Border Infrastructure delays

      Comments Off on Border Infrastructure delays

Agreement covers a range of trade and security measures meant to ease flow of goods and people

By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Nov 29, 2013 5:30 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 29, 2013 9:24 PM ET

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, left, and U.S. President Barack Obama shook hands on a Beyond the Border deal in Washington in December 2011. But a new report by Public Safety Canada says Canada is behind in implementing parts of the deal. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

A project meant to make it easier for trade and travel across the Canada-U.S. border is behind schedule, and can’t even spend the millions of dollars allocated to it, according to a status report released today.

The Beyond the Border program was so important that Prime Minister Stephen Harper flew down to Washington, D.C., to announce it standing next to President Barack Obama.

But the report, released today, suggests major IT problems are leading to delays. With more than $117 million budgeted for 2012/13, only $49 million has been spent to streamline regulations and eliminate border delays.

Under one heading, “Addressing threats early,” more than $47 million was reallocated from one department to another.

The agreement covers a range of trade and security measures meant to make it easier to get people and goods across the border. It set a number of deadlines over several years. The report refers to delays for implementing several of the measures, blaming IT problems.

“Delays occurred in spending on information technology requirements needed to be consolidated to address program requirements and streamline solutions,” the report said, a sentence repeated under several headings.

“This necessitated a review across the solutions, which in turn delayed the start of certain projects.”

A spokeswoman for Public Safety Canada acknowledged the delays but said the government is committed to delivering on the goals set out in the agreement.

‘Slower than anticipated’

“The Beyond the Border Action Plan continues to be a priority for the Government of Canada. While some initiatives have been implemented slower than anticipated, we are committed to fulfilling the Action Plan vision, delivering on a range of strategic initiatives and building upon key accomplishments,” Josée Picard said in an email to CBC News.

The Single Window Initiative, which is supposed to make it easier to clear products by cutting the paperwork, is one of the programs that’s been delayed.

“As the schedule for the Beyond the Border Action Plan is aggressive with the first major SWI commitment being planned for December 2013, [Canada Border Services Agency]… moved the major development of this commitment from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014,” the report said in a footnote.

“As well, there is added complexity in relating to co-ordination and integration of the [nine] participating government agencies and the top [four] priority departments.”

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who spent years in Washington, says it isn’t all bad news for the government.

Some of the programs seem to be working well, he said, although the Trusted Traveller program, meant to pre-clear people to move them faster across the border, hasn’t had strong pickup.

The prime minister and the ministers of each department involved may need to get more involved in the file, he said.

“What you need is probably greater ministerial directive to say this is important, you’ve got to move this thing along,” Robertson said.

Treasury Board rules require annual reports for program spending budgeted for $100 million or more a year. Canadians should get more details on program delays next month, when the two countries release a joint implementation report.

Economic Diplomacy: Viewpoints

      Comments Off on Economic Diplomacy: Viewpoints

Globe Debate: Six experts weigh in on Canada’s shift to the ‘dollar diplomacy’

The Globe and Mail Wednesday, Nov. 27 2013, 11:11 AM EST

A range of opinion on Canada’s global pivot

Six former ambassadors or foreign affairs officials debate the merits of Canada’s new shift of its foreign relations to a focus on trade and commerce. “… All diplomatic assets of the Government of Canada will be marshalled on behalf of the private sector.”

Jeremy Kinsman

A ‘dreadful mistake’

Jeremy Kinsman

This is a proven dreadful mistake. Foreign relations for democratic nations have three thrusts: economic interests; international peace and security; and value-driven support for human rights and democracy development. Their content is increasingly more people to people than state to state.

The moment any one emphasis excludes one or both of the others is the moment things go off the rails; eg., thirty years of the United States supporting a dictator in Egypt for (false) security reasons alone; or for Canada, sucking up to the Gadhafi family to help out SNC/Lavalin.

The United States is now pursuing just such a composite strategy – for Iran, Russia, China; supporting a strategic partnership in the interests of economic and political security, while also supporting civil society’s legitimate aspirations.

Why is this Canadian government so blindly committed to a mercantilist policy without the other thrusts? It’s a proven loser. It is not what Canadians want.

Jeremy Kinsman was Canadian ambassador in Moscow from 1992 to 1996

A ‘refreshing’ pivot

Derek Burney

The “Global Markets Action Plan” announced Wednesday by Trade Minister Ed Fast is a refreshing statement of the obvious

Trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy and should be a major instrument of Canadian foreign policy, not to the exclusion of others, but because it is the one on which our scope for influence is actually commensurate with our strengths, hence our relevance and our leverage.

