Ballistic Missile Defence

Canada should join ballistic missile defence system, but it will cost us: experts

WATCH: Ballistic Missile Defence has suffered from negative coverage: Macdonals

The Canadian government must consider paying up to join the U.S. ballistic missile defence program, say a former diplomat and a former NORAD commander.

In a panel discussion on The West Block with Vassy Kapelos, former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson and retired Lt-Gen. George Macdonald agreed that the time has come to take steps to actively protect Canada in the event of a ballistic missile strike like the ones being threatened by North Korea.Related

At the moment, Canada has no means to defend itself against such a strike should a missile be aimed at us, or veer off course after being aimed at a U.S. city.

READ MORE: U.S. won’t defend Canada during North Korean missile attack, official says

“I think that the NORAD mission, which has been aerospace warning and defence for almost 60 years now, always included ballistic missile warning, but a natural extension of (missile) defence was not agreed to by the Canadian government in 2005,” said Macdonald, a former deputy commander-in-chief at NORAD.

That decision came as a surprise to many within the joint defence organization, he noted.

WATCH: U.S. won’t defend Canada from North Korea attack

But the U.S. ballistic missile defence program (BMD) suffered from a great deal of bad press a decade ago, Macdonald said.

At the time, there were concerns that it was destabilizing from a global military perspective, that the costs were too high and that it simply it didn’t work (the complexity of stopping a nuclear-armed missile mid-flight has been compared to hitting a bullet with another bullet).

“In the 10 or 12 years that have passed since then, the system has evolved,” Macdonald told Kapelos. “There is more confidence in the ability to defend against a ballistic missile attack … I think it’s topical now to revisit the situation.”

Robertson said Canada will need to go in with “eyes open,” however, especially as the Americans have no real motivation to bring us into the fold. Ottawa will need to commit resources, and money, to the endeavour. So far, there have not been any signals that the government is preparing to change its position.

“I think if we want in now we’re going to have to pay for it,” Robertson said.

“There is a piece in the (Canadian Armed Forces) defence policy review which says that we will be looking with the Americans at all threats to North America, so this would give the government the political cover they need to take a look at this.”

Prepared Remarks before House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence on ‘Canada’s Abilities to Defend Itself and our Allies in the Event of an Attack by North Korea on the North American Continent’, Thursday, September 14, 2017

My remarks draw on 33 years of experience in the Canadian Foreign Service and, since then, my work as a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. I spent a week earlier this year in Seoul, as the guest of the Korea Foundation, meeting with Korean scholars and senior Korean defence and security officials.

 

Let me address three questions:

  • Canadian participation in Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD)?
  • Our policy towards North Korea?
  • How can Canada contribute to nuclear non-proliferation?

 

Ballistic Missile Defence

 

It is time for Canada to participate in BMD as an insurance policy to shield Canadians should missiles come our way. Our European allies and Pacific partners employ it. So should we.

The Government dodged consideration of BMD in the recent Defence Policy Review (DPR). When I asked at the technical briefing at the launch of the DPR last May, I was told that the Government was staying with the policy adopted by the Martin and then Harper governments that we will not participate in BMD, but that the government is discussing defending North America against ‘all threats’ with the American government.  That would have to include BMD.

 

From discussions around the 2005 decision I understand that at that time the Government could not get adequate answers to three questions:

  • Does it work and how would BMD protect Canada?
  • How much participation would Canada have in what is essentially a US managed system?
  • How much would it cost?

 

These are still good questions and the current Government should get these answers and share them with Canadians.

 

That said, based on the evidence presented to it, the Senate National Defence Committee unanimously recommended in June 2014 that Canada participate in BMD.

 

Since then there is abundant evidence of North Korea’s improved capacity to both miniaturize a nuclear warhead and then project it by ballistic missile across continents. As then President George W Bush reportedly asked then Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2006: ‘but what happens if a North Korean missile aimed at Los Angeles or Seattle winds up heading towards Calgary or Vancouver…don’t you want protection?’

While the US may protect a Canadian target near to a US city, there can be no guarantee since the US system is limited in size and the North Korean ICBM force of uncertain number. Unless we are inside the system – and making a contribution – we have no assurances even if the US commander would wish to protect a Canadian target that is remote from a US asset – think Edmonton or Calgary.

Consideration of Canadian engagement on BMD should cover all possible initiatives beyond the simply positioning of anti-missiles in Canada. These would range from a Government declaration that we acknowledge the missile threat to North America, to allocating additional Canadian Forces resources to NORAD, to equipping our naval assets with appropriate gear to detect missiles, to radar arrays in Canada, to writing a cheque to support research. In each case it will require more attention to security in Canada’s North.

 

The US is not asking us to join BMD. They did in 2005 and we said no. My sense is that if we were to ask now to included they would probably agree but it will oblige them to make changes to a system in which they have invested billions. There would be a cost to Canada. So if we decide to join, we do it because it serves Canadian interests and protects Canadians, not because, as some suggest, we are doing the Americans a favour. On the contrary, they would be doing us a service having made the initial and ongoing investment.

Joining BMD would likely bring the continental BMD defence function under NORAD and NORTHCOM. Canada has participated in NORAD’s missile warning function for many years, and bringing BMD into it would strengthen the bi-national institution at the heart of Canada-US relations and the defence relationship in particular.

