Martin the diplomat

[Argus]

Some of us hoped when Chretien was gone Martin might be able to re-establish our relationship with the United States. As they are by far and away our most important trading and miltary ally a good relationship with them is extremely important. Unfortunately, as soon as Martin saw his poll numbers going down in the election he became frantic and jumped on the anti-American wagon to try and firm up support among the left. The result is the US is still cool to us, and if we want any help on trade issues, hey well, we can go through proper channels and forget about any help from the White House. We'll have to use lawyers and trade negotiators just like everyone else.

Not content with that, Martin is apparently panicking again because of the pressure over the Submarine purchase. Rather than behave in a dignified manner, say that we really don't know what happened yet or why and leave it at that, he's now hinted at legal action against the UK.

I was surprised when I heard it. Close allies simply do not talk like that. When they have problems they discuss them in a friendly fashion behind closed doors. They don't play up to the press, make sure they know we have complained to the other guys, and then talk about taking legal action. It's just not done. And the British are clearly irritated by the threat. They're now talking about billing us for the entire cost of the rescue, and "unnamed officials" are talking about how the decision to go to sea was entirely Canada's, the approval of all work and the declaration the boat was fit to go to see were Canadas, that Canadian navy personnel and engineers had been on the sub for well over two years supervising the refit, and that whatever went wrong was certainly not the fault of the UK (A position with which I agree, btw).

So not content with irritating the Americans, our most important ally he's now irritated the British, our second most important ally. And for the same reason; crass personal political gain.

[caesar]

Some of us hoped when Chretien was gone Martin might be able to re-establish our relationship with the United States

Well most of us were adamant that he does not until that country has a regime change. That is why Harper lost. We didn't want Canada to go running to Bush's USA with cap in hand. We Canada, took the right road; Bush took the low down road.

[caesar]

s, that Canadian navy personnel and engineers had been on the sub for well over two years supervising the refit, and that whatever went wrong was certainly not the fault of the UK (A position with which I agree, btw).

But of course; you are one of those insecure Canadians that does not stand up for your own country.

The ones doing the repairs should be the ones to certify their work. It is all self protection posturing, anyhow. We don't know the full story, yet. If they charge us for towing; dump the Queen and the commonwealth. Bah himbug bunch of Yankee butt kissing British government.

[August1991]

But of course; you are one of those insecure Canadians that does not stand up for your own country.

And you Caesar, are one of those American-hating English-Canadians.

I hate to break this to you Caesar, but English-Canadians (meaning you) are the "Americans" of Canada. God speaks English, don't you know?

Once you get this idea that I present to you, maybe you'll grow up a little.

[Newfie Canadian]

With all due respect Argus, I'm not with you here.

It was Hoon (British Minister of Defense) who first shot off the first salvo in the public blame game by saying it was a buyer beware situation. It was in poor taste and poor timing, as Lt. Saunders wasn't even buried yet.

Now on top of that, our close friends the Brits want us to pay for the rescue effort, after selling us these apparent lemons.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1098054417038_2

He had to publicly open the compensation issue, as Hoon tried to close it.

It is also a case of international diplomacy versus domestic politics. The opposition parties are screaming murder over this, and the public isn't far behind.

In regards to the US, they have done very little to ease tensions in the last few years. Now I'm not saying Chrétien helped, but he wasn't solely responsible. Neither is Martin.

Edited October 18, 2004 by Newfie Canadian

[Stoker]

Just an open question to anybody:

Who does Canada have (what most would call) good relations with these days?

We seem to be pissing off all of our old friends, what new friends are we making?

[caesar]

I hate to break this to you Caesar, but English-Canadians (meaning you) are the "Americans" of Canada. God speaks English, don't you know?

Not Americans ; Bush and his irresponsible arrogant actions. I am sure god speaks any language. I am NOT English.

[Newfie Canadian]

Who does Canada have (what most would call) good relations with these days?

France, apparently.

I agree that the government of Canada hasn't been the most cooperative lately with a lot of countries, but some of it is justified.

[caesar]

Who does Canada have (what most would call) good relations with these days?

We seem to be pissing off all of our old friends, what new friends are we making?

Canada is pissing them off????? Just what do you think the USA/British coalition is doing to a good majority of the world. We are standing with the majority on recent international happenings.