The objective is to enhance and safeguard our economic prospects. While much of the emphasis in the latest plan seems to be on trade promotion – support for small and medium-sized enterprises, etc. – the essence will flow from trade negotiations, as was the case in the past with the U.S. free-trade agreement and the North American free-trade agreement and, most recently, CETA – the most significant accomplishment on trade since NAFTA.

The focus should now most definitely switch to specific emerging markets, notably those in Asia which are today delivering much of global, economic growth. The real action will be at the negotiating tables.

Not a policy for the real world

Gar Pardy

Poor Willy Loman. Arthur Miller’s archetypical salesman died more than sixty years ago  by his own hand.  He is now revived by the government of Canada in a play of desperation to give new energy and life to the Canadian economy on the backs of the Canadian Foreign Service. Never have public servants been loaded with such an onerous responsibility; and before we get carried away with the rhetoric of the government and the clapping flippers of its trained seals, Canadians should take a walk in the real world where the Canadian coin is of less value than the CFA franc of the Central African Republic.

The antecedents of this policy are not hard to find. The dismantling of the Canadian International Development Agency, putting the International Development Research Centre on life support, the bad-mouthing of the Commonwealth and threats to cut Canadian support funding, the back-of-the-hand treatment for the United Nations and a visceral disdain for the Foreign Service have all been large signposts of the illusory world this government has created.

Now Canadians are expected to accept that “All diplomatic assets of the Government of Canada will be marshalled on behalf of the private sector.” This is more than just changing the channel.  It is throwing out the television and expecting the world to accept the ethereal messages this prone government receives from its self-created cosmos.

It has been evident for some time that this is a government that lives in an illusory universe where science plays on role and reasonableness has been eliminated from its DNA.  As such, not surprisingly, it can today with a face straight say to a complex world that Canada cannot be counted on to do anything more than to “marshal” its foreign service in support of its business community.

It is a policy that is constructed on the shifting sands of ignorance of the international scene and sleigh-of-the-hand illusions to fool Canadians. To suggest that there is a “Canadian” business community is to deny a central Canadian illusion.  There is hardly a large Canadian company that is today not controlled by foreign interests and supported by hidden Canadian subsidies of policy and money.  Even more insidious is that many of these foreign interests are the products of foreign governments whose interest in things Canadians do not go beyond their wallets and their own national interest.

So today we resurrect Willy Loman from his long forgotten garage and give him new life as the guardian of Canadian foreign policy.  With apologies to Joe Clark we now will “lecture, peddle and leave.”

Gar Pardy is a former ambassador who comments on public policy issues from Ottawa.

Read more +

We are a nation of traders

Colin Robertson

‘Economic diplomacy’ is nothing new – we opened our first foreign offices to promote trade and attract talent to Canada. Canada has always been a trading nation.

With the pivotal 1988 free-trade election, when we opted for competition rather than protection, we are becoming a nation of traders. We have shown ourselves that we can compete successfully around the globe drawing on our natural endowments and the skills of our people.

One of the keys to success is finding our niche in the supply chain dynamic that now characterizes global trade. We generate half our income from commerce by selling what we make in our factories or harvest from the land. Increasingly we sell our services as engineers and bankers to the world.

Our ability to keep our edge in global competition will largely determine our future prosperity. ‘Economic diplomacy’ is important but it is only one element in sustaining our economic health.

First, we need to put more emphasis on practical skills and training. This means recognizing the vital contribution of those who use their hands as well as their heads and giving greater weight to community colleges and technical schools that train tomorrow’s plumbers and welders, electricians and machinists.

Second we have to sustain a healthy population through an affordable, universal health care system.

Third, we need to nurture our pluralism through smart immigration. We are peopled by the world. In Toronto, our biggest city, half were born outside of Canada.

As we approach our sesquicentennial remember the words inscribed over the Canadian Pavilion at Expo 67: “Rights are the Rewards of Responsibility.”

Economic diplomacy makes sense but as one piece in a larger design of an active, pragmatic internationalism. This requires a ‘best in class’ Foreign Service that can deliver ‘economic diplomacy’.

The strife that led to this year’s six-month strike has been settled but the relationship between the Government and its Foreign Service can be characterized as ‘mutual contempt’.

