Canada US Relations

      Comments Off on Canada US Relations

Amid tension at the top, U.S.-Canada ties are tight

 

Wednesday, July 1, is Canada Day.

It’s also, in effect, North America Day, at least for trade, since it’s the implementation date for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the free-trade pact that replaces NAFTA.

And one could even call it Canada-Minnesota Day, given that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of what is today the Consulate General of Canada in Minneapolis, which serves Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and the Dakotas. To mark the anniversary, Global Minnesota will host a webinar on Wednesday to explore various aspects of the Canada-Minnesota relationship.

That includes trade, which is tremendously important for Minnesota. The state exported $4.7 billion of agricultural, mining and manufactured products north of the border last year, nearly twice the $2.5 billion sent to China, the second-biggest market.

“There’s a special connection that forms between Canadians and those that live on the northern border,” said Ariel Delouya, the consul general of Canada in Minneapolis. And even “before there was a border,” added Delouya, referring to indigenous peoples, traders and explorers, among others.

The connections continue, said Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who is now vice president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “The relationship is a bit like the Mississippi River: It’s deep, it’s profound and it flows,” Robertson said.

And like a river, at times it’s turbulent. At least at the top, with Washington and Ottawa often at odds despite the steady state of equilibrium and equanimity among everyday people in the two countries.

“There are times when the relationship at the top between the president and the prime minister has been tense,” Robertson said. “But the hidden wiring of the relationship, the people-to-people contact, and the relationship at the official [state-provincial] level, and of course the business connections, remain strong.”

Robertson noted the famously frosty relationship between former President Richard Nixon and former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. And it’s been even icier between Trudeau’s son, Justin, the current prime minister, and President Donald Trump. And a reinforcing cold front — from the south, no less — may soon arrive (potentially on Canada Day), in the reimposition of tariffs on Canadian aluminum.

“Bringing back these tariffs would be like a bad horror movie,” Neil Herrington, senior vice president for the Americas at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the New York Times.

Or, more diplomatically stated, “Issues keep coming back up again that we used to call the ‘hardy perennials’ at the embassy,” said Sarah Goldfeder, referring to the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, where she served as an envoy before also joining the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, just like Robertson.

While the two former diplomats served different countries, those nations’ mostly convergent views reflect a general U.S.-Canada consensus that belies the Trump-Trudeau tensions.

As a Canadian envoy, Robertson said that was an asset. “While we see ourselves as different, we’re not that different,” Robertson said. “I can tell you as a diplomat, our leverage in the world came from our ability to reach into Washington, because the rest of the world wanted to know what Washington thought. Just as in the same way, Washington wanted to know what Canada’s perception of other countries were, because we understood that frame of reference was so similar that you could put that into an American perspective.”

Sometimes the country people want Canadian insight into is America itself. And beyond asking diplomats, direct questions are posed to the prime minister himself, who Goldfeder said “has been very careful when he speaks publicly about his relationship with President Donald Trump.” (Privately, not so much, as Trudeau found out when a video of him and other Western leaders laughing at the president went viral, leading Trump to call Trudeau “two-faced.”)

That incident may explain the reticence seen in another Trudeau video that went viral. Asked about Trump’s response to the protests roiling America, Trudeau paused a long, drawn-out 21 seconds. Finally, after what seemed an eternity, he earnestly answered, “We all watch in horror and consternation what’s going on in the United States.”

That’s an accurate characterization, said Goldfeder. “Canadians are looking at the United States and saying, ‘We’re worried about our friends and neighbors; we’re worried about you guys,’ ” Goldfeder said. “There’s a bit of pride in the way that they’ve managed their own response to COVID, their own response to race relations, which are far from perfect, and they acknowledge that.”

Not just everyday Canadians acknowledge it, but their prime minister, too, who added after his U.S. analysis that “it is a time for us as Canadians to recognize that we, too, have our challenges. … There is systemic discrimination in Canada.” (Some will say that includes Trudeau himself, whose progressive image was tarnished when old blackface photographs of him emerged during Canada’s 2019 election.)

Beyond the alacrity of the pandemic and protests, other challenges include China, which on June 20 charged two detained Canadians for espionage in a case widely seen as leverage against Canada’s arrest of Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer, on a U.S. warrant. And despite Canada’s — and Trudeau’s — surge on the world stage, the country didn’t win a seat on the United Nations Security Council, losing out to Norway and Ireland in a vote this month.

Such setbacks need not further set back the bilateral relationship. Instead, Washington and Ottawa can and should work closely on these and other diplomatic dilemmas.

That would reflect the “remarkably resilient” relationship, as Delouya describes it. In fact, he added, the countries’ tight ties “are so deep, so multifaceted, they span every sphere of economic and governmental activity you can imagine.”

Including sports. Especially, of course, hockey.

Indeed, while the official Canada Day may be on July 1, an unofficial one may occur on July 10, when NHL training camps hope to open before a postseason that includes a Minnesota Wild vs. Vancouver Canucks playoff series.

“There have been a lot of issues where the U.S. and Canada haven’t aligned on pandemic response, but the NHL has managed to bridge that,” Goldfeder said. “It’s critically important, and a huge morale boost for both sides of the border.”

To be sure, spirits will be lifted across Canada and at least in the northern U.S. when the puck drops. But not just at the professional level: In Minnesota, youth and amateur teams can start scrimmaging on Wednesday — fittingly, however unwittingly, on Canada Day.

John Rash is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. The Rash Report can be heard at 8:10 a.m. Fridays on WCCO Radio, 830-AM. On Twitter: @rashreport.

USMCA, Reopening the Border and Digitization

      Comments Off on USMCA, Reopening the Border and Digitization

When you are in a hole, you must find a way out. For Canada, expanding our trade relationships in order to expand our economy is still the best way to get ourselves out of debt. Our main customer will always be the United States, which is still the world’s biggest market. With our updated trade agreement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), coming into effect July 1, we need to seize this opportunity.