[August1991]

I guess Putin

Prime Minister Paul Martin is expected to sign with Vladimir Putin a joint statement condemning terror even as the Russian president's related tactics are under international attack.

and Chirac

Fresh from his meeting with French President Jacques Chirac, Paul Martin was standing in the rear cabin of his Airbus jet, eager for an audience.

Good to know we're in good company.

[sorry, but I can't help noting that one guy has a Napoleon complex and the other is a crook.]

[Stoker]

France, apparently. 

I agree that the government of Canada hasn't been the most cooperative lately with a lot of countries, but some of it is justified.

I thought ole Jean Crouton soured our relations with them also

Canada is pissing them off????? Just what do you think the USA/British coalition is doing to a good majority of the world. We are standing with the majority on recent international happenings.

Who are we standing with?

Have our relations with Russia, France, Germany and China improved over the last couple of years? Did I miss something?

[Newfie Canadian]

I thought ole Jean Crouton soured our relations with them also 

on recent international happenings.

I don't know.

Chirac gave Chrétien a grand send off (maybe he was just happy to see him go) and Martin's meeting seemed to go well with Chirac the other day.

Who are we standing with?

Maybe it's more of a matter of Canada standing by itself and other nations standing against us in a lot of matters.

[maplesyrup]

But of course; you are one of those insecure Canadians that does not stand up for your own country.

And you Caesar, are one of those American-hating English-Canadians.

I hate to break this to you Caesar, but English-Canadians (meaning you) are the "Americans" of Canada. God speaks English, don't you know?

Once you get this idea that I present to you, maybe you'll grow up a little.

August1991....what kind of garbage is this? My closest relatives are US citizens and I love them dearly, however I abhor, detest, and feel like vomiting every time I hear about the latest atrocities committed by the current US administration.

I think it is time we stopped calling our neighbours to the South, Americans. That is very arrogant. What about the people that live in South America? Are they not Americans? Are we not as well?

[Argus]

Some of us hoped when Chretien was gone Martin might be able to re-establish our relationship with the United States

Well most of us were adamant that he does not until that country has a regime change. That is why Harper lost. We didn't want Canada to go running to Bush's USA with cap in hand. We Canada, took the right road; Bush took the low down road.

Sorry, I was talking to the adults. I understand a lot of young people who don't know anything about what good relations with the US means to us are all for ticking them off at every opportunity. They don't understand how many =mililons= of jobs depend on our trade relationiship with the US, or if they do figure that at least THEIRS doesn't depend on that.

You know, it's all well and good to be an ideological zealot and be opposed to capitalism and what the US might be doing in the middle east. But not at the expense of sending our economy into the toilet. The US doesn't even have to get really mad at us to affect our economy. It just needs to ignore us and let us flounder in the wake of trade decisions made by their federal agencies.

[Argus]

Who does Canada have (what most would call) good relations with these days?

France, apparently.

I agree that the government of Canada hasn't been the most cooperative lately with a lot of countries, but some of it is justified.

I hate to break it to you, Newfie, but France hasn't changed its spots. Given the slightest opportunity they would still do everything in their power to encourage Quebec to seperate and thus come into their "sphere" of influence.

[Newfie Canadian]

Given the slightest opportunity they would still do everything in their power to encourage Quebec to seperate and thus come into their "sphere" of influence.

Oh I didin't mean to imply that they have changed in that regard. De Gaulle's spirit won't rest until it happens.

I was just saying that in today's context France appears to be more of a buddy (I hesitate to say friend) than some other nations.

I somewhat agree with what you're saying on trade with the US. However, it is the US that continues to pursue illegitimate duties in softwood lumber, refusal to open the border to beef, now a notice to impose duties on live hogs, and the constant atack on Canadian wheat.

Following your logic a little, the US government must be pretty dense as well. They continue to annoy Canada in spite of the fact that we are a contributor or future contributor of oil, natural gas, electricty and fresh water to name a few.

[caesar]

You know, it's all well and good to be an ideological zealot and be opposed to capitalism and what the US might be doing in the middle east. But not at the expense of sending our economy into the toilet. The US doesn't even have to get really mad at us to affect our economy. It just needs to ignore us and let us flounder in the wake of trade decisions made by their federal agencies.

It is Bush and his cohorts who have been acting arrogantly and unfairly to Canada. Ignoring NAFTA rulings in lumber issues and their own and international exports on beef. Look at which country is now the most despised nation on earth. Hopefully that can slowly change after Bush is replaced. Bush is the zealot.