If the Government is to deliver on its economic policies then it needs to devote some attention to rejuvenating its Foreign Service. Invest in training and trust it to use the new tools – twitter, blogs and Facebook. Open up recruitment at all levels from the private sector and the provinces.

The practical success of economic diplomacy will depend on creating mutual trust with those who have to deliver on its promise.

Our economic diplomats should also take their inspiration from one of our greatest Trade Ministers, George Hees. He sent forth an earlier generation of Canadian salesmen and saleswomen with the instruction: “You can’t do business sitting on your ass.”

A former diplomat, Colin Robertson was a member of the teams that negotiated the Canada-US FTA and NAFTA agreements.

The world won’t allow for a simple focus on trade

Paul Heinbecker

The world will not let us focus on economics and trade even if it were a good idea for us to do so.

From natural disasters such as Typhoon Haiyan and the Haitian earthquake to man-made calamities such as 9/11 and Syrian civil war, events will force us to respond. Further, Canadians’ interests and our values will demand we pay attention to, for example, the Iranian nuclear program, cyber security, pandemics and the spread of communicable diseases, international crime and the drug trade, climate change and Arctic sovereignty, the alleviation of hunger and promotion of human rights and religious freedoms as well as improving global governance notably preserving Internet freedom.

To say nothing of assisting Canadians abroad who are sick and need help. Mercantile policy will not get Canadia tourists out of hell hole jails or repatriate the deceased.

Nor will it alone burnish Canada’s reputation as a constructive, responsible global citizen.

Paul Heinbecker is now with the Centre for International Governance Innovation

A not-so-simple shift

Derek Fraser

If the government is serious, then what it proposes would amount to a revolution, for this government has up until now often given priority over trade and investment prospects to its support for human rights, humanitarian aid, and international security.

Canada’s support for the Western humanitarian intervention to get rid of Colonel Gadhafi harmed the commercial interests of a leading Canadian engineering firm. Canada’s criticism of the Sri Lankan government and Canada’s boycott of the Commonwealth Heads of State in Colombo cannot have helped Canadian business prospects in Sri Lanka. Canada’s support for international sanctions against Iran and North Korea because of their nuclear ambitions has not helped Canadian commercial interests in either country, notably those of the Canadian nuclear industry.

Canada’s support for Israel cannot further our business possibilities in the Arab world, which are probably larger than those in Israel. Canadian support for democracy, human rights and national independence in Eastern Europe, notably Ukraine, cannot endear us to the Russians. Appointing an Ambassador for Religious  Freedom and supporting women’s rights may actually harm business interests in certain countries. The commercial fallout from sending the Dart Team to the Philippines in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan may turn out to be disappointingly small.

If the Government does not mean what it appears to say, then it might consider embarking on a serious and balanced analysis of all the strands of our foreign policy. Such an analysis would likely recognize that other interests sometimes take precedence over commerce.

Derek Fraser is a former ambassador to Hungary, Greece and Ukraine.

Ottawa’s dollar diplomacy: It’s the end of the world as we knew it

Canada US Relations: Flashpoints

      Comments Off on Canada US Relations: Flashpoints

Harper, Obama need to keep up with the speed of business

The Globe and Mail Tuesday, Nov. 26 2013

Colin Robertson

No drama. In the conduct of Canada-U.S. relations it has been the modus operandi of both Stephen Harper and Barack Obama.

They are in alignment on the big issues of peace and security, economics and trade. Differences on climate change have not interfered with getting things done.

Their big joint initiative – easing border congestion and introducing closer regulatory co-operation – is moving forward despite the countervailing forces of sequester and budget cuts. The security perimeter, necessary for U.S. confidence, has been achieved. Regulatory collaboration is working.

But business wants to see results.

We need measurable progress on getting people, goods and services quickly and efficiently across the border. Canada created a cabinet secretariat that should be made permanent and matched by the United States. As the initiative approaches its second anniversary, both leaders need to give it another personal boost.

Transactional business – problems around bridges and pipelines, roads, rail and seaways – has been handled quietly and efficiently by our ambassadors. As a team, David Jacobson and Gary Doer were especially effective. Unfortunately, the designated new U.S. ambassador, Bruce Heyman, is stuck in limbo, a victim of various senatorial holds on presidential nominations.

Not having a U.S. ambassador in Canada handicaps both countries, especially as there are some potential flashpoints ahead:

– The interim Iranian nuclear deal should be a cause for celebration. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called it an “historic mistake” and Foreign Minister John Baird said he was “deeply skeptical.” Our sanctions will remain in place until there is “verifiable implementation”. Will we break with the U.S.?