North Korea

 

I believe that the Government, as part of its commitment to active internationalism, needs to reconsider its current policy approach to North Korea. Diplomatic relations are not a seal of good housekeeping but rather the means by which advance Canadian interests and protect Canadians. Relations also allow us to bring insight, intelligence and a Canadian perspective to the diplomatic table.

 

The current policy of controlled engagement was adopted by the Harper Government in 2010 after a North Korean submarine torpedoed a South Korean warship in blatant disregard of its international obligations.

 

This policy limits engagement to discussion of (1) regional security concerns; (2) the human rights and humanitarian situation in North Korea; (3) inter-Korean relations; and (4) consular issues and this latter provision was how National Security Advisor Daniel Jean negotiated the recent exit from North Korea of Pastor Lim.

 

The Lim episode aside, it has meant we have virtually no contact with the Kim regime. There has not been an Ambassadorial visit to North Korea since 2010. In fact, no Canadian Ambassador has been accredited to North Korea since 2011. This contrasts with like-minded embassies in Seoul whose Ambassadors have regularly travelled to North Korea in the last 7 years. Seven EU countries also have resident Embassies in North Korea.  Our current policy helps no one, hinders communication, particularly at times when we most need it, and puts us at an information disadvantage with, and lessens our value to our closest allies.

 

The authoritarian regime of Kim Jong-Un, continues to break international nuclear non-proliferation norms, despite repeated Security Council resolutions.

 

My view is that while any role for Canada would likely be limited, it would serve our interests to engage the North Koreans, thus enabling us to bring some intelligence or niche capacity to the table. My former foreign service colleague James Trottier who made 4 official visits to North Korea in 2015 and 2016 recently wrote an informed and useful piece in the Ottawa Citizen arguing for a combination of negotiations, incentives, sanctions and strengthened missile defence.

 

Some observations:

 

First, South Korea is our friend, fellow middle-power and the only nation in Asia with which we have a free trade agreement. It’s a country that we should cultivate, keeping in mind that they respect understand and respect toughness in trade negotiations.

 

South Korea has lived under the threat of bombardment by North Korea since the Armistice in 1953. Seoul, a city of ten million people, is 60 kilometers from the border and within easy range of conventional bombardment. After meeting with a very senior official in March he walked me to the elevator where I saw what I thought were a bunch of goggles. He looked at me and said “That’s for a chemical or biological gas attack. I don’t fear a nuclear bomb because what we have created in South Korea is just too valuable for Kim Jong-Un to destroy. He’d rather eliminate us so he can put his own people here.”

 

Second observation, Kim Jong-Un is ruthless, acting like something out of Game of Thrones, but his behaviour is rational and based on self-preservation.

 

For him and the 200,000 or so senior officials who benefit from his autocracy, a nuclear bomb is their insurance policy against the fate of Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. Kim will not give up his weapons.

 

Third, we will have to live with a nuclear North Korea. We need to establish a new equilibrium and accept the least offensive outcome if we are to realize objectives under the failed ‘strategic patience’ policy.

 

The time for a military intervention, if it ever existed, has probably passed, short of some sort of extraordinary intervention by the Chinese, the only power with real leverage in this situation. But, for now, China does not want a failed regime and the migrants it would bring.

 

So we must live with the situation. An engaged Canada could perhaps be helpful. We used our convening capacity in the lead-up to President Obama’s opening to Cuba. President Trump has said he would consider meeting Kim Jong-Un. Throw in Dennis Rodman and a Raptors game and Niagara Falls and who knows what would happen.  The point is that to contain North Korea we have to think outside-of-the-box.

 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

 

The fundamental issue with North Korea is nuclear proliferation. As part of our commitment to active internationalism, Canada should re-dedicate itself to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation.

 

For Canada, one of the world’s biggest producers of uranium, there is an important role to play in helping to secure the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb.

Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan account for more than two-thirds of global production. What if the three agreed to become permanent stewards of used uranium products?

We would permanently “own” our uranium and ensure that its waste, including radioactive and fissible material, was properly disposed of, perhaps in mines no longer in production. While this doesn’t solve the problem of existing nuclear waste, it would control most new supply.

The International Atomic Energy Agency would provide on-site accounting oversight and supervise the transportation of all uranium. Rates would reflect risks to make it commercially and politically viable.

Given their secure geography, Canada and Australia would have to take the lead in long-term global disposal. This will require leadership and explanation to persuade Canadians to take on this responsibility.

Saskatchewan is home to Canada’s uranium mines and the industry is one of the largest employers of indigenous people. People in Saskatchewan strongly support their industry. They recognize the value of nuclear medicine research, but they oppose nuclear waste storage. They will need to be convinced aboåut the safety, security and economic returns of long-term stewardship.

Nuclear energy, which emits no carbon, is also a key piece of the solution to climate-change mitigation. China is betting heavily on nuclear energy in its migration from coal. France derives about 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy. Nuclear power supplies half of Ontario’s electricity.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. We must do a better job of handling its waste and curbing nuclear proliferation. As both a producer and user, Canada can take the lead in the control and containment of our own uranium.

Conclusion

We live in a world in disarray but we are not without assets and opportunities. I recommend that we look hard at ballistic missile defence as an insurance shield for Canadians, engage with North Korea to see if we can be helpful, and take a leadership role in controlling nuclear materials.

 

NAFTA

What was behind Trump’s comment on NAFTA and energy?