It starts with reopening the Canada-U.S. border. We applied risk-management principles after 9/11 to provide secure, but efficient, cross-border passage. We must do so again in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.

The recent border shutdown extension, now in effect until July 21, will mark four months of closing to all but essential traffic between Canada and the U.S. This deprives us of trade and investment opportunities. Health considerations must be made, but surely there is room to consider regional openings.

Ours is a long border. The stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific is almost 9,000 kilometres (further than the journey from London to Beijing), while the line dividing Alaska and Yukon is another 2,200 km (equivalent to the distance from Moscow to Berlin). The European Union – which is half the size of Canada – has created travel bubbles. We should do the same.

In managing this pandemic, each province has responded to its own circumstances. Our island provinces and Quebec temporarily closed their borders. The North remains shut. Reopening began in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In Ontario, restrictions were first relaxed outside of Toronto. One-size-fits-all has not applied within Canada. Let’s demonstrate the same flexibility in reopening to tourism and commerce.

Why not implement an approach that allows the premiers, in consultation with the federal government, to determine access for outsiders, starting with travellers from the U.S.? Start with pilot projects at our smaller crossings, such as Sweetgrass, Mont., and Coutts, Alta. Let’s move forward with a proposed project by the Future Borders Coalition, wherein travellers from the U.S. could be precleared for entry at Vancouver International Airport. Canada can become a global leader in safe reopening, but it will require innovation and risk management. Alaska has demonstrated leadership in this regard, with clear requirements for passage in and out of the state: All entrants must have a COVID-19 test administered upon entry or show proof of a recent negative test.

The pandemic is accelerating consumer use of digital trade. Fortunately, the USMCA chapter on digital trade is best in class, as it allows for the creation of a digital portal for trade information. As with other parts of the agreement, there is provision for stakeholders to keep the USMCA evergreen and tackle challenges such as the technical barriers to trade. Industry and industry associations were energized by the USMCA. They need to stay vigilant and keep governments focused on expediting cross-border trade.

A key challenge as we work our way out of the pandemic will be to digitize our current paper-dependent supply chains. We must make our North American trade platforms more efficient by increasing our reliance on digital systems and technology. This should include applying digital technology to the rapid delivery of emergency relief supplies and, eventually, an efficient and verifiable global vaccine distribution process. Using artificial intelligence, big data analytics and blockchain technologies, the Swiss-based Global Coalition for Efficient Logistics is doing groundbreaking work on creating platforms for digitizing trade. North America should be the road test for its application. That work, as well as the continuing practical efforts on supply chains and logistics by the North American Strategy for Competitiveness (NASCO), would position North America for more investment.

Digitization is the infrastructure of the future. It’s the kind of big-picture project needed by all three North American federal governments and our 95 states, provinces and territories. Using technology creates greater efficiency and transparency while reducing costs and improving access to finance and insurance. Digitization helps level the playing field for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the U.S. is still the easiest market for these businesses to access. If we get it right in North America, this platform and its standards can have global applications, starting with our transatlantic and transpacific partnerships.

The ride to the USMCA was bumpy. U.S. President Donald Trump’s imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs reminded us of both the importance of the American market and how vital supply chains are to North American prosperity. The U.S. buys three-quarters of Canada’s exports and remains our biggest investor. As the U.S. decouples from China and supply chains are rerouted to North America, there are opportunities for Canada. It starts with the regional, risk-based reopening of our borders, followed by taking a leadership role in digitized trade.

Michaels Spavor and Kovrig

      Comments Off on Michaels Spavor and Kovrig

Chances of Kovrig and Spavor getting out of China is ‘very slim’: Fmr. Canadian diplomat

BNN June 19 2020: Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been formally indicted on spying charges by Chinese authorities. The move comes a year and a half after they were detained in what’s perceived to be retaliation for the December 2018 arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver at the behest of U.S. authorities. Colin Robertson, former Canadian diplomat and current VP and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute joins BNN Bloomberg to weigh in. He says that Canada needs to take more punitive measures against China.

UN Security Council Vote

      Comments Off on UN Security Council Vote

Losing Security Council seat might embarrass Trudeau but would signal a bigger problem: experts

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since the time of publication, Canada has lost its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. For more details on the vote, click here.Losing the quest for a seat on the United Nations Security Council might lead to red cheeks for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau even if many Canadians aren’t following the race closely, experts say.But a loss would signal a much bigger problem with Canadian foreign policy, they add. 

Canada loses bid for United Nations Security Council seat

Canada loses bid for United Nations Security Council seat

“I don’t think it will have an impact on the next election, but I think it would be personally a bit embarrassing for Trudeau,” said Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat and vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

I think there’s a sense that everybody likes Canada, or at least we like to think that.”

READ MORE: How COVID-19 changed Canada’s battle for a UN Security Council seat

Canada will learn either Wednesday or Thursday afternoon whether Trudeau’s multi-year push for one of the two Security Council seats available in the Western Europe and others category is a success.

Two-thirds of the available votes are needed to win on the first ballot on Wednesday afternoon.

If that’s not achieved, voting continues for a second ballot and those results will come out on Thursday.

Trudeau was asked by a journalist on Wednesday whether he believed a defeat would be a personal failing for him, but did not answer. Instead, he characterized the bid for a seat as “just an extra way” for Canada to make its voice heard on the world stage.

“A seat on the United Nations Security Council is not an end in itself. It’s a means to an end.”

Trudeau makes final pitch for UN Security Council seat

Trudeau makes final pitch for UN Security Council seat

Trudeau vowed during the 2015 election campaign to run for one of the rotating seats and made the argument that the former Conservative government’s pivot away from the United Nations and toward institutions like NATO and the G20 hurt Canada’s standing in the world.

But in the years since, critics have frequently argued the government isn’t living up to its support for the United Nations, particularly when it comes to peacekeeping.

