appoint somebody to a position as important as Foreign Affairs. Many leaders would have appointed someone with experience afield who knows the ropes. It's more likely Baird was appointed because he's the consummate yes man and will vigorously push Harper's policies no questions asked. That is, after all, his track record to date. Baird is no Kissinger to Harper's Nixon. No doubt some would argue Harper is no Nixon either, but you brought him up. Speaking of which...

Are you sure there are no votes in it? There are many who would argue that Harper's stance on Israel has won him a lot of votes in North Toronto and the evangelical community.

Finally with respect to Pearson bureaucrats, I imagine they're all long gone by now and Trudeau era bureaucrats too. The most important people at Foreign Affairs are the High Commissioners, Ambassadors, and Deputies, all of whom serve at the PM's discretion; he's had 5 years to take care of any he doesn't like.

Edited May 29, 2011 by eCitizen

[Remiel]

Isn't Hamas officially declared a terrorist group? If so, why should he give recognition to it at all?

Given the particulars of the previous statement, this is a little ambiguous. Do you mean why should Harper recognize Hamas by suggesting they should recognize Israel?

The Land of Israel is about the last place on Earth where one should reflexively regard the terrorist label as meaning that a particular party cannot ever be negotiated with, given the transformations of both the Irgun and Fatah into more or less legitimate political actors. I have even read one article in the Jerusalem Post which argued that the very term "terrorist" should not be applied to such groups in Iran because they were effectively allies of Israel. While I doubt this extremely hypocritical notion is widespread even among the hardened right-wing from which it emerged, it does suggest that actions need not be dictated by such labels (all of the time). At the end of the day, terrorists are just a variety of enemy, and the best way to defeat an instituional enemy usually lies not in destroying them, but rather by bringing about (or allowing for) the conditions under which they must change.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Remiel

[Smallc]

He did backpedal the next day. Go watch his speech at AIPAC.

Watch the original clip. He didn't backpedal.

[betsy]

Given the particulars of the previous statement, this is a little ambiguous. Do you mean why should Harper recognize Hamas by suggesting they should recognize Israel?

The Land of Israel is about the last place on Earth where one should reflexively regard the terrorist label as meaning that a particular party cannot ever be negotiated with, given the transformations of both the Irgun and Fatah into more or less legitimate political actors. I have even read one article in the Jerusalem Post which argued that the very term "terrorist" should not be applied to such groups in Iran because they were effectively allies of Israel. While I doubt this extremely hypocritical notion is widespread even among the hardened right-wing from which it emerged, it does suggest that actions need not be dictated by such labels (all of the time). At the end of the day, terrorists are just a variety of enemy, and the best way to defeat an instituional enemy usually lies not in destroying them, but rather by bringing about (or allowing for) the conditions under which they must change.

But legally-speaking, Hamas is considred a terrorist group, right?

My question was why should Harper recognize Hamas by bringing it to the table (as the poster suggested)?

[betsy]

Ha'aretz is reporting this morning that Harper blocked the 1967 border idea at the G8 because Netenyahu asked him to...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asked-canada-pm-to-thwart-g8-support-for-1967-borders-1.364635

I guess that makes him Bibi's b1tch.

That's been clarified on the news today. Apparently Harper and Netanyahu did talk....but no mention of that 1967 border.

Besides, even if the issue came up between them....it's in Harper's nature to be pro-Israel.

He did the very same thing in the Francophonie (?) summit during the Israel-Lebanon war. He demanded the recognition of Israeli victims (not just Lebanese), and that they be included in the paper (that the leaders were supposed to sign).

That Harper demanded the border issue to be taken out of the communique was made because that's how he thinks it should be - nothing to do with any plea or pressure from Netanyahu.

[Battletoads]

So much for Canada being taken seriously on the Palestine issue.

Actually, so much for Canada being taken seriously at all. We're a joke on the international stage.

[August1991]

Two quick points.

Ha'aretz is reporting this morning that Harper blocked the 1967 border idea at the G8 because Netenyahu asked him to...

As Betsy notes above, that Ha'aretz report is false.

Finally with respect to Pearson bureaucrats, I imagine they're all long gone by now and Trudeau era bureaucrats too. The most important people at Foreign Affairs are the High Commissioners, Ambassadors, and Deputies, all of whom serve at the PM's discretion; he's had 5 years to take care of any he doesn't like.

My use of the term "Pearson bureaucrats" referred to the building not the PM. Canada's foreign affairs ministry is in the Pearson bulding.

[Moonlight Graham]

Minus being strong on arctic sovereignty, IMO Harper and the CPC rank quite poor on foreign affairs/policy:

- eager to please the oil people funding/lobbying his party (not to mention working for or being elected to the party as well) based on the their eager participation in the poorly-planned shit-storm that is the Libya mission.

- Harper supported Canada joining the "coalition of the willing" in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If he were in power in 2003, damn sure Canada would have been in there.

- dumped on Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.

- Ramped up Canadian military involvement in the shitstorm that is Afghanistan, and wasting time & money training a military/police that will extremely likely use such training & equipment to stage a authoritarian military coup vs the "democratic" regime put in. May even have our guys killed some day in the future by the weapons/training we're supplying them. May have never even agreed to end the "military mission" so soon if they had a majority previously.

- Yet another party that is a disaster on international development (including exploitative trade policies with developing nations), plus put their personal religious stipulations on maternal health initiates for other cultures.

[bush_cheney2004]

....

- eager to please the oil people funding/lobbying his party (not to mention working for or being elected to the party as well) based on the their eager participation in the poorly-planned shit-storm that is the Libya mission.

But not as much as PM Martin, who actually visited Ghaddafi in Tripoli to garner more business for Canadian firms in Libyan oil fields. This after Martin begged George Bush to let Canada bid on oil services contracts in Iraq after the invasion was done, of course.

....

- Ramped up Canadian military involvement in the shitstorm that is Afghanistan,

An involvement started by Chretien and maintained by Martin.

[Smallc]

Minus being strong on arctic sovereignty, IMO Harper and the CPC rank quite poor on foreign affairs/policy:

eager to please the oil people funding/lobbying his party (not to mention working for or being elected to the party as well) based on the their eager participation in the poorly-planned shit-storm that is the Libya mission.

It was a UN Security Council resolution that we decided to help enforce. Poorly planned? Based on what?

- dumped on Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.

You mean, refused to bow to pressure from Arab dictators.

- Ramped up Canadian military involvement in the shitstorm that is Afghanistan,

That wasn't Harper, that was mostly Martin.

[Saipan]

While I doubt this extremely hypocritical notion is widespread even among the hardened right-wing from which it emerged

Yes, we must not be hypocrites, and listen to FLQ just as we listen Canada government