There is wide-ranging speculation on the implications of US President Donald Trump’s recent comments about Canadian energy exports and the upcoming renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

On Thursday (April 20), Trump said, “I was in Wisconsin the other day, and I want to end, and add, by saying that Canada, what they’ve done to our dairy farm workers is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. We can’t let Canada or anybody else take advantage and do what they did to our workers and to our farmers. And again I want to also just mention: included in there is lumber, timber and energy.”

The Globe and Mail now reports, “Neither Canada’s government nor oil industry have any idea what U.S. President Donald Trump was talking about when he warned that the U.S. will target Canada’s energy sector in renegotiations of the North American free-trade agreement. Finance Minister Bill Morneau, in Washington at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings, said he could not think of any energy-related trade disputes between the two countries.”

A border adjustment tax?
That article adds, “Mr. Trump did not specify what he was aiming to do. He has previously presented himself as a friend to Canada’s oil and gas sector, restarting the Keystone XL pipeline project blocked by Barack Obama. The President is planning to unveil his tax plan next week [on April 26], which some economists have speculated could include a tax on foreign oil imports.”

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the US imported 3.76 million barrels of oil a day from Canada in 2015. Last month, the US Department of Energy said the United States posted a $39 billion energy-trade deficit with Canada due to imports of oil, natural gas and electricity.

An American border adjustment tax on energy exports from Canada would be a clear violation of NAFTA.

Proportional sharing clause for Mexico?
The article further speculates, “The United States is heavily dependent on Canada for oil and gas because it does not produce enough to meet demand. A more likely target for NAFTA negotiations is Mexico’s energy sector, which has historically been the subject of government monopolies but has been opened up to private investment since 2013. One Canadian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said bringing Mexican oil and gas under NAFTA would be an attractive prospect in trade talks.”

This could suggest that Trump may seek to have NAFTA’s proportional sharing provision apply to Mexico as well. That provision basically says that Canada must maintain at least the same level of oil and gas exports to the United States as it had supplied for the past thirty-six months. Author-activist Gordon Laxer has commented, “Proportionality, the de facto, mandatory-exporting clause applies only to Canada, since Mexico refused it.”

In December 2013, Mexico ended 75 years of government control of its oil reserves when it passed an energy reform law that allows transnational corporations to explore and extract oil and gas. That reform is expected to attract as much as $15 billion of foreign investment annually and increase oil production to as much as 4 million barrels per day by 2025 and double natural gas production.

Timelines
Speculation has suggested that NAFTA negotiations could begin this summer or fall.

Former diplomat Colin Robertson has stated, “At the earliest I think the renegotiation – with or without Mexico – will take at least a year, probably 19 months. After that we have to go for ratification, which adds on another year plus. My guess is that NAFTA, or whatever we call it, doesn’t get wrapped up until spring or summer 2019, meaning it will be front and centre in our October 2019 election.”

Mexico’s economy minister Ildefonso Guajardo sees a shorter time frame. He believes talks could start in late July and be concluded in April 2018. That may be because a general election will take place in Mexico in July 2018 and the early front-runner to be the next president of Mexico is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a vocal opponent of Trump. He has stated, “[NAFTA] didn’t hurt, but it wasn’t the panacea”, suggesting he would be willing to walk away from the deal during the negotiation process.

To demand public consultations on NAFTA — and the removal of the proportional sharing clause from NAFTA — please click here.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

Primary tabs

Not For SaleThe clock is ticking on the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Both the U.S. and Canada have opened up public consultations on the tri-country deal between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. NAFTA renegotiations could start as early as August.

President Trump has made it clear he wants
NAFTA renegotiation to put “America first.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has unsuccessfully tried to placate Trump. Prime Minister Trudeau has also tried to defend the deal, despite the evidence. For years we have seen the ravages of NAFTA – the Chapter 11 corporate lawsuits that have cost Canada millions of dollars and eroded our environmental and public policy, hollowed out manufacturing towns and hundreds of thousands of people put out of work, and greater inequality in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

We must stand up for an alternate vision – NAFTA renegotiations present an opportunity for a better, fairer NAFTA that will improve things for people and the planet.

Give the Canadian government a strong negotiating mandate by calling on it to:

Eliminate Chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, from NAFTA. ISDS provisions allow corporations to sue governments for policies or regulations that restrict corporate profits. Corporations have used these provisions to challenge laws that protect people’s health and the environment.

Remove all references from NAFTA to water as a good, service or investment. Canada is vulnerable to bulk water exports and increased privatization under the deal. President Trump could see Canadian water as a way to hydrate drought-ridden U.S. states.

Eliminate NAFTA’s energy proportionality rule. This rule requires Canada to export a locked-in percentage of our energy production to the U.S. This forces continued production in the tar sands, which will stop Canada from meeting its climate commitments.

We must stand up to Trump’s dangerous agenda on trade. We can make NAFTA fairer by protecting and expanding Canadians jobs, safeguarding water and the environment, and strengthening our economy.

Comments Off on NAFTA

Canada has Edge in NAFTA Negotiations

Experience, outreach give Canada an edge in achieving NAFTA renovation goals

Comments Off on Canada has Edge in NAFTA Negotiations

Bulk Drug Sales to the USA

Canada must resist the lure of bulk U.S. drug purchases

 

‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” is advice that Canadians should heed on U.S. legislation permitting the bulk purchase of pharmaceutical drugs from Canada for the U.S. market.