Canadian troop deployments to UN missions now stand at a 60-year low despite Trudeau making a commitment to peacekeeping a pillar of his 2015 platform.

READ MORE: Number of Canadian peacekeepers deployed abroad hits 60-year low

Bessma Momani, a professor of international relations at the University of Waterloo and a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, said another loss for Canada would go beyond just a defeat for Trudeau personally but serve as a broader indictment of Canadian investment in the UN.

“It’s not just about him,” Momani said. “It’s not American Idol.”

If we don’t get it, it’s going to be: Canada, you guys talk a big game, you guys are full of great rhetoric, you look awesome. But, you know, where’s the beef?”

Trudeau may be the amicable poster child of multilateralism and diversity … but at the end of the day, that’s not enough,” Momani continued. “Where’s the dollars? Where’s the troops? Where’s the presence that people expect?”

At the same time, highlighting the value Canada places on things like diversity, inclusion and economic security — as Global Affairs Canada did on Twitter this week — likely does little to set Canada apart.

Foreign Policy CAN

@CanadaFP

Do you know what makes Canada stand out at this year’s ?

74 people are talking about this

“I just am not especially convinced there’s anything that’s particularly Canadian about what he’s proposing,” said David Perry, also a vice president with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Perry said it’s like doing so implicitly implies the Irish or the Norwegians aren’t also supporters of all those things when surely they are.  

ANALYSIS: Trudeau’s personal brand tied to success — or failure — of UN Security Council race

Perry also said a loss would serve as a signal of a bigger issue with Canadian foreign policy.

If we don’t win again, I think that it potentially implies more about some of the structural factors of our foreign policy than we might have thought,” he said.

Momani said she hopes that if Canada loses the seat, the government will use it as a real chance to evaluate where it needs to do better in creating concrete change in its foreign policy.

“If we lose, I think we should take stock,” she said.

“It’s a time for self-reflection and to say: OK, why didn’t we get it? And hopefully, it spurs a conversation about how we are really high on the rhetoric, but not on the substance.”

READ MORE: UN sets new voting rules for Canada’s Security Council campaign amid COVID-19

Robertson added that while a loss would likely fuel criticism from Conservatives around whether the campaign was a waste of time and money, it would be unlikely to have much of an impact at the polls.

“I think it will be a bit deflating for Canadians, who like to think of ourselves as internationalists,” Robertson said. “But does it matter to the average voter? Ultimately, I don’t think a lot.”

A seat at the UN Security Council would be nice. It would be kind of a vindication of Canada as a nice internationalist. But I’m not sure that would rank in the top 10 priorities of most Canadians right now.

S

Ambassadors have been casting their secret ballots in staggered time slots rather than at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly out of fears about the spread of COVID-19.

Time for Champagne?: Canada awaits UN Security Council vote in New York City

By NEIL MOSS      
Plus, Senator Lillian Dyck calls for the RCMP commissioner’s resignation and Canadians to celebrate Canada Day virtually with Alanis Morissette, Sarah McLachlan, and others.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made gaining a seat on the UN Security Council a core

In what could be one of the most important days for the legacy of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau‘s foreign policy, Canada will find out if it will have a spot on the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years after the UN General Assembly votes on who will win on June 17.

Canada is facing tough competition for two open seats in the Western Europe and Others bloc for the 2021 and 2022 term from Norway and Ireland. It is expected that Norway will win a seat, leaving Canada and Ireland to compete for the second.

Canada joined the campaign late, announcing its bid in 2016. Ireland and Norway started their campaigns in 2005 and 2007, respectively.

The bid is part of Mr. Trudeau’s pledge to re-engage with the UN. The campaign for the Security Council seat was one of the few foreign policy objectives listed in last year’s throne speech.

Former diplomat Colin Robertson, vice-president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told The Hill Times that the campaign was a personal mission for Mr. Trudeau.

“It’s the one foreign policy venture that is truly his,” Mr. Robertson said

In the past few weeks, Mr. Trudeau has been making a series of calls to world leaders, some of which have involved Canada’s UN Security Council campaign.

Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne has joined Canada’s UN ambassador, Marc-André Blanchard, in New York City for the final stretch of the campaign.

The Canadian delegation at the United Nations has been tight-lipped on whether they feel they have the necessary votes to win a spot on the Security Council. The last time Canada tried to win a spot on the body in 2010, the Harper government felt it had the votes to win, but in the end the bid fell short. A country needs at least 129 votes to win a spot on the council.

Canada has had a spot on the Security Council in every decade since the UN was formed in the 1940s until its 2010 defeat.

 

China-India Cpoflict

      Comments Off on China-India Cpoflict

China–India deadly border clash: Canadian analysts’ view

A long-standing dispute over the border between China and India has erupted in another violent clash, this time deadly. Initial reports said three Indian soldiers including an officer had been killed but that has now been increased to 20 dead, and possibly some taken prisoner in the high altitude sub zero conditions. It is presumed there were deaths and injuries on the Chinese side although there’s no official word.

Both sides are accusing the other of incursions into their territory and provocations.

There have been a series of small-scale violent physical brawls between the two armies in the past few years but this is the first time in some 45 years that there have been deaths. There was no gunfire and such incidents have typically involved rocks, clubs and fists.

CBC News

The ill-defined 3,488 kilometre border through rugged and inhospitable mountainous territory is guarded by troops of both countries on either side of what is called the Line of Actual Control which has been created along both Chinese and Pakistani controlled areas.  Talks to settle the dispute with China have been ongoing for years and the latest incident occurred even as higher level military talks to de-escalate were ongoing.

India’s north borders on both China and Pakistan, and all three countries are extremely protective of their borders, actual or perceived. India has had bitter wars with both.

