Charlevoix, Trump and Canada

Donald Trump Shifts the West’s Focus to Protectionism

Last week’s G7 summit was eclipsed by the president—and that isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Credit: Flickr/Public Domain

It was supposed to be the summit where gender became a permanent issue on world leaders’ agenda, the way that climate change did at the 1988 Toronto G7. That was the personal goal of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as the World Bank reported that 130 million girls worldwide never get the opportunity to go to school. And while gender did get both attention and money at last week’s G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Quebec, it was mostly obscured by Donald Trump and growing concerns about a global trade war.

The G7 met amidst what the IMF assesses to be continuing strong economic performance in the Euro area and in Japan, China, the United States, and Canada, all of which grew beyond expectations last year. Still, there are plenty of challenges. G7 countries face aging populations, falling rates of labor force participation, and low productivity growth. They’re unlikely to regain the per capita growth rates that they enjoyed before the global financial crisis of 2008. All of that underscores the importance of the G7 as an institution. Now in its 44th year, the organization—consisting of America, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom—functions as a management board for the big liberal democracies.

Finance ministers before the summit were already expressing “concerns…that the tariffs imposed by the United States on its friends and allies, on the grounds of national security, undermine open trade and confidence in the global economy” and warning that G7 “collaboration and cooperation has been put at risk by trade actions against other members.”

That was in anticipation of Donald Trump, who managed to deliver on expectations. Arriving late and leaving early, he effectively set the real agenda of the Charlevoix summit through a series of tweets, pre-and post-summit, about “unfair Trade Deals with the G-7 countries.”

That led Trudeau to remark at the conclusion of the G7 that “Canadians did not take it lightly that the United States has moved forward with significant tariffs on our steel and aluminum industry…. For Canadians who…stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in far-off lands and conflicts from the First World War onward…it’s kind of insulting.” Canada, Trudeau said, would “move forward with retaliatory measures on July 1, applying equivalent tariffs to the ones that Americans have unjustly applied to us.” He also observed that “if the expectation was that a weekend in beautiful Charlevoix…was going to transform the president’s outlook on trade and the world, then we didn’t quite reach that bar.”

All of this annoyed Trump who had left to fly to his Singapore session with Kim Jong-un. In a fit of pique, he characterized Trudeau on Twitter as “meek and mild…dishonest & weak” and rescinded America’s signature to the traditional communique that ends the conference.

Senior advisors Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro then doubled down on the president’s remarks. Kudlow told CNN that Trudeau “really kind of stabbed us in the back,” while Navarro, who later sort of apologized, told “Fox News Sunday” that “there’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump.”

For Canadians, President Trump’s “blame Canada” campaign is curious.

According to the president’s annual Economic Report from 2018, the United States enjoys an $8.4 billion surplus with Canada. Canadians buy more American agricultural exports ($24 billion) than any other nation. Our steel trade—we are each others’ biggest customers—is in virtual balance ($7 billion both ways). Canada supports its dairy farmers through supply management that restricts the milk supply but neither gives direct subsidies nor competes with the United States. In fact, Canada is one the few countries where America runs a substantial manufacturing surplus, with the U.S. importing energy—less than the global benchmark price—and other Canadian resources.

Trump also created G7 controversy with his comment that Russia, booted out of the group after its invasion of Ukraine in 2014, should be reinstated: “They should let Russia come back in,” he said, “because we should have Russia at the negotiating table.”

European Union Council President Donald Tusk spoke for the other leaders when he rejected the readmission of Russia because it would upset the “rules-based international order.” British Prime Minister Theresa May underlined the “unified” G7 response, pointing to the new “rapid response unit” that will counter hostile activity by states such as Russia that are aimed at the democratic process.