– Country of Origin Labelling (COOL). Our leading trade dispute with the USA has been quietly simmering but has taken on new urgency with the new rules now in effect. The dispute is at the World Trade Organization, where, with Mexico, we seek rescinding of the labeling rule that is upsetting century-old cross-border trade in pork and beef. How will this be resolved?

– Keystone XL Pipeline. It has been more than five years since the original application for a presidential permit. With the completion of the second environmental assessment, there was an expectation that the decision would be made this year. Will it happen?

– Windsor-Detroit second crossing. Canada and Ontario are putting up $500-million to finance the U.S.-Michigan share of this necessary bridge. The presidential permit was issued in April but without the money to build the U.S. customs plaza. When will we see the money?

All these issues require careful handling.

On Iran, reaction from the Sunni Arab nations and U.S. domestic politics has yet to play out. We can keep faith with Israel but be constructive. Re-opening our Embassy in Teheran would be a start to help assist in on-site verification.

On the Keystone XL pipeline, keep our sangfroid. The oil is flowing by rail. We will open new markets overseas through east-west pipelines.

The issue is now as much, if not more, a debate within the U.S. rather than a Canada-U.S. dispute. New EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy recently said of Keystone, “If there’s oil there, someone will find it and use it.”

We have a lot of allies – in industry, labour, and governors and legislators in the states through which the pipeline passes. With the House of Representatives onside, gaining the support of Senate Democrats is key.

On COOL, we have allies among producers. We need to convince consumers. Efforts by a team of federal and provincial legislators, working with allies in Congress, may obtain redress in the U.S. Farm Bill – but this would be a stretch. More likely, we will have to work the WTO process.

Meanwhile, with new access in Europe (through CETA) and opportunities in Asia, we should seek foreign investment (like China’s Shuanghui) to process in Canada.

On the bridge, the funding is the equivalent of the value of a couple of days commercial traffic through the Windsor-Detroit gateway. Keep working on Congress with our ally, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. Meantime, look at border management using the NORAD model. Why not a joint, binational customs plaza?

These trade disputes are frustrating but we are in it for the long haul. Build on the support we already have in the US.

In the American system, as long as there is a countervailing interest, there is friction and debate. We need to better understand their system, its rules and conventions.

Identify our U.S. allies and work with them. Avoid drama. And remember, it’s a permanent campaign.

Halifax International Security Forum: a worthwhile initiative

      Comments Off on Halifax International Security Forum: a worthwhile initiative

Debating a dangerous new age

By | Nov 21, 2013 8:55 pm

If the twentieth century was about forces competing for global predominance, today the struggle is about sustaining global order against global chaos.

The challenges of conflicts – between states, within failing states, of terrorists possessing weapons of mass destruction –  have ramped up with the added threats of climate change and pandemics.

At the same time technology means that information has never been more accessible — nor privacy less secure.

Making meaning out of all this – to find trends and develop solutions – is hard work. It depends on creative thinking through understanding the forces of history and analyzing events.

We strive to develop in our diplomats, military intelligence and national security policy planners what the Germans call ‘fingerspitzengefuhl – literally ‘finger-tip feeling’ or intuition based on knowledge and experiencet

In this twilight world, bringing together friends and foes, allies and adversaries to talk informally about the big issues and to get to know one another better is very useful.

There is a history of these get-togethers.

The Munich Security conference, which began in the mid-sixties with a trans-Atlantic and European security focus, brings together political and military leaders with civil society. It was on its fringes, in 2011, that US and Russian foreign ministers exchanged the instruments that ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

Defence ministers, military leaders and senior civil servants from the Asia-Pacific region have been meeting since 2002 in the Shangri-La Dialogue. This year US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel underlined the rationale behind the Obama Administration’s pivot or rebalancing to Asia.

Five years ago, at the initiative of then-Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Canada began the Halifax International Security Forum (HISF) to address the threats facing the democracies. Initially trans-Atlantic in orientation, it now has a respected global following.

This coming weekend, it will once again bring together delegates from fifty countries including defence and security ministers, generals and admirals, ambassadors, legislators, the research community and civil society.

Importantly, it draws a strong delegation of US senior legislators, including Senator John McCain. Once again, the US Defense Secretary will participate.