Indian army soldiers rest next to artillery guns at a makeshift transit camp near Baltal, southeast of Srinagar, before heading to Ladakh on Tuesday. (Reuters)

Christian Leuprecht is a political science analyst at the Royal Military College and at Queen’s University in Kingston Ontario. He notes that India and China are rivals for power and influence, and India is also concerned that Pakistan plays a role in China’s strategic and economic ‘belt and road’ initiative and as such feels increased threat on both borders and feels vulnerable.

Leuprecht also says China will seize any opportunity to distract from the coronavirus, “China wants to be seen as strong and it knows India can ill afford to militarize the conflict.  By what appears to be bludgeoning three Indian soldiers to death, China is sending a signal that it will stand its ground.  Such an operation must have been authorized by the Chinese chain of command, likely from Beijing, because it constitutes about as serious an escalation as one can imagine without actually firing shots. But China is clearly looking to put Prime Minister Modi in his place in an attempt to preserve the status quo”.

While the tension has risen, analysts doubt either side wants to escalate to an actual shooting war.

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat to China and the U.N. says the incident is nevertheless serious noting any conflict with nuclear powers involved is dangerous .

He says its another signal of Chinese leader Xi’s “pushing the envelope on its territorial claims across the Indo-Pacific in recent weeks”.

Robertson points out the Chinese have sunk a Vietnamese fishing boat in the South China Sea, swarmed a Malaysian offshore oil rig, menaced Taiwan and is now tightening its grip on the semi-autonomous region of Hong Kong.

Shuvaloy Majumdar served as the policy director to successive Canadian foreign ministers, as well as senior policy advisor in international development, He is a Munk Senior fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute think tank.  He said,  “There is no equivalence between India and China in this dispute. China’s provocative military build up along the border in Ladakh, and recent games testing the limits of Indian sovereignty, have now resulted in the end of 40 years of stability.”

He added, “With twenty members of the Indian Forces who reportedly died defending their territorial integrity, Canadian leaders would be wise to stand alongside their Indian counterparts, condemn China’s aggression, take steps toward deepening cold climate military cooperation, and call upon China to demilitarize and deescalate the situation China created”.

In May, Chinese soldiers reportedly crossed the border at three separate areas in the Ladakh region near Tibet erecting tents and guard posts resulting in a physical confrontation.

The Chinese military says it can deploy thousands of soldiers and weapons from central China to the border with India “within hours”. Only last week the tow countries has said they had reached a consensus following a May incident (Photo: Weibo- via SCMP)

China is also flexing its muscle and pushing its control over the sea, having deployed a network of sensors and communications across the northern portion of the South China Sea.

Called the “Blue Ocean Information Network’ it is labeled by the Chinese as a demonstration system ostensibly for environmental monitoring and communication.

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies notes in a brief by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative that there are several fixed and floating platforms involved in the system which China is planning to expand to the rest of the South China Sea, the East China Sea and “other ocean territories far from Chinese territory”

The brief says of this system, “the military utility of its sensing and communications functions makes its development important to monitor.

Additional information-sources

Boycott the Beijing Olympics?

      Comments Off on Boycott the Beijing Olympics?

Boycott the 2022 China Winter Olympics?

When China was awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics back in 2015,  Beijing became the first city to hold both a Summer (2008) and Winter Games.

Since then China has risen in military and economic power, surpassing the U.S. as the world’s leading economy and world’s largest manufacturer.  It also began asserting its muscle both internally, with allegations of human rights violations, and internationally such as with the occupation of the South China Sea.

Any criticism has been met with economic penalties such as banning Norwegian salmon when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to dissident writer Liu Xiaobo. It banned Australian beef and imposed heavy tariffs on barley after Australia called for an international inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus.

Canada has seen reprisals for the detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou on an extradition request from the U.S.  Canadian agricultural exports worth billions of dollars were banned and two Canadians in China arrested in what most see as a reprisal for Meng’s detention in what has been labelled as “hostage democracy”

China is now also moving to pass legislation extending control over Hong Kong that would impose criminal charges against anything China estimates as activities promoting secession, subversion, terrorism, or foreign interference.

Against the backdrop of China’s actions and attitude there are now calls for countries to boycott the 2022 games, which China would promote as a crowning demonstration of its place as a world leader.

Former Canadian diplomat posted to Beijing and later commissioner to Hong Kong, John Higgenbotham says now its time for Canada to go beyond mere words of disapproval. Quoted in the Globe and Mail he said of the 2022 games, “China wants them badly as the latest pageant of national power and prestige”, adding that a boycott could be organised if China doesn’t back down on Hong Kong.

US Senator (Florida) Rick Scott has repeatedly also called on China to improve its human rights record or be stripped of the Games

With measures such as the arrests of Canadians Michael Spavor, and Michael Kovrig, threats against Hong Kong, and other issues, Canadian and world attitudes towards China have declined markedly.

In November 2019, former Canadian ambassador to China, David Mulroney asked how Canada could plan to send athletes to China in light of revelations about mass detentions of China’s Uyghur minority.

Margaret McQuaig-Johnston was a long-time government advisor on science and Chinese affairs, and currently Senior Fellow, Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa, at the China Institute at the University of Alberta, and the Asia Pacific Foundation.

In an email to RCI she says Canada should work with other countries if there is to be a ban and a message sent. “There are numerous countries including Canada that would consider a boycott given the issues of Hong Kong and the Uyghurs. In addition, it would be unthinkable to plan on attending a big Olympic celebration in China as they continue to hold our kidnapped and unjustly incarcerated Canadians. In this connection, we should also consider sending home the Chinese athletes who are training here for the Winter Olympics”.

Many think the absence of several countries at the Winter Games would have a more profound affect on demonstrating displeasure with China as there are many fewer countries that compete in these games compared to the Summer Olympics, thus any absences would be more noticeable.

Taking a different view however is another former diplomat with Chinese experience, Colin Robertson says the ‘cost’ of the diplomatic action is really borne by the athletes.