But it was Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland who issued the most concise and clarion call for the United States not to abandon the rules-based international order for a “might makes right” approach. Accepting the Foreign Policy Forum’s “Diplomat of the Year” award, she said: “You may feel today that your size allows you to go mano-a-mano with your traditional adversaries and be guaranteed to win. But if history tells us one thing, it is that no one nation’s pre-eminence is eternal…the far wiser path—and the more enduring one—is to strengthen our existing alliance of liberal democracies.” As the West’s relative might inevitably declines, Freeland said that “now is the time for us to plant our flag on the rule of law—so that the rising powers are induced to play by these rules, too.”

The G7 is admittedly Eurocentric. It probably needs to be enlarged to include other democracies—India, Indonesia, Korea, Australia, and Mexico would be obvious candidates and their inclusion would give more weight to the Indo-Pacific. But for over 40 years, its summits have been a rare forum for frank discussions and informal diplomacy. Its members sustain the rules-based system and its multilateral institutions.

As the top table of the leading democracies, the G7 visibly demonstrates that talk on the big issues—protectionism, populism, extremism, climate, and gender—continues to be essential. Winston Churchill popularized the word “summitry.” He also reflected that “jaw-jaw” among leaders is better than “war-war.” Churchill had learned well what happens when major world powers don’t sit down with each other and engage in dialogue.

Summits usually culminate in a consensus communique. Weeks in preparation—it probably has more drafters than readers—it is part record of decisions and part declaration of intent.

The Charlevoix communique, one of the more concise at slightly over 4,000 words, still covered the urgent and the important: artificial intelligence, global trade, middle-class growth, innovation, girls’ education, and defending democracies from foreign intrusions. But it was impossible to miss that the leaders also underlined the “crucial role of a rules-based international trading system” and their pledge to “continue to fight protectionism.” That this was a rare shot at a fellow G7 member should need no explaining.

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

Canada US Relations after Charlevoix

After the diplomatic disaster of the Group of Seven summit in Charlevoix, Que., it is now clear that for Mr. Trump it is not about leading – the traditional role of the U.S. President – but about winning at any cost. Relationships are not for cultivating, but only for using to Trumpian advantage.

Canada and like-minded countries need to stick together, act in tandem and push back against Trumpist protectionism. It means taking it to him where it hurts and targeting his base: in particular the farm community. At the same time, we need to tell Americans, who will suffer job loss and higher prices, that they have only their president to blame.

For more than 500 days now, Justin Trudeau has made nice to Mr. Trump. The advice from former prime minister Brian Mulroney was correct – that the relationship with the president is the most important relationship for a prime minister and that Canada-U.S. relations, alongside national unity and national security, are the files that require a prime minister’s constant attention.

Among liberal democratic leaders, Mr. Trudeau was seen as the one who had the best relationship with Mr. Trump. He was the Trump whisperer. But Mr. Trump’s behaviour at Charlevoix, Que., was abominable.

The tweets before Charlevoix, Que., took personal shots at both Mr. Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron, the other leader who has cultivated Mr. Trump. The tweets afterward, insulting Mr. Trudeau, are beyond the pale. As Mr. Trudeau said, we are a polite people but we are not pushovers.

Canadians are justly outraged, but we have deep interests at stake, so we need to proceed with care and planning.

First, we need to get our act together domestically. Mr. Trudeau needs to consult with the premiers and business to get their advice on our retaliation list. What is their assessment of increased protectionism on their province and industries? What about life after the North American free-trade agreement? We will be hurt. We will need to provide adjustment assistance for the afflicted. But how would Americans like it if Canadians began to spontaneously boycott American goods, especially U.S. farm produce, and stopped travelling south for holidays?

Second, we need to take advantage of the free-trade deals that we already have in place and put real effort into matchmaking; business with business. As a matter of our national security (two can play this game), we should quickly pass the implementing legislation to bring the new Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership into effect. With Canada’s implementation, the agreement would immediately come into force.

If this means keeping parliamentarians at work into July so be it. Provincial legislatures may also have to be recalled. While they are at it they should pass their enabling legislation for the Canada-Europe Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. This is a matter of grave national economic urgency. Canadians need to see that their legislators are acting in the national interest.