For two days there is discussion, formal and informal, on and off-the-record. Most of the plenary sessions, armchair discussions, usually moderated by journalists, are broadcast on CPAC. For the hardy, there is the annual run led by now-Justice Minister Peter MacKay, along the Halifax waterfront.

The Forum’s costs are borne largely by the Government of Canada, especially National Defence. Any grumblings about the price-tag are misplaced, especially when you consider that the annual cost of keeping a soldier in Afghanistan is over a million dollars.

The Forum has a quintessential Canadian feel and makes a topical and important contribution to peace and security.

This year’s conference will look at the challenges facing the West; the difficulties inherent in the Middle East; the reality of what ‘responsibility to protect’ means; cyber-threats and drone warfare. Importantly for Canada, it will also put a focus on the Arctic.

The Forum will be an opportunity to informally discuss the potential successor to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen whose term ends next year. A Canadian has never held the top job and if Peter MacKay were interested he would be a good candidate.

When we are on our game, Canada plays an admirable role as useful fixer and bridge-builder. Canadians were helpful in the construction of NATO and the other multilateral institutions that still serve international peace and security.

One of our leverage points lies in our ability to interpret Washington to the world and the world to Washington. This obliges us to sustain respect for Canada’s capacities in Washington.

This starts with a good relationship between the president and prime minister.

It also demands an activist diplomatic service confident in the support of its minister and prime minister. This needs work.

Finally, military force is demonstrable hard currency in a Washington. Sequester is brutally cutting the US defense establishment. Americans want allies that can punch their weight.

The Harper Government’s Canada First Defence Strategy would give us this capacity although, five years on, an update is overdue.

Its promised investments, especially those in our aging fleet, are essential. Globalization and the ubiquitous container makes this a maritime century. As Prime Minister Harper has observed Canada and its economy float on salt water.

Theories and grand ideas seldom unfold as planned. We need to better understand the strategic forces at work in faraway places. We also need to know the players who influence and determine events.

That’s why initiatives like the Halifax International Security Forum are a worthwhile investment.

Debating a dangerous new age iPolitics Insight

By | Nov 21, 2013 8:55 pm | iPolitics Subscription Required | 0 Comments

Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, and General Jean-Paul Palomeros, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, left to right, conduct a session at the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax on Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan

NAFTA: Next Steps

      Comments Off on NAFTA: Next Steps

NAFTA’s enduring lesson: Never forget your neighbours

Special to The Globe and Mail Wednesday, Nov. 13 2013

Colin Robertson

Twenty years ago, Americans and a lot of Canadians tuned in on a November evening to watch Larry King host what turned out to be seminal debate on free trade. It pitted then U.S. vice president Al Gore against Ross Perot.

Mr. Perot, the irascible Texan, was riding a wave of popular discontent with his warning that Americans should listen for a ‘giant sucking sound going south’ as jobs fled to the Mexican maquiladoras. The appeal netted him 19 per cent of the popular vote in the 1992 election, making him the most successful third party challenger since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

Gore dismembered Perot in debate and subsequently, support for the Clinton administration’s NAFTA legislation rose from 34 per cent to 57 per cent; the debate contributed to its passage a week later in the House of Representatives.

NAFTA worked.

All three nations enjoyed a decade of prosperity that created jobs and balanced budgets. North America’s share of world trade rose to 36 per cent before receding, in face of recession and the rise of Asia, to 25 per cent.

Unfortunately, the continued fear-mongering of Mr. Perot, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan – described by Republican leader Bob Michel as the ‘Groucho, Chico and Harpo of the opposition’ – took root in the United States. Flaring up during presidential primaries, NAFTA became, inaccurately, a code word for job loss.

After Sept. 11, security trumped trade as the U.S. ramped up its border presence, tripling budgets to build walls on its southern border and launching drones to patrol its northern frontier.

NAFTA leaders’ meetings, when held, have become competing conversations – one between the Canadian prime minister and the U.S. president and the other between the U.S. and Mexican presidents.

By necessity, the energy for trilateral reform requires the personal leadership of the U.S. president as both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton demonstrated on NAFTA.

George W. Bush launched the Security and Prosperity Initiative, but its scope was too broad and the vigor required was too little. Barack Obama shelved it, endorsing a bigger deal with the Pacific, as part of the U.S. pivot, or rebalance, towards Asia.

Given the deep economic integration, it would have made more sense for President Obama to caucus first with his North American counterparts. If you can’t define a relationship with your neighbours, how can you define a relationship with the world?

Our political leadership sometimes fails to appreciate what our business community already understands: Our mutual competitiveness depends on working together.