At a time when we are about to renegotiate our preferred access for people, goods and services, it makes no sense for Canada to involve itself in this very American controversy.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is the driving force behind a bill in the U.S. Senate aimed to give Americans “Canadian” prices for their prescription drugs. A similar bill was defeated in January (52-46) but not on the usual Democrat versus Republican partisan lines. A dozen Republicans, including senators Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley and John McCain, voted for the measure.

Americans spend more per capita on health care than anyone else in the world – $9,451 (U.S.), according to the OECD (the comparable figure for Canada is $4,727). Donald Trump and the Republicans were elected, in part, on their promise to abolish Obamacare, and their recent spectacular failure in the House of Representatives only underlines the challenges around U.S. health care.

Groups of American seniors crossing the border to buy drugs or having prescriptions filled in Canada and then sent to them in the United States – this also accommodates Canadian snowbirds – has long been a feature of cross-border “trade.” This will continue. But Canada is not the solution to the United States’ drug-pricing controversy.

Our pharmaceutical industry – innovators and the generics – is stretched providing for the Canadian market. Last year, Health Canada introduced regulations requiring drug manufacturers to report on anticipated and actual drug shortages. There is even a website – Drug Shortages Canada.

Involving ourselves in this American problem would not serve Canadian interests. Given that many of the prescription drugs that Canadians consume are manufactured elsewhere, Canada would simply be a trans-shipment point.

The failure of Canadian authorities to inspect for counterfeits in goods trans-shipped through Canadian ports is a continuing irritant to the United States. With the opioid epidemic in the United States (a problem also in Canada), there is also concern that Canada would become a back door for international drug smugglers. The bulk transfer of pharmaceutical drugs makes no sense. As with the prohibition on the bulk transfer of our water, Parliament and provincial legislatures should act now to prevent wholesalers from exporting drugs in bulk from Canada.

With aging populations in both Canada and the United States, there is only going to be more demand for drugs and biologics that improve and sustain life. This is where Canada and the United States should be co-operating.

It is estimated that, with research, clinical trials and licensing by governments, it takes eight to 11 years and costs almost $3-billion to bring a drug to market. The creators, mostly private companies, deserve a fair return on their investment but pricing must be fair as consumers and their legislators will intervene, as illustrated by the EpiPen controversy.

Innovation is a Trudeau government priority. Innovative Medicines Canada says that there are more than 500 new products in development supported by more than $1-billion in annual research and development. Genome Canada and its provincial partners are making a difference employing using new approaches, such as Open Science, involving the sharing of data and samples.

If health care in the United States is the most expensive in the world, Canada’s is also costly – about 11 per cent of our GDP. Every provincial government is engaged in efforts to bring down health care, which absorbs about 40 per cent of their budgets. More attention needs to be devoted to outcomes. This will require hospitals and health-care professionals to share data and then crunch them so we can see what is working and what can be improved. This is another area where co-operation with the United States makes sense.

In the meantime, let’s not risk our reputation and our own supply to address a “Made in America” problem that must be fixed in America. Mr. Sanders’s “Trojan horse” should be emphatically rejected and the sooner the better. Canada has much bigger stakes in play with our American neighbours.

A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is vice-president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

 

Comments Off on Bulk Drug Sales to the USA

Canada and Mexico

If Canadians are wary about the incoming Donald Trump administration, think about the Mexicans. For them, Mr. Trump presents a clear and present danger.

His threats have moved beyond promises to deport “two … it could even be three million” and to build a “Great Wall” across the entire land border that “will be paid back by Mexico.”

Threatening to impose a 35-per-cent border tax, president-elect Trump has cajoled American, Japanese and German companies to abandon their investment plans in Mexico. The peso has plummeted to its lowest levels ever against the U.S. dollar.

To prepare for a President Trump, President Enrique Pena Nieto recently appointed a new Foreign Minister, Luis Videgaray, and yet another new ambassador to the U.S. (the third in nine months). In speeches to Mexico’s diplomatic corps last week, both Mr. Nieto and Mr. Videgary said that in any negotiations with the U.S., the entire bilateral relationship would be on the table, and that Mexico will not pay for the wall.

For Canadians to feel smug or secure would be a mistake. We may not yet be a direct target, but we are within Mr. Trump’s range of vision.

Inevitably, we would become collateral damage, especially when it comes to protectionist border measures. A survey last month of Trump supporters revealed that 73 per cent expect either a better deal or withdrawal from NAFTA within the first 100 days of the Trump presidency.

Mr. Trump promises more enforcement capacity to secure U.S. borders and, at last week’s Senate Homeland Security confirmation hearing for secretary-designate Gen. John Kelly, both Democrats and Republicans told him not to ignore the northern border and pressed for more security. Eight of its 15 members come from northern border states.

Nor would Canada be exempt from any new border tax, said Mr. Trump’s press secretary last week. The National Bank of Canada has estimated a 10-per-cent border levy would cause Canadian exports to slump 9 per cent within a year.

Canada and Mexico need to make common cause in the face of Trumpian excess. A visit to Mexico, before the summer, by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would visibly underline our enduring partnership at a time when Mexicans are feeling vulnerable and alone.

While our borders are different and our responses will reflect our particular circumstances, we need to stay close, especially in any NAFTA discussion with Washington.

An active advocacy campaign – a joint effort led by our consuls, suppliers and their customers – needs to inform Americans, especially those living in the 31 states won by Mr. Trump, that their first or second markets are either Canada or Mexico.