Third, we need to act in tandem with our G7 partners and like-minded countries, such as Mexico, as we collectively retaliate to the recently imposed steel and aluminium tariffs. Canada and Mexico learned the value of acting collectively when they worked together to persuade the U.S. Congress to rescind its protectionist country-of-origin labelling requirement in 2015.

American legislators respond to local pressure. They need to feel the heat of retaliation. Canada has a lot of allies, especially in the Republican congressional caucus. They don’t like Mr. Trump’s direction and are already moving to curb the trade powers that were ceded to the executive branch during Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. Hopefully, we will see then the beauty of the checks and balances at work. The U.S. founding fathers designed their system to prevent a president from becoming a king.

The more Mr. Trump attacks his fellow G7 and fellow democratically elected leaders the more difficult it makes it for them to go along with him when it counts. That includes, however unlikely, a deal with North Korea.

The road that Mr. Trump is going down makes no economic sense. George W. Bush reluctantly imposed limited steel tariffs in 2002 (Canada was exempt) and lifted them a year later because it was costing American jobs, not creating them.

Canadians are used to compromise and consensus, especially in how we handle the relationship with Uncle Sam. Manage it well and we can tell them when their breath is bad. Mr. Trump has a bad case of halitosis. We need to tell him so and serve him the bitter medicine he has brought on himself.

CPAC Prime Time Politics Monday, June 11, 2018

Colin Robertson and Christopher Sands on Canada–U.S. Relations00:10:34Quick View

PRIMETIME POLITICS

Colin Robertson and Christopher Sands on Canada–U.S. Relations

 The G7 Summit in Charlevoix ended in dramatic fashion on Saturday with U.S. President Donald Trump directing strong criticism at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over Canada’s response to U.S. tariffs. CPAC’s Martin Stringer is joined by two experts in foreign affairs and diplomacy to assess the current state of the Canada–U.S. relationship. Colin Robertson is vice-president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a former Canadian diplomat. Christopher Sands is director of the Center for Canadian Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. (June 11, 2018) (no interpretation)

 

Comments Off on Canada US Relations after Charlevoix

Donald Trump and G7

G7: Donald Trump versus the rest of the world

Leaders of seven of the world’s biggest economies are in Canada for what could be most acrimonious G7 summit in years.

A trade war looms as America’s allies threaten retaliation against US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs.

The leaders of seven of the world’s biggest economies are in Canada for what could be the most acrimonious G7 summit in years.

Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium imports have caused outrage and a war of words with other world leaders.

The US president also finds himself virtually isolated on the Iran nuclear deal and climate change.

A showdown seems imminent.

So are we closer to a trade war that could derail the global economy?And will America First leave America Behind?

Presenter: Elizabeth Puranam Al Jeezera Inside Story

Guests:

Colin Robertson – former Canadian diplomat and vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute

Inderjeet Parmar – department of international politics at City, University of London

Seijiro Takeshita – dean at the school of management and information at the University of Shizuoka

Comments Off on Donald Trump and G7

Canada, Mexico and NAFTA

Should Canada ditch Mexico and go it alone with U.S. on new trade agreement?

NAFTA was designed to help Mexico, but now it’s hurting Canada, argues journalist

As NAFTA talks become ever more fractious, some commentators are asking whether it’s time to disband the three-way agreement and form bilateral pacts between the countries. (Judi Bottoni/Associated Press)

Listen19:08

Canada should recognize Mexico as a “toxic” trading partner, and pull out of NAFTA in favour of a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S., says Diane Francis, editor at large with the National Post.

“Canada should look after Canada,” Francis told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti. “We have nothing to be sorry about.”

The U.S. announced Thursday that Canada, Mexico and the E.U. would be subject to tariffs of 25 per cent on imported steel and 10 per cent on aluminum. Ottawa responded with a promise of dollar-for-dollar tariffs on a variety of goods.