He wrote to RCI saying, “The Olympic movement is designed to create bonds between peoples through sporting excellence. For a boycott to be effective it would have to include a significant group of nations eg G7 + NATO and partners. Did boycotting the Moscow Olympics in 1980 get the Soviets out of Afghanistan? (and it led to the tit-for-tat boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics). Did the boycotts by African nations over South African apartheid speed its demise”?

Chinese reaction to a potential boycott by Canada with or without other countries has so far elicited little concern. One scholar at Peking University said that it wouldn’t have much of an effect on China

In the meantime, the fate of the  two Canadians still detained in what are believed to be deplorable conditions, and the concerns over the 300,000 Canadians in Hong Kong weigh heavily in any decision.  As for whether a boycott may be decided upon. The Globe and Mail posed the question to the Foreign Ministry which passed it on to Canadian Heritage which in turn said such a decision would lie with the Canadian Olympic Committee which in turn did not respond to the Globe’s request.

additional information-sources

Canada-US Relations

      Comments Off on Canada-US Relations

Look to the new NAFTA for the roadmap to the future of the Canada-U.S. bond

By COLIN ROBERTSON      
The CUSMA odyssey reminds us that our advocacy with Congress and the states must be a permanent campaign.
Then-Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, U.S. President Donald Trump, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attend a CUSMA signing ceremony on Nov. 30, 2018, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. White House photograph by Shealah Craighead

Canadian leadership needs to move beyond COVID-19 border controls and turn to implementing the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. In what is already a divisive U.S. election, we must also avoid anything that could be construed as interference.

The Nov. 3 elections will decide not just the presidency, but also, crucially, one-third of the Senate plus all 435 members of the House of Representatives as well as 11 governors, including in five border states—Washington, Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

If it’s a referendum on the economy and direction of the country, then change is probable, but as former British prime minister Harold Wilson observed “a week is a long time in politics.” Most Canadians hope for deliverance from the Donald Trump show, but odds-makers still favour the president, so Canadian leaders should keep their thoughts to themselves.

The top table discussions between prime ministers and presidents concentrate on global issues and it’s more complicated with an administration that rejects multilateralism. Our diplomatic game needs to be in top form. Canada is already suffering collateral damage as the Sino-U.S. trade dispute morphs into Cold War territory. There will be more of a requirement for the kind of helpful fixing we are demonstrating through reforming the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement and on Venezuela though the Lima Group.

For most Canadians, what matters is the intermestic connections. These have been brought home with the COVID-imposed border controls. They fit into three broad baskets: trade and economics; climate, energy, and the environment; and security and defence. With three-quarters of our trade headed south, Canadians naturally prioritize trade and economics, but for the Americans, the top item is defence and security.

COVID-19 has fundamentally shocked both our economies. Our approach to relief is different but, with luck, our recoveries will be in tandem. Fortunately, the CUSMA, taking effect on July 1, gives us a mutually agreed set of rules, including provisions for digital trade that have accelerated with COVID.

COVID raised questions about the reliability of North American supply chains. Despite the planning on pandemics negotiated in 2012 by then-U.S. president Barack Obama, then-Mexican president Felipe Calderón, and then-prime minister Stephen Harper, there was limited North American co-ordination. We have got to do better, because the next time is likely to be sooner rather than later. Business has stepped up and governments should look to their call for a “North American Rebound,” especially around designing North American supply chains and creating strategic stockpiles.

With the Trump Administration in denial on climate change, the best Canadian approach is to work with those in Congress, states, and cities who share our approach. If Joe Biden is elected, then Keystone once more will be a flashpoint, but let’s not make it the litmus test of the relationship.

We also need to keep our eyes on the renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty. Water management is increasingly complex given the interests involved. For now, the complicity between the different levels of government is what we aim for when negotiating with the Americans.

Trump wants the allies to spend at least two per cent of their GDP on defence. Canada currently spends about 1.3 per cent of GDP. Arguably we are doing our bit: active naval deployments in the Atlantic and Mediterranean; in Latvia where we lead the battle group; in the air with the Trudeau government doubling to 12 our deployable fighter jets.

But the Americans expect more and this won’t change with Biden. We should do more, especially in the Arctic around North American defence. The Russians are testing our defences and the Chinese are already implementing their Arctic strategy. The framework we announced last year is inadequate. We need a detailed strategy with funding for infrastructure and sustained operations. As the Americans remind us: “you claim sovereignty, so exercise it.” It’s also our best “defence against help.”

Then there is the decision on 5G:  do we use Huawei equipment in our next-generation telecommunications platform?  President Trump is clear—use China’s Huawei and Canadian membership in our shared Five Eyes intelligence network with the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom will be in jeopardy. Business needs a decision. Punting the decision until after the U.S. election isn’t likely to change U.S. attitudes, as the Democrats are just as adamant about excluding Huawei.

The CUSMA odyssey reminds us that our advocacy with Congress and the states must be a permanent campaign. Close engagement is the responsibility not just of the prime minister and ministers but premiers and provincial legislators, as well as business and labour.

COVID’s social distancing robs us of the regional gatherings of premiers and governors, legislators, and civil society that constitute the hidden wiring of the relationship. In their weekly COVID calls, the prime minister and premiers should identify new opportunities for this vital informal engagement. Our prosperity and sovereignty depend on it.

UN Security Council bid

      Comments Off on UN Security Council bid

ANALYSIS: Trudeau’s personal brand tied to success — or failure — of UN Security Council race

BY DAVID AKIN GLOBAL NEWS
Posted May 26, 2020 3:31 pm

Liars, cheats and hypocrites.

Many of the diplomats who get to cast a vote for the temporary members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) will tell you they love you to your face but then vote for your enemy.

And why not? It’s a secret ballot. Which means no one ever knows which specific diplomats lied about their vote.