Studies conducted for the Canadian Embassy and by the Wilson Center estimate that our commerce accounts for over 14 million American jobs. Underlining our integrated continental market is the fact that 40 per cent of the finished goods that Americans buy from Mexico, and 20 per cent of what they buy from Canada, is “made in the U.S.A.”

Linda Hasenfratz, CEO of Linamar, got it right when she warned there is “too much emotion and not enough fact” out there. Ms. Hasenfratz, who also chairs the Business Council of Canada, argues that adding cost and inefficiency would undercut our global competitiveness. The ultimate cost will be borne by the consumer.

We should look at expanding Canada-Mexico trade in produce – their tomatoes and vegetables for our beef and pork. There are major Canadian investments in Mexico – producing trains, planes and automobiles – as well as banking and mining operations. We need an active investment outreach to encourage Mexican firms to follow the lead of Grupo Bimbo, the world’s leading baker, that owns Canada Bread.

Then there are the people-to-people ties. With the visa lifted we can and need to encourage more Mexican tourism and study in Canada.

Any renegotiation of NAFTA should begin with including the improvements already negotiated through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP): preclearance of goods; increasing the number of professionals eligible for fast-track passage and temporary employment; and a trilateral approach to new infrastructure to enhance North American competitiveness.

If Mr. Trump repudiates NAFTA then we should keep it (U.S. withdrawal does not kill NAFTA like it does the TPP) and look for prospective new partners, including Britain, the Pacific Alliance (that includes Chile, Colombia and Peru) and to new partners across the Pacific.

Canada may not be in the crosshairs in the same fashion as Mexico but we have no immunity from Trumpian threats. Canada and Mexico need to hang together or, surely, we will hang separately.

Comments Off on Canada and Mexico

Internet Governance

The time is now to forge Internet governance

Last year’s economic contribution of the Internet was estimated at $4.2-trillion (U.S.). If the Internet were a national economy, it would be G5. By 2025, management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. estimates that the Internet of Things will generate upward of $11-trillion in efficiency gains and economic growth.

But the dark side, the cost of cybercrime – notably fraud and data theft – was estimated to be as high as $445-billion in 2016. And governments continue to censor and crack down on social media apps to curb dissent.

In its latest annual review, Freedom House, a U.S.-government-funded NGO based in Washington, named Estonia, Iceland and Canada as the top “free nations,” but it reported that Internet freedom declined in 2016 for a sixth consecutive year.

China was identified as the “worst abuser” of Internet freedom because of its “information security” policy and its crackdown on free expression. Brazil dropped from “free to partly free,” while Turkey dropped into “not free” because of its blocking of social-media platforms.

We need some ground rules on Internet use.

Last June, the Global Commission on Internet Governance concluded two years of deliberation. Its report, One Internet, should be the starting point for informed action.

An initiative of Britain’s Chatham House and Canada’s Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) think tanks, the commission was chaired by former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, with significant Canadian participation from co-chair Gordon Smith, co-director Fen Osler Hampson – both distinguished fellows at CIGI – and McKinsey CEO Dominic Barton, who now chairs Ottawa’s advisory panel on economic growth.

The report maps the complex landscape of Internet governance, with its distributed institutions and procedures. The Internet has succeeded, it argues, because it is a network of interoperating networks and was constructed using carrots, not sticks. But national rules are increasingly having global effects – and the trends, Freedom House reports, are cause for corrective action.

One Internet argues for an open Internet system that allows data to flow freely based on efficiency, non-discrimination and freedom of expression. It makes a series of practical recommendations designed to ensure an Internet that is open, secure, trustworthy and inclusive, including:

  • Regular reports by Internet companies naming the governments that block access and listing what they are blocking.
  • Government agreements on targets that are off limits to cyberattack, with a mutual-assistance pact to deter cyberintruders.
  • Public education on cyberhygiene while ensuring broad public access to the Internet.
  • Standards on data protection, privacy and the use of algorithms.
  • Incentives to encourage competition to make the Internet and its devices accessible to all.

Given the experience of Russian hacking in the recent US election and the elections later this year in France, Germany, Netherlands and elsewhere there should also be a prohibition on cyber-interference in the democratic process

The commission argues that any oversight regime (or regimes) must be adaptable and resilient.

In terms of regulatory models, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is perhaps the closest in function, but for effective private-sector participation, designers should also look to the Montreal-based International Air Transport Association (IATA). It provides global governance and standards for airline safety, security, efficiency and sustainability.

Championing Internet governance is an initiative the Trudeau government could usefully incorporate into its multilateralist agenda. The Internet and digital literacy should be a key component in the government’s new development plan. More than 60 per cent of the world remains offline, and the disconnected are disproportionately rural, illiterate and female. In our increasingly digital world, we need to develop a new social contract, one that works to narrow the divide between digital haves and have-nots.

The Internet has created a global commons for commerce and discussion that continues to expand. At its best it accelerates the exposure of corruption and enables research leading to scientific discoveries and medical cures that benefit humanity.

At its intolerant worst, the Internet is a vehicle for fake news, trolling, bullying, anti-Semitism, homophobia, racism and xenophobia.

For the gullible, the Internet encourages the spread of conspiracy theories and breeds suspicion of elites and the establishment. Facts have become fungible in an emerging post-truth, alternative universe of multiple media. This contributes to the Berlusconization of politics: the rise of clownish leaders who say ridiculous things and then laugh them off.

We need standards and norms of Internet behaviour. An international convention on Internet governance would be a useful step forward.