Global positioning starts with getting our act together in the neighborhood.

Bob Pastor, tireless champion of the North American idea, recently hosted a conference in Washington that brought together business, legislators, civil society and the key officials from all three countries.

The conference released a survey showing that in all three countries there is strong support for trilateral free trade.

A series of practical suggestions were offered including:

– Resurrecting a high-level business advisory group that is more than just a photo opportunity.

– Given that there is no appetite or money for the new institutions, using more effectively those already in place, notably the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, and the moribund Commission for Labor Cooperation.

– Develop a North American climate strategy that the leaders can take to the international table. Why not, for example, an international price on carbon, starting with North America?

– Better high-level coordination within government and across governments (including states, provinces and cities) to maximize and sustain continental collaboration.

A coalition to inform and educate at the regional and community level will be led by the highly effective Pacific Northwest Economic Region and the Border Trade Alliance.

The recent announcement by U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo and International Trade Minister Ministers Ed Fast to work on a ‘constructive agenda’ is encouraging. It needs to look at better coordinating infrastructure and transportation grids, including pipelines, roads, rail and ports.

A take-away from the recent Canadian American Business Council conference in Ottawa is the requirement for a continental approach to talent, including co-ordinating training and skills development.

There are other efforts underway, including a Council of Foreign Relations Task Force led by David Petraeus and Robert Zoellick. They should start by reading the CFR’s 2005 report led by co-chairs John Manley, Pedro Aspe and William Weld.

Twenty years on, the best tribute to NAFTA’s enduring success would be a forward-looking strategy. Next spring the leaders will meet in Mexico. Their challenge: a plan to build a North American century.

Colin Robertson is a former diplomat, vice-president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and a senior advisor to McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP.

US Government Shutdown International Implications

      Comments Off on US Government Shutdown International Implications

When the U.S. shut down, the world’s economy felt the effects

Globe and Mail Wednesday, Oct. 23 2013

The ability of United States to project influence in the world rests on its economy. This past month, with congressional gridlock turning into government shutdown, has hurt the economy and undermined belief in the American way.

The self-inflicted damage to the USA – Standard and Poor’s reckons this latest episode cost the U.S. economy $24-billion – will stunt growth for this year with the inevitable trickle-down effect on global trade and finances.

Then there is the international effect.

Where normally President Barack Obama is front and centre of the family portraits at international gatherings, this time around, spotting Secretary John Kerry, who stood in for the President at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit, is a ‘Where’s Waldo’ moment. Center stage at the summit in Indonesia went to the Chinese and Russian presidents: XI Jingping and Vladimir Putin. Mr. Kerry was barely visible in a rear corner.

Mr. Obama’s absence from the APEC summit is a lost opportunity to push forward the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trade Representative Michael Froman hoped, optimistically, to conclude the negotiations by Christmas. Like everything else, it gets pushed back.

In the Sino-American competition for influence in Asia, bilateral relationships are also affected. One Indonesian business leader joked that the U.S. is “playing checkers while the Chinese play chess.”

Previous generations of Chinese leaders believed the United States could right itself from bouts of irrationality and that common sense would prevail. But will it?

With an estimated $1.3-trillion in U.S. treasury bonds (the Japanese hold $1.1-billion), the Chinese have reason for consternation. An American financial crisis will hurt China economically, bringing with it the risk of social disruption. Chinese leadership puts a premium on domestic stability.

Some Chinese are calling for a “de-Americanized” world, arguing that while the United States claims the high moral ground it is covertly “torturing prisoners of war, slaying civilians in drone attacks, and spying on world leaders.”

Those in China who implicitly favour greater pluralism and active participation in global institutions designed by the West are also put at a disadvantage by Capitol Hill misbehaviour.

For the West there is a bigger problem.

Since the creation of the western alliance in the wake of the Second World War, the Allies have put their faith in the United States. In recent years successive secretaries of defence have warned the Alliance that the United States could no longer carry the load and that they had to shoulder more of the burden. The “dim future” that then-Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned about may be closer than expected.

Let us hope not.

A power vacuum would be disorderly. The world would look more like that of the 1930s – what the poet W. H. Auden called a “low, dishonest decade.”

If the United States pulls back, who will step forward?

The Chinese? What is their vision of the world? Their ability to project global leadership is doubtful. China doesn’t have allies. Its nationalistic system is not exportable.