“People lie all the time,” said Adam Chapnick, a professor at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto and the author of Canada on the United Nations Security Council, an excellent diplomatic history of Canada’s six successful bids for a seat on the UNSC and its two unsuccessful bids.

In the book, Chapnick charted the scorecard Canada had for its last attempt to win a UNSC seat on Oct. 21, 2010. In a battle between Germany, Portugal and Canada for two available seats, the government of Stephen Harper had managed to secure the support from diplomats representing 150 countries — including 135 who put it in writing that they would vote for Canada. To win a seat, a candidate country has to clear a threshold of two-thirds of the members of the general assembly, or 127 votes.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

But on the first ballot, Canada was shocked to find that it had finished third with just 114 ballots. And while Germany just managed to get over the necessary 127-vote threshold, Portugal had not. And so there was a second ballot, and this time, even more voters abandoned Canada. The country finished with 78 votes, got the message and withdrew from the race.

Clearly, about one-quarter — and possibly as many as one-half — of the diplomats who promised Canada their vote in 2010 were never true to their word.

And yet, despite the famous inconstancy of the UNSC voter, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is spending a considerable amount of time this month wooing them ahead of this year’s UNSC vote, to be held in New York City on June 21. And, in doing so, Trudeau is binding himself — and himself only — to the success or failure of the bid.

Prime ministers have actively sought out seats on the Security Council before, but usually the foreign affairs minister for each one either fronted the bid or was one of the publicly visible politicians on the bid. But Trudeau’s three foreign affairs ministers — Stéphane Dion, Chrystia Freeland and, now, François-Philippe Champagne — were or are more closely identified with other files like NAFTA, Iran’s downing of the Ukraine International Airlines jet or the global response to COVID-19.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

“I think (Trudeau has) been reminded by his cabinet and caucus that this is on him,” said Colin Robertson, who is now the vice-president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute after a long career as a Canadian diplomat. “He got us into this personally, and we didn’t have to do that. And so if he wants it, he’s really got to go after it. And I think he is going after it. I think he seemed to get that. He has to do this.”

Harper and his government sloughed off the 2010 loss as something they didn’t want to win anyhow — they would not sacrifice principles to win votes or, to use the phrase Conservatives bandied about at the time, they would not go along to get along. Indeed, by the time it had made its way through the Conservative spin machine, losing the 2010 vote was touted as a sign of Canada’s virtue, not failure.

It will be different this time.

“This would be a severe personal disappointment and would be seen by some as a personal failure, not cabinet’s,” said Robertson.

Last week, Trudeau had separate virtual meetings with the permanent representatives to the UN from eastern European countries, from Asia-Pacific countries and from Arab countries. Canada’s candidacy for the UNSC seat was the main item on the agenda for those calls. He also had one-on-one calls last week with the heads of government from Mozambique and Barbados and this week with Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron. And while the readouts from those otherwise private calls are silent on any discussion specifically about the UNSC bid, the subject would mostly likely have come up in Trudeau’s chats with leaders.

And now, in a move that will likely to continue to boost Canada’s standing among the smaller countries that make up the vast majority of UNSC voters, Trudeau will co-convene a special high-level United Nations meeting Thursday to discuss some of the economic and financial problems smaller countries around the world are facing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is the just the latest example of Canada trying to use its influence as an affluent middle power, as a member of the G7 and G20, to assist smaller powers. Government sources say Champagne has been on the phone multiple times since the pandemic struck offering advice and assistance to counterparts representing smaller powers who may not have the resources or know-how to cope with COVID-19.

“I do think that helpful fixing kind of stuff we’ve been trying to do as a country helps — and the consistent multilateralism,” Robertson said.

And for Trudeau, the pandemic has completely changed his motivation to win a seat on the council. When he became prime minister in 2015, Trudeau spoke about returning Canada’s foreign policy to Pearson’s day and, a la Pearson, a return to a focus on peacekeeper missions. Back then, the motivation for being on the Security Council was part and parcel of a vaguely expressed image of how the new Liberal government thought Canada should relate to the world. Pressed for specifics as to the value of a UNSC seat, Trudeau would often talk about advancing its climate change agenda and its international feminist foreign policy goals.the council. When he became prime minister in 2015, Trudeau spoke about returning Canada’s foreign policy to Pearson’s day and, a la Pearson, a return to a focus on peacekeeper missions. Back then, the motivation for being on the Security Council was part and parcel of a vaguely expressed image of how the new Liberal government thought Canada should relate to the world. Pressed for specifics as to the value of a UNSC seat, Trudeau would often talk about advancing its climate change agenda and its international feminist foreign policy goals.

Trudeau now sees the value to Canada of a two-year term on the UNSC in a much different light.

“I think when we reflect on the scale of this (COVID-19) crisis, many people have compared it to what happened 75 years ago around World War II,” Trudeau told reporters last week during one of his Rideau Cottage press conferences. “Well, in the years following World War II, we created a range of multilateral and multinational institutions like the (International Monetary Fund), like the World Bank, the Bretton Woods Institutions that helped the world over the following decades develop tremendous prosperity and opportunity for people right around the world.

“Seventy-five years later, we have another crisis that is comparable in scale to that Second World War, and I think there need to be real reflections on how we move forward as a world, how we update and adjust our various multilateral institutions to better respond to the world we’re becoming part of right now in a post-COVID era. Canada’s voice is going to be really important, as it was around the forming of the Bretton Woods Institutions, as it will be as we create a better, more prosperous, fairer world for everyone. And Canada having a voice at the UN Security Council will allow us to continue to be at the heart of those discussions as we move forward as a planet.”

