Reclaiming Canada's role as a world player.

[Ricki Bobbi]

From the Globe and Mail on Friday.

With two calculated speeches, Stephen Harper has articulated a blessedly coherent vision of Canada's expanding international role. At the Economic Club of New York, the Prime Minister spelled out what Canada brings to the United States, such as energy security, and what it expects in return, including an assurance that security measures will not impede border traffic. At the United Nations yesterday, he reminded his listeners of Canada's role in the tough peacemaking mission in Afghanistan -- and then warned that the UN cannot defeat terrorism if it cannot reform itself. Emphasizing his message, Mr. Harper told the Economic Club: "Make no mistake, Canada intends to be a player."

It was an estimable performance. And it has effectively countered charges that Mr. Harper has toadied to U.S. President George W. Bush, tailoring his policies to reflect U.S. desires. The New York foray is his declaration of independence. No one, despite the discreet language of diplomacy, could misunderstand his intention to put Canada's interests in the forefront.

Good opinion piece.

Believe it or not Harper is making things better for Canada. Articles like this are symbolic of the shift in public opinion to recognize this.

[jbg]

From the Globe and Mail on Friday.

With two calculated speeches, Stephen Harper has articulated a blessedly coherent vision of Canada's expanding international role. At the Economic Club of New York, the Prime Minister spelled out what Canada brings to the United States, such as energy security, and what it expects in return, including an assurance that security measures will not impede border traffic. At the United Nations yesterday, he reminded his listeners of Canada's role in the tough peacemaking mission in Afghanistan -- and then warned that the UN cannot defeat terrorism if it cannot reform itself. Emphasizing his message, Mr. Harper told the Economic Club: "Make no mistake, Canada intends to be a player."

It was an estimable performance. And it has effectively countered charges that Mr. Harper has toadied to U.S. President George W. Bush, tailoring his policies to reflect U.S. desires. The New York foray is his declaration of independence. No one, despite the discreet language of diplomacy, could misunderstand his intention to put Canada's interests in the forefront.

Good opinion piece.

Believe it or not Harper is making things better for Canada. Articles like this are symbolic of the shift in public opinion to recognize this.

One thing Harper is (which his two predescessors were not) is coherent. He should make Canadians proud.

Also, this spells out that he is not a Bush poodle. He has concrete, realistic things he wants from US in return for Canada's alliance.

[Remiel]

He can start by making sure the US stays the hell off our lands and waters in the North.

Or rather, keep their developments off our lands and waters. Under the Law of the Sea, I believe they are free to peacefully travel through our waters. Travel, peacefully.

[Ricki Bobbi]

He can start by making sure the US stays the hell off our lands and waters in the North.

Or rather, keep their developments off our lands and waters. Under the Law of the Sea, I believe they are free to peacefully travel through our waters. Travel, peacefully.

Again there is the language of diplomacy. Stay the hell out won't do it.

Harper is far more likely to be successful than Martin was. You won't see Conservative MPs stomping on GW dolls.

[sharkman]

He can start by making sure the US stays the hell off our lands and waters in the North.

Or rather, keep their developments off our lands and waters. Under the Law of the Sea, I believe they are free to peacefully travel through our waters. Travel, peacefully.

What do you mean by developments? What have they been developing on our lands? Since when have they been whooping it up while traveling through our 'waters'? Do tell.

[B. Max]

He can start by making sure the US stays the hell off our lands and waters in the North.

Or rather, keep their developments off our lands and waters. Under the Law of the Sea, I believe they are free to peacefully travel through our waters. Travel, peacefully.

Or what, we'll invade them. he he he

[Remiel]

That a look at the map of Canada, sharpman. See all those islands up near the top? The U.S. is going to try and develop and claim resources within the waters between islands. The U.S. and other countries are entitled to innocent passage through those waters, but the resources should be ours. Archipelaegic waters. It is also a matter of whos laws are in effect in those areas.

As for diplomacy, obviously our diplomats won't be using that kind of language, but they should go for the jugular.

