Question and Answer with Ambassador Wilkins

[bradco]

The International Relations Students Association (IRSA) along with the Liu Institute for Global Issues will be hosting David Wilkins, the US ambassador to Canada for an intimate Q&A at UBC tommorow (wednesday 20th). Ill be attending if anyone has any questions they would like to have asked just post them (sorry its kind of short notice)

[bradco]

The International Relations Students Association (IRSA) along with the Liu Institute for Global Issues will be hosting David Wilkins, the US ambassador to Canada for an intimate Q&A at UBC tommorow (wednesday 20th). Ill be attending if anyone has any questions they would like to have asked just post them (sorry its kind of short notice)

Nothing unexpected, he mostly followed the administration line as expected.

I was fairly impressed with him though. He came across as quite intelligent, especially for a republican . Declined to get overly involved with questions that he felt regarded internal Canadian matters. Really understands his role as an ambassdor and sticks to matters that involve relations between Canada and the US. All in all, a much better diplomat than Celucci.

-Softwood Lumber: Was asked how the adminstration could justify not returning all collected tariffs seeing that the vast majority of rulings had gone in Canadas favour and responded with "because it was a negoiated settlement". Went on about how negotaited settlement was only way to ever resolve the situation. There was definte pride that he had been a part of ending this long dispute....did mention that when he first arrived in Ottawa he was specifically told by memebrs of american consulate that softwood lumber dispute would not be resolved while he was still ambassador, highlighting the belief that it was an unresolvable dispute.

-Was asked to comment on why he chose to become ambassador to Canada since it was acknowledged he had little knowledge of the country. Said he wanted to work not "sit on a beach somewhere" and that this posting would allow him the chance to really do something due to our large trading relationship etc. He seemed quite knowledgable about Canada, talked about how he had studied up a lot, mentioned his travels throughout the country.

-Arctic Sovereignty: kept with adminstrations view that Northwest Passage is international waters under Law of the Sea....made a point of mentioning that the EU holds the same view.

-was asked whether relations had improved/things were easier due to the change in government. Did a good job skirting the question a little. It is obvious relations are much better and he said he would let people come up with their own reasons as to why. Mentioned that there was less of a blame game now then there had been in the past few years (finger pointing from both sides). Mentioned that there was more discussion/meetings between counterparts/more travel etc.

-was asked whether he found Laytons comments regarding negoiating with Taliban to be offensive, responded by saying he respects Laytons right to have an opinion on the matter but disagrees...direct quote "you cant negoiate with terrorists"...somewhat interesting since Taliban werent necessarily terrorists but harboured them....depending on how you define terrorism I guess

-declined to comment on Arar inquiry.....said that it was investigation into Canadian officials role in it and had nothing to do with Americas role and therefore he had nothign to say

-on the environment he wasnt clearly not pleased with how the question was worded....almost accusing adminstration of just not giving a damn....argued that they had reduced emissions, were on the way to hitting the goals they had set, said this was proof of the administrations grave concern for climate change

-Wasnt very satisfied with his comments regarding Iraq war and the clear lack of connection of Iraq and any terrorist connections/activity prior to the invasion. He linked Iraq war to the War on Terror even though, in my opinion, those two conflicts must be seen as seperate conflicts. He argued Iraq war was an important part of the War on Terror.....mentioned humanitarian benefits of toppling Hussein (didnt hear any of that in the pre-war buildup). Didnt really comment on any lack of terrorist connection or threat from Iraq....went straight to humanitarian benefits of ousting Hussein...not much of a big deal since its not really an issue pertaining to his job

-said that economic losses due to travel/trade because of any new security measures were of great concern. The issue was still being worked out and was confident that in the end it wouldnt effect economy negatively.

[Charles Anthony]

direct quote "you cant negoiate with terrorists"...somewhat interesting since Taliban werent necessarily terrorists but harboured them....depending on how you define terrorism I guess

Even if you define a terrorist to include people who harbor terrorists, the ambassador is wrong. Somebody should call him on that one day.

The U.S. had no problem negotiating with Quaddaffi about 15 years ago with regards to the Lockerbie bombings.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear bradco,

Thanks for your posts on this matter. Good to see that some people (like yourself) are attending events such as these with an open mind.

[jbg]

Even if you define a terrorist to include people who harbor terrorists, the ambassador is wrong. Somebody should call him on that one day.

The U.S. had no problem negotiating with Quaddaffi about 15 years ago with regards to the Lockerbie bombings.

That was a bad mistake.

[Liam]

Even if you define a terrorist to include people who harbor terrorists, the ambassador is wrong. Somebody should call him on that one day.

The U.S. had no problem negotiating with Quaddaffi about 15 years ago with regards to the Lockerbie bombings.

The US gave Taliban-ruled Afghanistan over $200 million in foreign aid between 2000 and 2001. So much for not "talking to" terrorists. (I suppose they didn't say a word when they were driving up the Brinks trucks filled with money.)

[Charles Anthony]

The U.S. had no problem negotiating with Quaddaffi about 15 years ago with regards to the Lockerbie bombings.

That was a bad mistake.

Why? Would you rather more warfare instead?

The US gave Taliban-ruled Afghanistan over $200 million in foreign aid between 2000 and 2001.

Everybody has a price. What was the American motive, do you suppose? and what went wrong?