Industry insiders said the U.S. tariffs are intended as leverage over NAFTA negotiations, which stalled last month. In a tweet earlier today, U.S. President Donald Trump condemned Canadian “trade barriers.”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Farmers have not been doing well for 15 years. Mexico, Canada, China and others have treated them unfairly. By the time I finish trade talks, that will change. Big trade barriers against U.S. farmers, and other businesses, will finally be broken. Massive trade deficits no longer!

Francis told Tremonti that signing the trade deal with Mexico in 1994 “was a bootstrapping exercise to help the neighbour to the south get better living standards, higher wages and get their act together.”

But more than two decades later, Francis said that Mexico is worse off now than it was back then.

Those low wages are bad for Mexican workers, Francis said, but low costs also draw investors south, hurting Canada’s industrial base.

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton signs the North American Free Trade Agreement Dec. 8, 1993. (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

By contrast, Francis points to the strong, “harmonious” trading relationship between Canada and the U.S.

“Bilaterally, we have so few irritants between each other,” she said.

She argued that adding Mexico to the mix and trying to “cling to a trilateral agreement” isn’t in Canada’s best interest.

Mexico is a ‘hidden success story’

Turning away from Mexico would be a strategic blunder, according to Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who helped to negotiate the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the late ’80s, and then later NAFTA.

“[It] would put us at a disadvantage with both the United States and any effort we wanted to have to expand trading ties, especially within the Americas,” he told Tremonti.

“I think there’d be a certain temptation on the part of Latinos: If we were to throw Mexico under the bus, then they would think, ‘How reliable is this further gringo to the north?'”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico city on Oct. 12, 2017. Former diplomat Colin Robertson said that the countries had formed a strong alliance through NAFTA. (Alfredo Estrella/AFP/Getty Images)

Mexico has been a “hidden success story” of NAFTA, he said, with improvements in the democratic process and a growing middle class.

“When we went into the North American Free Trade Agreement it was about number 13 or 14 in the list of our trading partners,” said Robertson, who is now vice-president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

“It’s now our third largest trading partner, we’ve got big investments in mining and banking and manufacturing.”

Robertson pointed to the country-of-origin labelling dispute over meat products in the late 2000s as an example of Canada and Mexico working together to win a dispute with the U.S.

“[Donald Trump’s book] The Art of the Deal is all about divide and conquer,” Robertson said, “and it would make no sense for us to separate from Mexico when together we have a much better chance of getting a good agreement.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, where they discussed NAFTA on Oct. 11, 2017. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

The elephant and the mouse

Seeing Mexico as an ally against the U.S. is a mistake, Francis argued, because Mexico and Canada represent only 7 per cent of the three countries’ combined GDP.

Comparing the U.S. and Canadian economies is like comparing an elephant and a mouse, she added — referencing Pierre Trudeau’s famous analogy from 1969.

“Now we’re aligned with another mouse, who’s toxic, and is actually kind of toxic to us.”

Ending the deal and pursuing separate agreements is the solution, she believes.

“I really think that we need to reorient ourselves, and get in the same space to a certain extent, as the Americans are, vis-a-vis Mexico,” she said.

Listen to the full conversation near the top of this page.


This segment was produced by The Current’s Idella Sturino and Pacinthe Mattar.

Comments Off on Canada, Mexico and NAFTA

Trudeau travels to India

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s visit to India this week will reinforce and underline our growing people-to-people ties. The economic relationship is less buoyant, but if Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi can deliver on his promised domestic reforms, there is the potential for more two-way trade and investment.

With stops in Agra, Amritsar, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, as well as New Delhi, it will be a rare session that does not include some reference to family living or studying in Canada.

The Indian diaspora includes several members in the Canadian Parliament, with four members in the Trudeau cabinet. Nearly 4 per cent of Canadians claim Indian decent, with 40,000 Indians migrating to Canada last year. The 124,000 Indians studying in Canada are our second-largest group of foreign students. No surprise that tourism is also on the rise, with more than 210,000 Indians visiting Canada last year. There are daily and non-stop flights.

India definitely deserves Canadian attention.