Gone is any 2015 talk of peacekeeping. Indeed, data released by the UN itself last week shows that the number of Canadians on UN peacekeeping missions is now at a 60-year low. Trudeau may have talked up the value of peacekeeping six years ago, but his government has never been enthusiastic about putting Canadian troops into harm’s way overseas.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

And so, in its first kick at the council can since that failed 2010 vote, Canada is up against Norway and Ireland for the two slots reserved on the council for “western European and other states.” Within Canada’s diplomatic community, there is a general feeling that Norway is the most likely to succeed and may even be the closest thing to a lock in the murky world of UN politics. (Germany was thought to be a lock in the 2010 Germany-Canada-Portugal race but squeaked in with just one vote more than the required 127!) The race now between Ireland and Canada is, from Canada’s perspective, a toss-up.

Norway and Ireland have been campaigning for this vote for a decade and have already locked up support from dozens of countries. European Union countries, for example, are widely believed to have told Ireland that it can count on their support. Canada, having not started to really campaign until Trudeau became PM in 2015, is late and now must get countries to switch or, more likely, sew up second-ballot support.

“It’s quite possible that a country will promise their vote to one country and then we’ll vote for someone else because it’s a secret ballot. No one will ever know. So there is time for a charm offensive at that level,” said Chapnick. “The other reason that there’s time is that we deal with a lot of democracies when we’re making deals. And not every damn democratic government feels bound by an agreement made by previous democratic governments. So if the government changes over the five to 10 years leading up to his council election, it’s entirely possible that a vote promised to someone else becomes in play again as we go forward. So it never really is too late in this sort of campaign. But at the same time, you can never trust any assurance of support that you get.”

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

And so, the personal, patient and enthusiastic intervention of the prime minister in these dying weeks could very well make the difference.

“I do think that are our end game is excellent. We are doing everything we should do. I think we’ve got a good shot at it,” Robertson said. “But it’s even more complicated this year because of COVID, and we’re just not sure.”

David Akin is the chief political correspondent for Global News.

In Person G7 in USA…doubtful

      Comments Off on In Person G7 in USA…doubtful

Despite pandemic, Trump muses about resuming plan for in-person G7 meetings

The Canadian Press

WASHINGTON — Suppose Donald Trump held a summit for the leaders of the world’s seven largest economies — and nobody came?

That remarkable prospect emerged Wednesday as the U.S. president mused on Twitter about resurrecting plans to host G7 leaders in person at Camp David next month, in spite of the raging COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump, who rarely misses a chance these days to promote what he bills as the rapid return of American life before the virus, tweeted about holding the meeting on or near the original June 10-12 timeline at the famous presidential retreat an hour’s drive north of the U.S. capital.

“Now that our Country is ‘Transitioning back to Greatness,’ I am considering rescheduling the G7, on the same or similar date, in Washington, D.C., at the legendary Camp David,” Trump wrote.

“The other members are also beginning their COMEBACK. It would be a great sign to all — normalization!”

With the U.S. scheduled to play host to the annual G7 this year, the administration’s original plan to use the Trump-owned Doral golf resort in Miami was abandoned last fall after critics accused the president of seeking to profit off the meeting. Subsequent plans to convene at Camp David were thwarted by COVID-19, although the leaders did gather last month via videoconference.

Johanna Maska, a political communications consultant and CEO of the communications agency Global Situation Room, was serving as former president Barack Obama’s director of press advance the last time world leaders — known at the time as the G8, before the suspension of Russia — gathered at Camp David.

Trump’s motives for wanting to reconvene the summit in person may be entirely political, given the U.S. presidential election in November, but Maska said she believes he’s deadly serious about it.

“The thing is, by virtue of an in-person engagement, you can convey leadership that you can’t, you know, if you record a Zoom. It’s a very different dynamic,” she said.

“He wants to convey that we can open up. The problem is, he’s thinking that he shut down operations. The pandemic actually shut down operations, and we haven’t solved for the pandemic because we’ve lacked for global leadership.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, asked about the prospect Wednesday, said he supports the idea of G7 leaders spending time with each other, even on a virtual basis. He was noncommittal on the idea of meeting face-to-face.

“We’re going to need to keep talking about not just how we get through this COVID-19 pandemic, but how we restore the global economy to its rightful activities,” Trudeau said.

“We’ll certainly take a look at what the U.S. is proposing as host of the G7 to see what kind of measures will be in place to keep people safe, what kind of recommendations the experts are giving in terms of how that might function.”

That’s G7-speak for a hard ‘No,’ suggested Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who teaches foreign affairs at Carleton University and serves as a vice-president at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

“He’s not going to be the one to pour water on it, because you want to keep the relationship in reasonable form, but when push comes to shove, I just don’t see any of the other leaders agreeing to it,” Robertson said.

“I think it has everything to do with domestic politics, and nothing to do with the international system except to further Trump’s electoral ambitions in November.”

Brett Bruen, a former Obama-era diplomat who is president and founder of the Global Situation Room agency, was blunt when asked if he thought an in-person meeting in June was feasible. “I don’t,” he said, “nor do I think many other leaders would come.”

Summits are carefully orchestrated, high-security affairs that involve not only countless law-enforcement and Secret Service personnel, as well as sprawling political entourages, but also sensitive and important government officials in addition to the leaders themselves, Maska said.

Along with Canada, the U.S., Germany, France and Japan, the G7 also comprises Italy, one of the European countries hardest hit by COVID-19, as well as the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson spent more than two weeks fending off the virus, including several days in intensive care. Tempting fate, she said, may not be high on their priority list.

“Those of us who have been told to shelter in place — we’re supposed to be just with our families, right? We’re supposed to be contained with our group of people,” Maska said.

“When your group of people are the people who lead the leading economies of the world, that’s very dangerous.”

COVID Effect on Canada and Global Affairs

      Comments Off on COVID Effect on Canada and Global Affairs

One of the few certainties of COVID-19 crisis is that things are going to change with China

Even before COVID, Trump was battling a trade war with China and the two countries fighting a ‘great power competition.’ So where does this leave Canada?

In the haze of uncertainty enveloping the globe, one thing is clear: the world’s relationship with China is set to change.