Having the United States bear the burden of global primacy has served global peace and financial security. With some notable and costly aberrations – Vietnam and Iraq – American military might has preserved the peace and U.S. naval power has guaranteed the maritime order that makes globalization possible.

There have been complaints about the U.S. Federal Reserve since the birth of the Bretton Woods system in 1944, but its central bankers have done a good job in managing the dollar. Neither the euro, the yen, or the yuan are yet ready for prime time as an alternate reserve currency.

In recent years the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has had a ‘JOBS’ banner hanging from its facade. It should replace it with one reading “Unity.”

When the U.S. Congress behaves recklessly the ramifications are serious. Former treasury secretary Tim Geithner was right when he said that the U.S. problem was not economics but politics and the requirement for it to get beyond the “paralysis” in the U.S. political system.

To repeatedly bring your country to the brink of default is new. It deeply damages a nation that takes pride in the claim that the business of America is business.

Politics aside, the American economy is today in better shape and more stable than Europe, Japan or the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

The United States remains the land of innovation – outclassing all others in Nobel prizes in the sciences, medicine and economics. It is also the place to which the Chinese elite send their children for higher education.

Now if only the United Sstates would get its political act together.

More Related to this Story

North Korea, China, Canada and BMD

      Comments Off on North Korea, China, Canada and BMD

While we weren’t looking, North Korea got a lot more dangerous

The Globe and Mail Monday, Oct. 21 2013

While we focus on Iran and Syria, pay attention to North Korea. It possesses the full arsenal of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and nuclear as well as cyberwarriors.

The Kim dynasty – grandfather Kim Il-sung , father Kim Jong-il vKim Jong-un – is dangerously unpredictable. Tales from the Hermit Kingdom evoke Game of Thrones.

In the purge following Kim Jong-un’s taking power, the former Army Minister was dispatched by a mortar round. The family of Kim’s former girlfriend was forced to watch her execution then trucked off to the gulags.

The regime is also a regional menace.

North Korea was behind the assassination of the mother of current Korean President Park Geun-hye, the bombing in Rangoon that killed many in the South Korean cabinet, the abduction of Japanese citizens, and the sinking, by submarine, of a South Korean frigate .

Systematic human rights violations in North Korea remain “widespread”, reports Amnesty International. The annual report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights observed that the “use of political prison camps, frequent public executions and severe food shortages, coupled with the extreme difficulty of gaining access, make DPRK [North Korea] singularly problematic.”

Unanimous votes of concern in the UN General Assembly and by the Human Rights Council have had no effect. The UN Special Rapporteur has never been allowed to investigate.

Having withdrawn from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, North Korea developed a nuclear weapon in tandem with a ballistic missile capacity. It recently reactivated a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor in Yongbyon.

North Korean missiles threaten North East Asia and they could potentially reach the west coast of North America. After a third North Korean nuclear test in February, the U.S. will spend a billion dollars to place additional interceptors in Alaska.

North Korea has been an exporter over several decades of conventional arms, nuclear reactor technology and ballistic missiles. Its client list has included Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen.

All of this activity violates UN Security Council resolutions. The decade-long Six Party talks that involving the two Koreas, Russia, Japan, USA and China and was aimed at curbing North Korea stalled out in 2008.

Recently, the Chinese have made efforts to both revitalize the talks and rein in North Korea. The Chinese, who chair the Six Party talks, hosted an informal session last month in Beijing. Importantly, the Chinese have now imposed export controls on materials that could contribute to North Korean weaponry.

China bears a lot of responsibility for the problem but it also has the leverage to effect change. Leading the effort to denuclearize North Korea would demonstrate that China’s new leadership is becoming more than a passive international participant.

China is far more averse to instability on its border than in the more distant Middle East. It would be more motivated to act (even militarily) on matters relating to a potential conflict with the client state on its front door.

But China will not act by a timetable dictated by the West.

Different from the West, China takes longer to re-assess what is in its best interests and to adjust policy accordingly. We need to remember this and to persist with patient diplomacy.

China is now the sixth largest financial contributor to peacekeeping operations and is currently fielding 1769 peacekeepers ( in contrast to Canada’s 157). Active Chinese involvement in sustaining and reforming international architecture is an essential guarantor of global peace and security.

For Canada, the North Korean threat has a couple of implications.

First, our growing commercial aspirations in Asia underline the need for secure sea lanes to ship our goods. This means getting on with our new warships. It also underlines the value of our submarines as key assets in sustaining maritime order in the Pacific.