India will soon surpass China in population, with one-sixth of humanity. It is also the world’s largest democracy, which is a cacophony of caste and creeds. The two Prime Ministers will empathize over the challenges of managing federations with strong sectional and regional pressures. Some of these, such as the Sikh separatist movement, play into Canadian affairs.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Mr. Modi was forceful in his embrace of globalization. He described his “New India” reform agenda and its pillars of structural reform: technological governance; physical infrastructure; business facilitation; and inclusive development. Designed to give “good administration and better amenities,” Canada needs to identify the niche opportunities within each pillar.

Trade and investment will figure in every discussion. Investment from Canadian pension funds in real estate and other sectors has picked up in the past couple of years.

With its steady GDP growth, India is expected to become the third-largest consumer market by 2025.

But Canada and India are still some distance from long-promised deals on foreign investment and closer economic relations.

The foreign-investment protection agreement negotiated by the Paul Martin and Stephen Harper governments that was concluded in 2007 has yet to be implemented. Free-trade negotiations began in 2010. The six-month “road map” to its achievement, that Mr. Harper and Mr. Modi enthused about during the Indian Prime Minister’s Canadian visit in April, 2015, has yet to materialize.

Much of the problem lies, as the World Bank consistently reports, with India’s trade restrictiveness. Mr. Modi talks a good show on reform and, while he is making some progress, the structural impediments are deep and entrenched.

There is also, notwithstanding Mr. Modi’s declaration in Davos, Indian protectionism.

The imposition late last year of a 50-per-cent import tariff on peas and a 30-per-cent tariff on chickpeas and lentils should be high on Mr. Trudeau’s discussions with Mr. Modi. Agricultural sales to India are a major market, especially for Prairie farmers.

Mr. Trudeau will likely get a receptive hearing on climate and the progressive trade agenda that can be parleyed into useful initiatives.

Mr. Modi will raise Indo-Pacific security and likely ask about Canadian capacity and capabilities. Indian policy under Mr. Modi has shifted from “Look East” to “Act East.” His “Neighbourhood First” policy is roughly analogous to the Trudeau government’s new “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy. At last month’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations forum, there were discussions about the “congagement” – containment and engagement – of China. Mr. Trudeau should listen to Mr. Modi’s perspective.

With the Trans-Pacific Partnership now a reality and likely to be implemented later this year, our trade in the Pacific will only increase. It will oblige more attention and commitment to Indo-Pacific security.

The tempo of Indo-Pacific activity by our Esquimalt-based warships has picked up. HMCS Chicoutimi, one of our Victoria-class submarines, is completing a nearly six month successful Pacific exercise that also took it to Japan. If we want to be seen as a serious Indo-Pacific partner, the current tempo will be seen as the bare minimum.

Mr. Trudeau’s India visit is his longest yet to a single country. The Indian backdrop will provide a spectacular picturesque travelogue against a celebration of family ties. But real success will also require serious and continuing conversations on trade and security.

A Conversation with Indian High Commissioner Vikas Swarup

February 12, 2018

On today’s Global Exchange Podcast, we speak with the Indian High Commissioner to Canada, Vikas Swarup. Join Colin and High Commissioner Swarup for a discussion on the High Commissioner’s career, his impressions of Canada, the importance of Canada-India relations, and the significance of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s upcoming visit to India.

Participant Biographies

  • Colin Robertson (host): A former Canadian diplomat, Colin Robertson is Vice President of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
  • Vikas Swarup: High Commissioner of India to Canada.

Related Links

Book Recommendations

Comments Off on Trudeau travels to India

Trade on the Table

Screen Shot 2018-01-27 at 10.38.02 AM

The Agenda
with Steve Paikin
Jan 26, 2018  21:53
https://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/trade-on-the-table
On January 23, while NAFTA negotiations between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. were underway in Montreal, and world leaders were meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, a deal was reached for the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. This deal includes both Canada and Mexico but not the U.S.. The Agenda discusses how the newly minted CPTPP agreement will impact NAFTA negotiations. Steve Paiken talks with Mark Warner and Colin Roberton

Comments Off on Trade on the Table

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.