[Figleaf]

Harper's innate instincts are to curry favor with the U.S. It will be a struggle for him to maintain a stance that the majority of Canadians will view as appropriately independent.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Harper's innate instincts are to curry favor with the U.S. It will be a struggle for him to maintain a stance that the majority of Canadians will view as appropriately independent.

What do you mean by *curry favour*?

It's in our best interest to get along with our biggest trading partner and most important military ally.

[sharkman]

That a look at the map of Canada, sharpman. See all those islands up near the top? The U.S. is going to try and develop and claim resources within the waters between islands. The U.S. and other countries are entitled to innocent passage through those waters, but the resources should be ours. Archipelaegic waters. It is also a matter of whos laws are in effect in those areas.

As for diplomacy, obviously our diplomats won't be using that kind of language, but they should go for the jugular.

I'd say we have enough to worry about without developing strategies and defences for something that hasn't happened yet.

[Borg]

That a look at the map of Canada, sharpman. See all those islands up near the top? The U.S. is going to try and develop and claim resources within the waters between islands. The U.S. and other countries are entitled to innocent passage through those waters, but the resources should be ours. Archipelaegic waters. It is also a matter of whos laws are in effect in those areas.

As for diplomacy, obviously our diplomats won't be using that kind of language, but they should go for the jugular.

I'd say we have enough to worry about without developing strategies and defences for something that hasn't happened yet.

Are you saying this will not likely happen? Or are you saying donothing until someone moves into the arctic?

It takes years to build an ice breaker - let alone train to use it properly.

Developing a settlement takes even longer.

It sounds as if you want us to be reactive instead of proatcive.

Want to expand upon your answer for clarification?

Borg

[sharkman]

A hundred different things could happen to affect Canadian interests. This is pretty low on the liklihood list. If the U.S. makes some provocative moves in this area, the Canadian government should be prepared, but for typical Joe Canadian, Remiel's response smacked of Anti-Americanism.

[Remiel]

And you think I am somehow scared of being called Anti-American? Do you think that attaching that label somehow proves your moral authority? Your attacks are pitiful, so are most of your arguments.

The U.S. will never be our friend. They have been our ally, but that is all. If they fact that I have a like to make a habit of watching out for them trying to screw us over makes me Anti-American, then I am Anti-American.

That doesn't mean I hate all Americans, or that I oppose any co-operation with them.

[jbg]

Harper's innate instincts are to curry favor with the U.S. It will be a struggle for him to maintain a stance that the majority of Canadians will view as appropriately independent.

I think your military security depends on us. Think about it. Let's say there's oil up there and the US concedes Canadian sovereignty for economic and development purposes. If we withdraw our miltary umbrella, don't you think some other countries would become adventurous.

What are you going to fight those other countries with, Sea King helicopters?

[Remiel]

You guys are like a one-trick pony. Every time something comes up, you trot out military security, as if the United States were the only country in the world we were allied with militarily. Remember NATO?

[geoffrey]

You guys are like a one-trick pony. Every time something comes up, you trot out military security, as if the United States were the only country in the world we were allied with militarily. Remember NATO?

And the left wants to throw away our NATO obligations by pulling out of Afghanistan.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The north west passage is riddled with methane ice nodules just under the surface. These nodules are not unique to the north mind you, the exist along both the east and west coasts and even into the Caribean Sea. In fact these nodules may be in existance on most continental shelves around the world. To date the only method of successful extraction is a Canadian development. The US method has not proven to be viable. Some information sources indicate that these nodule represent a greater potential production capacity of natural gas than any other source on the planet. Why is the debate about our Arctic sovereignty coming to the forefront at this point? Perhaps as the ownership of those lands represents a huge source of revenue from the resource development don't you think.......!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You guys are like a one-trick pony. Every time something comes up, you trot out military security, as if the United States were the only country in the world we were allied with militarily. Remember NATO?

And the left wants to throw away our NATO obligations by pulling out of Afghanistan.

I have wondered about that myself, given that NATO has no juridiction in Afganistan. The articles of its agreement need to be read carefully but even so I think Afganisatn is a long ways out of the envelope. Having said that the entire Afgan mission is not by definition a peace keeping mission at all. In fact Afganistan is a war mission which is outside of the current Canadian Military mandate.