Second, changing circumstances mean that we now need comprehensive ballistic missile defence (BMD) insurance.

We are effectively integrated into BMD through NORAD’s Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment mission. We also benefit from US policy to defend a two hundred mile band beyond the U.S. border in order to protect U.S. cities against fall-out.

But we would not be in the room when the decisions to launch are made. Nor do the current algorithms contain protection for Canadian cities like Calgary or Edmonton. Full participation in BMD would fix this.

We live in a world of changing perils and shifting poles of influence. This puts the premium on diplomacy that encourages all parties’ active participation. It also obliges us to look to our own security with the necessary hard power to back it up.

A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is vice president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and a senior advisor to McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP.

Moving North American integration forward

      Comments Off on Moving North American integration forward

Should Canada join the U.S. and Mexico? On these key projects, yes

Globe and Mail Wednesday, Oct. 02 2013

North American integration has a new champion in U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden.

Looking at the United States, Canada and Mexico during his recent visit to Mexico he wondered aloud why there is not more co-operation? “It’s just so natural, geographically, politically, economically.”

The trilateral idea has been on life support for more than a decade. The economic gains of the North American free-trade agreement were realized by 2000. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, the requirements of U.S. security curbed the further development of North American integration.

George W. Bush made an effort at revival through the Security and Prosperity Initiative. A Christmas tree of multiple wishes and bureaucratic bafflegab, it was quietly put into the ‘out’ basket by the Obama administration.

The trilateral leaders meetings, once annual standalone events, are now occasional and tacked onto other events. They have become a photo op. In substantive terms, they mask dual bilaterals: one between the U.S. and Mexican presidents and the other between the U.S. and Canadian leaders. Each has their own agenda.

For Canada, it is about preserving and improving access to the U.S. market. For Mexico it is regularizing immigration and keeping out the guns that arm its drug gangs. For the U.S., it is about security: keeping potential terrorists from slipping through Canada into the U.S.; keeping out illegal migrants and drugs from Mexico.

Now Mr. Biden promises to shift the U.S. emphasis back to economics.

His visit to Mexico, with four cabinet secretaries, launched the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue.

Border infrastructure is to be modernized using new technologies to extend hours of operation. It commits to doubling by 2020 of the number of Mexican students studying in the U.S. and Americans studying in Mexico.

Mr. Biden should now turn his attention to the northern border.

Of late, the tone at the top has become less than constructive. The Keystone XL pipeline, as important as it is to North American energy security, is crowding out the agenda to the exclusion of progress on other issues.

Both leaders share some responsibility for the pipeline impasse.

President Barack Obama disses its economic advantages and has failed to recognize private sector progress in addressing climate change.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not helped with his assertion that he won’t take no for an answer and implied that he’ll look to the next administration for redress. Our energies would be better spent bringing forward long-promised oil and gas regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

We need to focus on what we can constructively do together rather than on our divisions. This is where Mr. Biden can be helpful.

As he observes, the dynamic of the North American trading relationship has evolved. The current system is designed for the old world of imports and exports, of tariffs and customs officials.

Today it is more about making things together.

The bits and pieces, and the people that service them, now come from a thousand points across the continent, irrespective of country of origin. When borders become chokepoints, we lose North American competitiveness.

Recognition of this fact should be the starting point in what should be a permanent process where the emphasis is on continental regulatory alignment and expediting the cross-border passage of people, services and investment.

The Canada-U.S. beyond-the-border and regulatory co-operation initiatives are quietly making progress but they could do with high-level boosting.

Our security ministers have done their work and created a perimeter, arguably with belt, suspenders and life jacket.

Now we need to see commensurate attention by our economic ministers to improve access for goods, people and services.

Get on with the promised new bridge between Detroit and Windsor. More trade crosses that gateway than that between Japan and the United States. It is vital to manufacturing, especially to the automotive industry that depends on its supply chains.

Canada is putting up a half billion dollars to help fund the Michigan portion. Now we need assurance of U.S. financing of its customs plaza.

Mr. Biden should come to Canada and begin a high-level economic dialogue that complements the one being undertaken with Mexico. Let the two dialogues proceed in tandem with the goal of eventually bringing them together.

With an eye to the future, Canada should join the U.S. and Mexico in doubling the student exchanges between our countries.

Once we get beyond the border, our shared agenda should address issues including skills and training, labour mobility and mutual recognition of credentials. This is how we will realize the promise of North America.

More Related to this Story