 

Comments Off on Ballistic Missile Defence

NAFTA Talks Begin

Talks begin to renegotiate NAFTA trade agreement

Listen to this storyNorth Country leaders are watching closely as officials from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. The talks began on Wednesday after years of heated rhetoric about NAFTA from American politicians.
Robert Lighthizer, U.S. Trade Representative. Photo: Office of the President

Robert Lighthizer, U.S. Trade Representative. Photo: Office of the President

And the tough talk continued on Day One. Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. Trade Representative, said, “We cannot ignore the huge trade deficits, the lost manufacturing jobs, the businesses that have closed or moved…. We feel that NAFTA has fundamentally failed many many Americans and needs major improvement.”But some experts say the deal isn’t likely to undergo radical changes.

Colin Robertson, vice president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, thinks NAFTA will get a few updates, but mostly remain the same.

And he says while Lighthizer may talk a big game in public, things might not be so dramatic behind the scenes.

“Within the negotiating tables themselves, is there drama? Not usually,” Robertson said. “Because remember, this is all behind closed doors, these are professional negotiators, they know each other. We’ve just been through the Trans Pacific Partnership talks. Yes, that agreement was put on ice but that will be – a lot of the content of that will be the base. And the Americans have said that already – that they’re going to be taking a lot of the language from the Trans Pacific Partnership and they’ll be bringing that into the negotiating table as the kind of starting point.”

There are major disputes over lumber, dairy, manufacturing, and other areas.

The renegotiation talks continue for the next several months.

Comments Off on NAFTA Talks Begin

NAFTA Negotiaions

Colin Robertson was also on CGTN to give the Canadian perspective on how NAFTA renegotiation may turn out:

Colin_Aug_25_2.JPG
You can watch that interview Here.

Colin Robertson joined CTV News Network to give commentary on the first round of NAFTA talks:

Colin_Aug_25.JPG
You can watch that interview Here.

Provincial News

Support within U.S. key to successful NAFTA renegotiation

  • Corwyn Friesen, mySteinbach
  • Posted on 08/21/2017 at 11:00 am

The Vice President of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says strong American support for NAFTA, particularly within the agricultural community, will play an important role in the renegotiation of agreement.

Canadian, U,S. and Mexican negotiators completed the first round of talks yesterday aimed at revamping North American Free Trade Agreement.

Colin Robertson, the Vice President and a Fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, says strong support within the United States for the agreement will be an important factor.

What ever agreement that the Trump Administration negotiates will be subject to an up or down vote in the American Congress, in the House of Representatives and the Senate so it is important for us and we have made a sustained effort along with the Mexicans over the past six months to remind Americans at the local level why trade with Canada works for Americans.

We start of with what is Mr. Trump’s principal objective and that’s to create jobs. We point out that the Canada, United States, Mexico agreement accounts for roughly 14 million jobs in the United States. The trade with Canada and Mexico makes that possible.

Most Americans have not appreciated that fact but now we’re reminding them on a kind of daily basis and certainty we use every occasion when a minister or a legislator or a premier and this has been an all of Canada effort to do so. It’s not just been the federal government ministers that have been going down to the United States.

It’s been also Premiers, provincial legislators, business persons and those in the farm community for example have been very diligent over the last few years in working the various farm bureaus and going to state fairs just to remind them that trade with Canada creates wealth and jobs in the United States.

~ Colin Robertson, Canadian Global Affairs Institute

Robertson observes we have had a very good response from the Americans. He notes the Governor of Nebraska, during a recent visit to Canada, pointed out Canada is the number one export market for 35 American states.