Comments Off on Internet Governance

Aleppo, R2P and Human Security

In the wake of Aleppo, instead of writing the eulogy for R2P – the Responsibility to Protect commitment endorsed by all member states of the United Nations in 2005 – liberal internationalists should seize it as a call to action.

Canada can help. It is time to resuscitate the human-security agenda as a major foreign-policy initiative that would also provide a meaningful Canadian platform in our bid for a Security Council seat in 2020.

In many ways, R2P was a Canadian initiative, the capstone to the Chretien Government’s human-security agenda. Michael Ignatieff was one of R2P’s intellectual godfathers. Ambassador Allan Rock led the successful campaign that led to the UN adoption of R2P at its World Summit in 2005, where members endorsed the protection of populations. R2P meant “never again” to genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

R2P nicely complemented the other major achievements of the human-security agenda: the Land Mines Treaty (1997), the creation of the International Criminal Court (2002) and a continuing succession of UN resolutions condemning the recruitment of child soldiers and use of small arms.

Today, the accomplishments of the human-security agenda are under threat. During his recent visit to Ottawa, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden encouraged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to champion the liberal international order.

It will be a tall order, especially for a leader who has a big domestic agenda to fulfill and who has already carved out an international leadership role on climate change – a bigger challenge given the change in attitude of the next U.S. administration.

Michael Small, who directed the human-security agenda within Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department, has set forth three lessons from that initiative that the new government could usefully heed.

First is to find a champion within cabinet.

As foreign affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy diligently worked the international circuit to build a coalition of support beginning with his North American counterparts, U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright and Mexican foreign minister Rosario Green.

Second is to respond to pressing security needs.

At that time, it was the surge in intra-state conflicts, but today it would also include terrorism, the rise in authoritarianism and declining confidence in rules-based international institutions.

Third is to develop new ideas and build intellectual capital.

The government invested in research at universities, think tanks and non-governmental organizations and encouraged junior officers in Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department to think creatively. That resulted in Canada creating the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, in which Mr. Ignatieff played a lead role along with Australian Gareth Evans and Algerian Mohamed Sahnoun.

In a retrospective look at R2P, Mr. Ignatieff argues that governments must underline to their citizens that protecting civilians is “about preventing harm, not primarily using force.” Avoiding mission creep, he argues, is vital.

All of these lessons will need to be applied if Mr. Trudeau to deliver on his promise to the UN that Canada is “here to help.” Mr. Small also suggests that the Trudeau government could update the human-security agenda with the inclusion of three issues in which it already has a track record: refugee protection, pluralism as an instrument for dealing with conflict reduction and social inclusion, and empowering women.

Building all-party support will be important. The Harper government forcefully promoted maternal and child-health initiatives as well as “girls not brides,” and this work should continue.

Revitalizing R2P will not be easy.

The first test for Mr. Trudeau will be convincing U.S. president-elect Donald Trump to engage. The United States is the guardian of the liberal international order and its deterrent muscle is indispensable.

The tragedy in Aleppo, described by a UN spokesman as a “complete meltdown of humanity,” represents a failure at many levels – national, regional and international. The international humanitarian norms that underwrite human security are eroding, if not collapsing. The secondary effects – a deluge of refugees and terrorism – have contributed to the rise of populism and right-wing movements across the West.

Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan once asked: “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?”

The “shift in the angle of vision” – from that of the state to that of the well-being of its citizens – that inspired R2P and the human-security agenda has lost none of its relevance.

The international community came together after the tragedies in Rwanda (1994), Srebenica (1995) and Darfur (2003). Aleppo reminds us that R2P and the cause of human security needs fresh thinking and new champions.

Comments Off on Aleppo, R2P and Human Security

NAFTA , Trump and Trade

Trump wants to overhaul NAFTA? Bring it on

Colin Robertson

The Globe and Mail Wednesday, Dec. 07, 2016

President-elect Trump wants to “renegotiate” NAFTA. Bring it on.

The gains we made from NAFTA (1993), spectacular during its first decade, have mostly plateaued. The Trans Pacific Partnership agreement would have updated our continental accord but now that Mr. Trump has shelved it, re-opening NAFTA makes sense.

For Canada, a North American economic pact is vital. The U.S., our biggest trading partner since the Second World War, currently accounts for about 75 per cent of our trade. Our trade with Mexico has grown sixfold since NAFTA.

For Canada, our main objective in re-opening NAFTA should be the freer movement of people, goods and investment within North America. Last year more than $700-billion in goods flowed across our southern frontier and more than 150 million people crossed our shared border by land, air and water.

As with any negotiation, to get we have to be prepared to give. Let’s be bold. Let’s put our costly dairy supply-management, a perennial U.S. target, on the table in return for better procurement access, including shipbuilding.

Last week’s Auditor General’s report on the Beyond-the-Border Action Plan – the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at improving border access – identified shortcomings that should be Canadian priorities with U.S. negotiators. The Entry/Exit and trusted traveller programs, including customs self-assessment and the Single Window initiative, are all behind schedule. Some of this is our responsibility but we also need to see more openness to change from the U.S.

Despite recent efforts at regulatory reform, our supply chains still suffer from the “tyranny of small differences.” Regulatory reform could benefit from a Trump re-boot.

The provinces, who were not in the room for the NAFTA negotiation, should be full partners in the coming sessions because many of the necessary improvements fall under their jurisdiction. The premiers should reach out to their governor counterparts with specific proposals around reciprocity for procurement, especially given Mr. Trump’s promised “Big Build” program.