The right wants us involved in the military industrial complex economy which is basically a US owned and operated venture. Getting into that little program will see an extensive transfer of wealth from the Canadian taxpaying citizens into US corporate profits. Funny how times change, since it was the Conservatives which killed the Arrow and destroyed the Canadian aerospace industry which was being successfully developed through our own military industrial complex that was at the time in its infancy. Since it no longer exists by any stretch of the imagination we are required to purchase our military toys from outside sources which translates into buying from our United States friends.

Perhaps now it the time to start that age old debate again in Canada. What is our role in international politics? What is our goal in international politics?

If it was up to me, luckily for Canada it isn't, I would bail out of NATO and the UN imediately. Both organizations are puppets for strategic alliances that have no benefit to Canadian citizens and have absolutely no democratic infrastructure which in turn obliges Canada to comply with formal instructions that we have no control over and very little to say about.

While I am committed to very close relations with the US, and in fact favour stronger ties than we currently have, I simply do not have any desire to associate myself with their foreign policy.

Canada needs to think about the IMF and the World Bank. We also need to think about both the EU and the Asia alliances. Things are about to change in this world and we should consider carefully our position and role in the greater scheme of things.

[sharkman]

And you think I am somehow scared of being called Anti-American? Do you think that attaching that label somehow proves your moral authority? Your attacks are pitiful, so are most of your arguments.

The U.S. will never be our friend. They have been our ally, but that is all. If they fact that I have a like to make a habit of watching out for them trying to screw us over makes me Anti-American, then I am Anti-American.

That doesn't mean I hate all Americans, or that I oppose any co-operation with them.

No, actually it didn't cross my mind that you would be scared of being called anything. I do note, however, that you are getting rather schrill over this one issue. With your suspicions regarding everything the U.S. does, you'll have lots to get schrill about around here.

Jerry, I agree with you on the UN. But I wonder if having someone there to at least be aware of the goings on is beneficial. The World bank, IMF, EU, Asia alliances, these are all important issues. I would add a need to counter the EU with an Americas alliance that would strenghten our position in global commerce. Some worry that the EU has the upper hand right now.

[Remiel]

Perhaps that is because I find it worthwhile to take the initiative on this issue and head off others at the pass instead of letting them in through the gates before trying to push them out, like you seem to suggest. Also, in reality, I don't think " typical Joe Canadian " really puts much store in accusations of Anti-Americanism.

The only alliance in North America I am interested in seeing is one between Canada and Mexico, to try and counterbalance the US. If we could achieve that, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at something bigger, but not before. You don't seem to appreciate that deals with the US seem to go along the lines of " Do what we say, and maybe we'll afford you the same benefits that we want you to give us. Maybe. " We don't need any of our policies dictated south by the US.

[jbg]

You guys are like a one-trick pony. Every time something comes up, you trot out military security, as if the United States were the only country in the world we were allied with militarily. Remember NATO?

And Belgium is going to be able to protect you from, most likely Russian, adventurers? How?

[Remiel]

I mention an alliance, and you mention one of the smallest countries in that alliance to try and discredit me? That is so weak.

[jbg]

I mention an alliance, and you mention one of the smallest countries in that alliance to try and discredit me? That is so weak.

Your other choices aren't much more likely to be in a position to help, except maybe Britain. Who are the other choices?

1. Iceland;
   
2. Latvia;
   
3. Lithuania;
   
4. Estonia;
   
5. Poland;
   
6. Hungary;
   
7. Czech Republic;
   
8. Denmark;
   
9. Norway;
   
10. Portugal;
    
11. Italy;
    
12. Turkey (unlikely to help for lots of reasons);
    
13. Spain;
    
14. Bulgaria;
    
15. Romania;
    
16. Slovakia;
    
17. Slovenia;
    
18. Luxembourg;
    
19. Netherlands;
    
20. Germany
    

I may have left out a few, but I don't think any are particularly powerful.