Comments Off on NAFTA Negotiaions

NAFTA Talks Begin

Former Canadian diplomat: We shouldn’t be under the impression that NAFTA talks will be easy

Colin Robertson, who is VP & Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, a former Canadian diplomat, and was a member of the team that negotiated the first NAFTA deal, joins BNN to provide his perspective as NAFTA talks begin.

 http://www.bnn.ca/video/former-canadian-diplomat-we-shouldn-t-be-under-the-impression-that-nafta-talks-will-be-easy~1188468

Nafta Talks Open With Spat Over How to Resolve Tariff Conflicts

By Paul Vieira in Ottawa, William Mauldin in Washington and Anthony Harrup in Mexico City Features Dow Jones Newswires

Talks to remake the North American Free Trade Agreement are starting off today with an early dispute — over how to settle disputes.

Under Nafta, the U.S., Mexico and Canada have resolved tariff conflicts by submitting them to expert panels that can sustain or overturn tariffs. The system has helped guide the trilateral relationship for 23 years.

Now the U.S. wants to do away with those dispute-resolution panels, while Canada is digging in on its insistence that they are a crucial tool for Canadian firms to use to fight tariffs imposed by its powerful southern neighbor. Mexican senators have also called for retaining the mechanism.

Though the system for resolving tariff disputes is only one of many issues that U.S. officials are expected to put on the table in the talks that begin Wednesday in Washington, it is a particularly divisive one. For President Donald Trump, the panels’ power to overturn tariffs strikes at the heart of his “America First” trade policy and his campaign’s spirited defense of measures to protect U.S. industries against what he sees as unfair trade practices.

“This first session could be quite confrontational,” said Fred Bergsten, founder of the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington and a member of the U.S. advisory panel for trade negotiations. He expects the U.S. to put the issue on the negotiating table early in the process.

Without Chapter 19 — the portion of Nafta that creates the panels — disputes over tariffs would end up in national courts or before the World Trade Organization, a body the administration also views with skepticism.

The divide is worrying to business groups that want to ensure the talks stay on course. Major changes to Nafta have to be approved by all three countries’ leadership, plus their legislators. Business lobbyists and former trade officials say gridlock could lead to renewed threats from member countries to pull out of the deal or feed political opposition during election seasons.

The opening bids suggest a compromise won’t be easy.

“Canada absolutely stands very firm in the importance of having such a mechanism,” Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said this week as she unveiled the country’s objectives ahead of the Nafta talks.

Similarly, Mexico’s Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo said the current system provides a deterrent against the improper use of duties. Dismantling it could end up hurting exporters in all three countries, he told The Wall Street Journal in a recent interview.

A U.S. trade official told reporters Tuesday that Washington plans to “be quite ambitious in this first round.”

One question is whether the early rhetoric will give way to compromise once the give and take of the negotiations begin. Trade negotiations are all about compromise, and Chapter 19 could end up being a bargaining chip in a broader set of concessions each side seeks.

“Everything that’s released publicly is a negotiating position,” said Celeste Drake, a senior expert at the AFL-CIO, the biggest U.S. labor federation. “There is always a middle ground if negotiators are willing to work.”

U.S. labor groups tend to oppose Chapter 19, saying tariffs levied on the grounds of alleged dumping or subsidies can be challenged in the court system or through the WTO. Ms. Drake said the Trump administration should press hard to resolve differences with the other governments to achieve the best deal for workers.

Stephen Powell, a former senior counsel at the Commerce Department who has written extensively on the dispute-resolution process, said given the historical importance Canada places on Chapter 19, it would likely demand a “very large concession” for abandoning the system. “Canada can certainly insist on something very big, so can Mexico,” Mr. Powell said.

But for Mr. Trump and U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer, Chapter 19 symbolizes an erosion of sovereignty, since the panels have primarily been used to overturn tariffs imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department on Canadian and Mexican products. The issue is of particular note to Mr. Lighthizer, who spent about three decades as a Washington trade lawyer arguing for the types of tariffs that can be overturned under Chapter 19.

Mr. Lighthizer’s office in July left flexibility in most of its official objectives for Nafta talks, but it said clearly in the trade remedy section that it wanted to “eliminate the Chapter 19 dispute settlement mechanism.”