The North American advantage is our people and a new trade accord should include:

  • Bringing the list of professions eligible for fast-track cross-border access into the digital age. The skilled trades workers who are enabling North American energy independence also need to move back and forth with ease.
  • Speeding up the re-qualification system for professionals needed on the job now.

Mr. Trump wants a better deal for American workers.

Main Street America never appreciated the value of NAFTA in part because U.S. leaders did a lousy job in explaining – and sharing – the value of continental trade while failing to adequately help those left behind through global competition and technological changes.

We did it better in Canada but an overhaul of the NAFTA accord on Labour Cooperation is in the interests of all three countries. Why not make a joint commitment to adjustment assistance and retraining as a basic right for workers?

Mr. Trump’s promise to build a wall and to increase deportations to Mexico has led some to wonder whether we’d be better to go it alone with the U.S. leaving Mexico to fend for itself. Divide and conquer is integral to Mr. Trump’s Art of the Deal. Working with Mexico will avoid that trap.

Mexico is now our third largest trading partner. We have major investments in Mexico and, with a middle class of 44 million people, Mexico is a market that will only increase. By 2050, Mexico is expected to rank fifth in global economic weight.

Mr. Trump wants another look at country-of-origin-labelling (COOL), a protectionist measure that curtailed our meat exports. Working closely with Mexico, our joint efforts resulted in Congress repealing COOL last December.

On COOL and those many issues where Canada and Mexico share common cause – including trade, climate and energy – we need to continue working together. On the border and security, we will diverge at times, reflecting our own interests but we should work in tandem. Our shared and overriding principle with Mexico should be no surprises and constant communication at all levels.

Re-opening a deal that is past its best-before date is an opportunity that all three nations should embrace. It’s time to bring NAFTA into the digital age.

A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is vice-president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

NEW PODCAST: ‘THE GLOBAL EXCHANGE’
NAFTA and Trump: a Discussion on the Future of Trade

On today’s ‘Global Exchange‘ Podcast, we invited two experts on trade to discuss the implications of a Trump Presidency for NAFTA, TPP, and the status-quo trade regime as it stands today. Join Colin, John Weekes, and Rob Wright as they probe the future of trade in an era of rising populism and protectionism.

Bios:

  • Colin Robertson (host) A former Canadian diplomat, Colin Robertson is Vice President of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a Senior Advisor to Dentons LLP.
  • Rob Wright – Rob Wright served as Canadian Ambassador to China from 2005-2009, and as Ambassador to Japan from 2001-2005. From 1995-2001 he was the Canadian Deputy Minister for International Trade.
  • John Weekes – Canada’s ambassador to the WTO from 1995-99 and a chief negotiator of the NAFTA trade agreement.


Related Links:

 

Comments Off on NAFTA , Trump and Trade

Trade Commissioner Service and Promoting Canadian Trade

With CETA and TPP in limbo, here’s how Canada can give trade a practical boost

With our big trade-policy initiatives – the Canada-EU trade deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership – in limbo, Canada’s leaders need to turn their attention to trade promotion.

Canada lives by trade. It represents 60 per cent of our GDP. One in five jobs is linked to trade. There are more than a million small- and medium-sized enterprises operating in Canada. A 2013 survey concluded that only 41,000 were exporting. We can do better.

We need a trade strategy that has the support of the provinces and regional leadership. International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland should turn her considerable skills to achieving consensus on a new trade plan and then deliver it through a re-energized Trade Commissioner Service.

The Harper government’s Global Markets Action Plan is a good starting point. It established priority markets that also integrated the services of Export Development Canada, Canadian Commercial Corporation and the BDC.

Ms. Freeland needs to achieve buy-in from the provinces and our cities. Since the successful implementation of the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement (1988), our premiers and civic leaders, regardless of political stripe, are among the strongest advocates of expanding our global customer base and attracting foreign investment.

Saskatchewan’s Trade and Export Partnership (STEP) just celebrated its 20th anniversary. It works because it aligns government resources with exporter needs. Recognizing that city regions are the hubs for innovation and home to our service industries, the 11-city Consider Canada alliance has launched a series of initiatives to attract foreign investment and talent.

Ms. Freeland should revalidate the Action Plan’s target markets. But the focus of the Plan should be on identifying customers, investors and technology partners. A revised strategy also needs to address:

  • International investment by Canadian firms, a necessary part of competing globally, including the role of pension funds;
  • Canadian business participation in development bank projects, especially infrastructure;
  • Foreign direct investment in Canada including state-owned enterprises and public-private partnerships;
  • Internationalization of start-ups through reciprocal soft-landing arrangements in incubators and accelerators in the United States and abroad;
  • Scaling-up Canadian companies lacking sales and marketing experience;
  • Identifying opportunities for Canadian cybertools, technologies and services, especially in emerging markets;
  • Utilization of the Canadian diaspora and the family ties created by immigration to advance trade and investment;
  • Integrating international education, immigration and tourism into our strategy.

The ultimate test of our trade agreements is their ability to generate new business for Canada. Ms. Freeland should produce an annual report card on progress in expanding our customer base.

To give the new plan a boost, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should draw from the Jean Chrétien playbook and resurrect the Team Canada missions that included premiers and mayors, business leaders and university presidents. These initiatives help sell Canadian goods and services and create a sense of common purpose among our leaders.

Canada’s Trade Commissioner Service is our sales force but it needs re-energizing.