U.S. President Donald Trump has accused China of fumbling its early response to the outbreak, endangering the world in the process, and the U.S. will be fast-tracking plans to remove global industrial supply chains from China. Japan, the world’s third largest economy, is setting aside billions to help its companies move production out of China. And Beijing is threatening a trade war with Australia, after the government in Canberra called for an inquiry into where COVID-19 originated.

Even before the COVID crisis, Trump was battling a trade war with China and the two countries have been fighting for supremacy over intellectual property and high-tech dominance, which the White House has called “a new era of great power competition.”

So where does this leave Canada among the turmoil?

The political arena has begun to reflect the new world

“That is the question that I think probably needs a royal commission,” said Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat and current vice-president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “Or at least, premiers and provinces getting together with the kind of effort that we put into the last great seismic change in how we manage ourselves, which was free trade with the United States.”

With the COVID-19 outbreak magnifying and accelerating issues with China, the political arena has begun to reflect the new world.

Public opinion polls show people in the U.S. and Canada are more skeptical of China and, with the United States looking ahead to a fall election, Democratic candidate Joe Biden has been pillorying Trump for not being tough enough on Chinese missteps. Biden even released an attack ad last month that accused Trump of “rolling over for the Chinese” and “going soft on China” over the COVID crisis.

The campaign tough talk will surely heat up as the election approaches, meaning whoever wins the White House in November will be dealing with a new level of rhetorical hostility between the world’s top powers.

“We were one of the great beneficiaries of globalization. Trade has made our prosperity, but how do we manage now?” said Robertson. “I do think that it’s going to be different now. And I also think China is changing. They always feel that the West and the rest of the world will take advantage of them. Which is ironic because, of course, that’s exactly what Trump is saying.”

 Louis Huang holds a sign calling for China to release Canadian detainees Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig outside a court hearing for Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou at the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on March 6, 2019. Lindsey Wasson/Reuters/File

In Canada, the Liberal government has largely held its tongue on China, in part due to delicate diplomatic situations like the imprisonment of Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, which was widely seen as a response to Canada’s detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou who is wanted in the U.S.

Such is Canada’s diplomatic dance with China that this week Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne refused to thank Taiwan by name for donating 500,000 masks to Canada. Taiwan maintains it is an independent nation despite China’s claim that it is a Chinese province.

Canada also needs billions of dollars worth of vital personal protective equipment for frontline health workers battling COVID-19, most of which is manufactured in China.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and candidates vying to replace him in the party’s leadership race have been loudly criticizing the Chinese regime, though. Peter MacKay this week called for an inquiry into whether information about the virus was falsified or deliberately withheld in China.

Another leadership candidate Erin O’Toole wrote in the National Post that “the world (is) on the brink of a new Cold War with another repressive communist regime, this time in China.”

Related

The changing diplomatic and economic world has some policy experts pushing drastic measures.

“We’re stuck between our first and third-largest trading partner. Obviously for geographical reasons and because our economy is so integrated with the U.S., we’re going to side with the United States in any geopolitical conflict with China,” said Sean Speer, a policy researcher and former economic adviser to Stephen Harper, in an interview. “But it’s pretty obvious that the United States is moving in the direction of more managed trade and a much more nationalistic agenda.”

Both Robertson and Speer argue that although Canadians may prefer the old consensus around free trade, the country will have to adapt to the new world. It seemed unthinkable, for example, that the U.S. would slap tariffs on Canadian steel exports until Trump did just that two years ago.

Speer teamed up with Robert Asselin, a former Trudeau adviser, and economist Royce Mendes to argue that Canada has to find a new way to compete in the global economy in a new report released by the Public Policy Forum, an Ottawa-based non-profit think tank.

The report calls for an unapologetic effort from government to help Canadian industries compete on a global scale.

We’re stuck between our first and third-largest trading partner

The best way to do this, the report argues, is to identify challenges and set about helping Canadians businesses conquer them. For example, the report argues that a wide-scale effort around building up the country’s public health system to deal with an ageing population or tackling climate change could be the focus of a new industrial strategy.

Rather than use direct subsidies to specific firms, which can encourage waste and corruption, Speer argues that government support should come in more indirect ways. For example, to support Canada’s burgeoning industry around security systems for autonomous vehicles.

“I think we have an idealistic view about the global marketplace. I think that needs to change. We need to prepare to be much more unapologetically pro-Canadian,” said Speer.

Although the report from the Public Policy Forum has a bipartisan flavour to it, there are also historical objections from both the right and left to this kind of policy, with the left worrying about handouts to corporations and the right worrying about meddling in the free market.

Economist Trevor Tombe said he can see a lot of upside to a coherent industrial strategy, especially compared to an incoherent patchwork of subsidies and grants, but also pointed out some potential downsides.

 A crew gets ready to unload medical supplies from a cargo transporter arriving from China at Mirabel Airport in Quebec, May 1, 2020. Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press

First, like with any government spending, policymakers have to consider the opportunity cost. Any money spent on this strategy could potentially be used for other services or tax reductions that Canadians may prefer.

“The second downside is that you may pick incorrectly and support a sector that actually does not have a competitive advantage in Canada and that exists solely because of the support,” said Tombe.

That makes it vital that any advantage bestowed by the government is temporary and is used solely to get an industry past some difficult stage of its development, Tombe said.

“But if we’re talking about permanent support to a sector that is uncompetitive in Canada, then that can actually hurt productivity by shifting resources away from things where we do actually have a comparative advantage,” he said.

In the interview with the Post, Speer pointed out that advantages in the new economy are increasingly man-made. In the resource economy, a comparative advantage comes from a massive forest or large oil reserves. In the new economy, countries tend to create these advantages, either intentionally or by happenstance. Silicon Valley, for example, was born from computer technology that came out of the United States space program.

“We should be unapologetic about trying to cultivate certain competitive advantages in the Canadian economy, recognizing the importance of bigness and scale,” said Speer.