The third-party dispute system dates back to 1987, when President Ronald Reagan granted Canada’s demands for an independent resolution mechanism to salvage the U.S.-Canada free-trade pact, Nafta’s predecessor. The issue threatened to become a deal breaker 30 years ago, and it took the intervention of Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker to get resolved.

Colin Robertson, a Canadian negotiator at those 1987 talks, said Canada’s business community pushed for independent panels after years of amassing large legal bills unsuccessfully fighting U.S. trade sanctions in the American courts.

Since coming into force, nearly 150 Chapter 19 cases have been adjudicated, two-thirds of which were brought by either Canada or Mexico against the Commerce Department.

The rate at which countries are filing Chapter 19 cases has recently slowed, with panels having dealt with just over a dozen cases since 2010. Trade watchers say the falloff in cases stems in part from the greater U.S. focus on trade cases involving China, and illustrates how Nafta has ushered in greater integration across the North American economy, with firms owning assets in each of the three countries. “There’s no us versus them any more,” said Peter Glossop, trade lawyer with Toronto firm Osler Hoskin & Harcourt.

Canada hasn’t always had clear-cut wins in Chapter 19 cases, but some — most notably dealing with the decadeslong spat over lumber — have gone its way. Ottawa’s most recent win was in April, when an independent panel directed the U.S. Commerce Department to roll back the bulk of a proposed 20% tariff on a type of glossy magazine paper made by a mill in the Atlantic coast province of Nova Scotia. The U.S. claimed the mill unfairly benefited from power rates set by the province’s regulator, but the panel found that the U.S. offered little evidence to support its case.

“We certainly knew that with Chapter 19, all of the facts would be addressed by an independent panel…in a more fair manner,” said Marc Dubé, a senior manager at Port Hawkesbury Paper, the mill that faced the 20% duty.

Write to Paul Vieira at paul.vieira@wsj.com, William Mauldin at william.mauldin@wsj.com and Anthony Harrup at anthony.harrup@wsj.com

ThePoultrySite.com - news, features, articles and disease information for the poultry industry

As NAFTA Renegotiation Begins, Canada Feels Optimistic

17 August 2017

Manitoba Pork Council

Farm-Scape is sponsored by
Manitoba Pork Council and Sask PorkFarmScape is a Wonderworks Canada production and is distributed courtesy of Manitoba Pork Council
and Sask Pork.

CANADA – The Vice-President of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says, with the renegotiation of NAFTA now underway, there’s good reason for Canadians to be optimistic, Bruce Cochrane reports.

The first round of negotiations aimed at renewing the North American Free Trade Agreement kicked off yesterday in Washington.

Colin Robertson, the Vice President and a Fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, says the fact that Canada is actually at the table is cause for optimism.

Colin Robertson-Canadian Global Affairs Institute

President Trump, running as candidate Trump, declared on many occasions that NAFTA was the worst trade deal ever negotiated and that on his first day in office he would tear it up.

He did, on his first day in office, shelve the Trans-Pacific Partnership which effectively was an updating of the NAFTA but done with 12 countries including Canada, Mexico and the United States.

But the NAFTA, I think there was serious consideration to indeed tearing it up, giving notice and it would have taken six months for the United States to pull out but, particularly the farm community in the United States, protested, came back and said look this is working for us.

We’re selling a lot of our produce to Canada and to Mexico so do no harm please.

I think that’s what helped persuade President Trump to renegotiate the agreement.

He has said that he has had conversations with both Prime Minister Trudeau and President Pena Nieto of Mexico.

As well there was opposition from both sides of the aisles up in Congress.

And, of course, to proceed into the renegotiation, he has had to seek the permission of Congress through the Trade Promotion Authority so we have a pretty clear sense of what the Americans are looking for.

The United States Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer submitted a list of objectives to Congress about a month ago and then, when he and his colleagues, Chrystia Freeland and Ildefonso Guajardo, the Mexican Trade Minister, opened the negotiations they spelled out what they were looking for as well.

Mr Robertson is confident Canada will have a good indication of how negotiations are going soon after each round.

Comments Off on NAFTA Talks Begin