Trade commissioners are door-openers, matchmakers and a source of market intelligence for Canadian business. When local governments are not living up to their investment and trade obligations, the trade commissioners are our front-line advocates to achieve compliance. Trade commissioners find paths through the challenges of foreign languages, customs and regulatory thickets.

Every dollar spent by the Trade Commissioner Service generates $27 in increased exports. Firms that access its services export 18 per cent more than those who don’t.

Our trade commissioners would benefit from more specialized training, including assignments with Canadian business. They also need the right tools. Budget-paring obliged, for example, dropping memberships in American and European chambers of commerce, a small investment that gave them wider networks and market intelligence.

The reality of global competition is that government assistance in competing in global markets benefits Canadian business and our economy.

Canadian business is successfully integrated into the North American markets that account for nearly 80 per cent of our trade. Increasingly, it is earning its place in global supply chains, especially in the transportation and communications sectors.

Canadian agricultural products and foods harvested from our land and seas have earned a reputation for quality. Canadian services in banking, insurance and engineering are efficient and trusted. We are global leaders in medical and energy innovation and digital technology.

A good trade plan will set the compass for expanding our reach into global markets. But success – measured in contracts, investment and talent – requires sustained advocacy and marketing. The necessary first step is revitalizing Canada’s Trade Commissioner Service.

Comments Off on Trade Commissioner Service and Promoting Canadian Trade

Softwood Lumber and Canada US trade

 

Canada must be careful not to become the U.S.’s trade target

Colin Robertson The Globe and Mail   Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2016

There are bumpy times ahead for global trade and especially for trade with the United States, our biggest trading partner. Canadian governments will have to be nimble lest we get sideswiped or become a target, as is already the case on softwood lumber.

On Tuesday, the World Trade Organization announced that the pace of global trade has slowed to recession levels and it warned of creeping protectionism. Anti-trade rhetoric is a central feature of this presidential cycle, breaking an 80-year consensus within the U.S. that supported open trade and the liberal rules-based international order.

In Monday’s debate Donald Trump again bluntly declared that the U.S. has to renegotiate its trade deals “to stop” countries, specifically naming Mexico and China, from “stealing our companies and our jobs.” A more nuanced Hillary Clinton repeated that she could not endorse the current Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Ms. Clinton has promised to name a chief trade prosecutor but in the debate she acknowledged that the U.S. has “5 per cent of the world’s population. We have to trade with the other 95 per cent.”

The most potent threat to Canada would be Donald Trump’s promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. In a report last week the Washington-based Peterson Institute concluded that there is “ample precedent and scope” for a U.S. president to unilaterally raise tariffs and that blocking efforts through the courts or Congress would be “difficult and time-consuming.” Trade expert Gary Hufbauer warned that “enormous economic damage will ensue.”

Meanwhile the clock is ticking on softwood lumber, the Freddy Krueger of trade disputes. Settlement in 2006 depended on the personal intervention of President George W. Bush, tired of having it as a drag on his discussions with Prime Minister Paul Martin and then Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The 2006 agreement ran out last year and the cooling-off period concludes on October 12. Despite discussions between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the ongoing efforts of Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland and the United States Trade Representative Michael Froman, the U.S. industry soon will be seeking countervail duties on our lumber exports.

A resolution anytime soon is doubtful. With less than four months left in office, President Obama will spend his remaining political capital trying pass the TPP during the congressional lame-duck session following the November 8 election.

A congressional deal on TPP would likely oblige reopening the agreement. In the ensuing scramble, Canada’s supply management system for dairy products could potentially come into play. The Trudeau government should look at this as an opportunity to reform an inefficient system that costs Canadian consumers.

For now, Canadian negotiators need to understand the political geography around lumber (or timber as it is called in the U.S.) and reconcile the differences within Canada. The Maritimes, where most of the harvested land is in private hands, want a continued exemption from any managed trade deal. Quebec and Ontario have a distinct position. So does Alberta.

There are the differences between coastal and interior British Columbia, our largest lumber exporter. British Columbia’s protectionist policy on the export of logs needs reform. It not only incites U.S. trade action but it is a handicap in efforts to negotiate an economic partnership agreement with Japan.

Despite some initial wobbling, the Trudeau government is demonstrating a similar enthusiasm for freer trade as previous governments.

Ms. Freeland is an effective trade minister, especially in working the political relationships. Ms. Freeland’s personal efforts with U.S. Senate agriculture chair Pat Roberts, a conservative Republican, helped resolve the nearly decade-long country-of-origin dispute.

Earlier this month Ms. Freeland travelled to Germany to help secure the support of the Social Democratic Party for the Canada-Europe trade agreement (CETA). She named former trade and foreign minister Pierre Pettigrew to be our political point person for CETA. The deal is on track for signature in late October, with implementation of much of the agreement in 2017.

Meanwhile, the government’s cross-Canada TPP consultations have become a public education exercise around the importance and value of trade.

In recent years, western governments have gotten out of the habit of reminding their citizens why freer trade matters to their personal livelihood and to national prosperity. Trade is now very much about the politics of inclusion. The current U.S. presidential campaign and the recent Brexit vote are reminders that governments forget this lesson at their peril.

More Related to this Story

Canada works to counter protectionist mood of U.S. election campaign

Colin Robertson Why it’s so important for Trudeau to fix the Canada-U.S. border

At G20, Trudeau must reflect on tenure and plot inclusive economic course forward

Comments Off on Softwood Lumber and Canada US trade