Why should we deny our beliefs and rights to act in good faith in international affairs. Why should we send off our military people to die for something that we do not believe in. Why would we want to be America's puppy dog. You may be willing to sell your soul to the devil for the American dollar; but not I nor a good majority of other Canadians. Many Americans are seeing thing s much the same as we do.

[Argus]

s, that Canadian navy personnel and engineers had been on the sub for well over two years supervising the refit, and that whatever went wrong was certainly not the fault of the UK (A position with which I agree, btw).

But of course; you are one of those insecure Canadians that does not stand up for your own country.

Huh?

Say I decide to buy a boat. I send some engineers from my company to look it over, and they give me the thumbs up. Then when I go to pull it out of mothballs we find there are problems my engineers didn't discover. Why? Because my engineers were lazy or what? Then I have my engineers pull a big chunk of electronics and crap out of my old boat and put it into the new boat, and supervise a two year long refitting. After which I take it to sea. A fire breaks out. Now am I going to blame the original seller or my own engineers? That supposes the fire is even due to a systemic problem and not some screwup, which we don't know yet.

Frankly, the more I hear about these boats the crappier they sound. Now the navy is saying they won't be in full service until 2008. It only took 3 years to build the freaking things and we're going to spend 10 years refitting them!? Huh!? Either these boats were crap to begin with, in which case our engineers should have spotted that like the Australian Navy engineers did when they were offered to them, or we're absolutely incompetent at refitting submarines - which is equally possible.

The ones doing the repairs should be the ones to certify their work.

That is not the way it works with military vessels. Civilian contracters work under naval supervision and it is the navy which decides when the alterations/repairs have been done to their satisfaction.

[g_bambino]

It is Bush and his cohorts who have been acting arrogantly and unfairly to Canada. Ignoring NAFTA rulings in lumber issues and their own and international exports on beef. Look at which country is now the most despised nation on earth. Hopefully that can slowly change after Bush is replaced. Bush is the zealot.

Why should we deny our beliefs and rights to act in good faith in international affairs. Why should we send off our military people to die for something that we do not believe in. Why would we want to be America's puppy dog.

Caesar, on this I will agree with you. The relationship between Canada and the U.S. goes two ways-- there should be a dialogue, not a U.S. monologue full of U.S. demands.

Certainly, some Canadian politicians have been a little less than diplomatic in the way they voice their anti-Bush opinions, and Canada did not (rightly) join in the U.S. led Iraq war. But the 'retaliation' for this has been a little heavy-handed, and certainly childish in nature. To punish Canada with economic sanctions (which is what all these rulings against Canadian products are starting to look like) just because we did not agree with their stance on Iraq, and some Canadian politicians mouthed-off against Bush, is rather like the spoiled and vindictive child who will end a friendship with someone just because they did not bow to his wishes. Basicly, the kid who says "I'm not talking to you any more" when he doesn't get what he wants, the way he wants it.

This is no way to maintain international relations.

If [the British] charge us for towing; dump the Queen and the commonwealth.

This I cannot agree with you on. In fact, I can't even understand what gains you think this would achieve in this situation.

Canada is not a kingdom just because the British say we should be, or to appease the British, or to make the British happy. We have a monarch because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, by Canadian law!

So, waving the threat of Canadian republicanism in the face of Britain would make them do nothing. It makes no difference to them if Canada removes the Queen, as much as it makes no difference to Canada if Britain removes the Queen.

And constitutional change over a couple of defunct submarines is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!

[Newfie Canadian]

Like I said, I think a lot of it depends on domestic politics.

The US has slammed the door shut on beef, which gets the Alberta (primarily) beef producer ticked off. Alberta is the cradle of the Conservative party, so Martin has to do what he can to appease them.

The US slapped punitive duties on softwood lumber, ticking off BC lumber producers, as well as producers in Quebec. BC is too close to the cradle of the Conservative party to not take seriously, and well, Quebec is Quebec.

The US constanly tries to down the wheat industry, ticking off the Prairie provinces.

Then there is the matter of these subs, where outcry has been universal from the public and the opposition. The government may well be responsible, the navy may have rushed them into service, or the Brits may have pulled the woll over the governments eyes.

If you were Paul Martin, which would you spin?