The International Order: Syria, UN and Canada

      Comments Off on The International Order: Syria, UN and Canada

The road to a better world order begins in our own backyard

Special to The Globe and Mail Thursday, Sep. 12 2013

Arguments about intervention aside, the Syrian episode raises a bigger question: How do we restore trust in our elected governments, our domestic democratic institutions, and the liberal international order?

Angst in democracies is not new.

In the 1930s, the democracies were threatened by collectivist totalitarian movements and the international order withered away. This is not the problem today. Neither is it the kind of ungovernability – the ‘crisis of the state’ – that the Trilateral Commission worried about in the 1970s.

Survey after survey demonstrate a lack of public trust in government. This is mirrored by a similar disappointment in the United Nations.

It is not that we lack democratic energies.

On both sides of the Atlantic there is active citizen engagement on issues like climate change, gender equality and gay rights. But the formal institutions of government are in atrophy. There is no active movement for institutional reform or constitutional adjustment. UN reform is an oxymoron.

‘The Democratic Disconnect: Citizenship and Accountability in the Transatlantic Community’, recently released by the Transatlantic Academy, with contributors from Europe, the U.S. and Canada, assesses the economic, political and demographic challenges confronting the democracies.

Gridlock and polarization, say the authors, characterizes the United States. In Europe, institutional stalemate goes beyond the financial crisis. Canadians, they write “worry about the tendency of their political system to place largely unaccountable power in the hands of the prime minister.”

In terms of the international order, the report identifies three trends:

First, the increasing public disillusionment with military interventions and their conviction that problems at home should be the priority;

Second, the steady rise of, and co-ordination between, a group of new states, some democratic and others authoritarian. Often led by the BRICs, they enjoy the benefits of the liberal international order but they aren’t as ready to support its institutions;

Third, there is exhaustion with multilateralism in Europe, the U.S. and Canada.

All three phenomena were evident in the June meeting of the G8 and in last week’s St. Petersburg G20.

The upshot is disequilibrium within the international system. Fatigue grows. Isolationism beckons.

So what to do?

The first step, the authors argue, begins at home. Public Institutions have to reconnect with their citizens. The authors argue that political parties are the critical building block and that leaders need to spend more time in actively engaging their citizens.

Reinvigorating our democratic institutions, argues the report, will revitalize the liberal international order.

Liberal democracies have always promoted institutions of international co-operation and governance in tandem with domestic innovation because they are “profoundly interdependent”. Break this link and the authors describe a pivot away from universal and multilateral institutions toward forms of minilateralism and exclusivity.

It’s an interesting argument.

We know what happened when the liberal world order broke down in the first half of the last century. There are war graves across Europe and Asia that attest to our commitment and sacrifice to restore international order.

It took decades of careful statecraft to create the architecture designed to ensure peace and security. In creating the United Nations and its various agencies, Canadians were active and present because it reflected our values and served our interests.

The United Nations has never met the high expectations of its creators and efforts at reform have fallen short.

Yet we now look to UNICEF and the UNHCR to take leadership in dealing with the Syrian refugees. We turn to the Security Council for a peaceful solution. UN weapons inspectors are preparing the report that will guide their action. A little known UN agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, will take the lead in disposing of Syria’s chemical weapons. In time, the perpetrators of the crimes will face either divine justice or the International Criminal Court.

There will be bumps on the road to Damascus. Armed intervention is still on the table. In the meantime, the machinery of international order is at work.

As they draft Canada’s remarks to this year’s General Assembly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird should keep in mind the enduring utility of the UN and its institutions.

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.

Primer to the G20 in St. Petersburg

      Comments Off on Primer to the G20 in St. Petersburg

The Rumble in Russia: A G20 primer iPolitics Insight

By | Sep 5, 2013 2:02 pm | iPolitics Subscription Required | 0 Comments

A general view of the round table meeting at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia on Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013. The threat of missiles over the Mediterranean is weighing on world leaders meeting on the shores of the Baltic this week, and eclipsing economic battles that usually dominate when the G-20 world economies meet. (AP Photo/Sergei Karpukhin, Pool)

Today and tomorrow, the leaders of the major economic nations, their finance ministers and central bankers will meet to discuss global economic and financial issues in St. Petersburg’s Constantine Palace.

The summit takes place against the backdrop of the Syrian crisis and the recent coup in Egypt; these issues inevitably will spill over into informal discussions. On the economic front leaders face the challenges of joblessness, especially youth unemployment in Europe, the relative slowdown in the Chinese economy with its attendant effects on other developing economies, and the sluggish recovery in developing nations. We are also witnessing competitive devaluations and the creeping rise of protection.

Meet the G20

The G20, originally a meeting of finance ministers, their deputies and central bankers, was formed in 1999 in the wake of the Asian and Russian financial crisis with then-Finance Minister Paul Martin playing a lead role. It was raised to the leaders level in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis when President George W. Bush convened a summit in Washington in November, 2008 to address the economic crisis.

G20 leaders reconvened in London (April, 2009) in Pittsburgh (October, 2009) in Toronto (August, 2010) in Seoul (November, 2010), in Cannes (November, 2011) and in Los Cabos, Mexico (June, 2012). Next year’s G20 will be hosted by Australia.

The leaders’ summit is the culmination of a year-long process of meetings which — in addition to the discussions of central bankers, finance ministers (whose meetings under Russian leadership also included labour ministers) and sherpas — includes sessions involving representatives of labour, business, think-tanks, youth, girls (Belinda Stronach was a driving force behind the Girls 20 summit) and civil society.

The member countries include the G8 nations — Canada, United States, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and Russia — as well as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Their economies cover two-thirds of the world’s population and account for over 80 per cent for world trade and global production.

The heads of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank participate, as do the heads of the European Union and European Commission and the head of the European central bank. Other national leaders also have been invited to discuss specific topics, such as development.

The G20’s ‘standing’ agenda

The G20 has developed a de facto standing agenda. First item on that agenda is the restoration of a multitlateral trading system. Expect leaders to address the topic, but there is no sense the WTO Doha Round will be concluded soon. Today, movement on multilateral trade rests with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a series of smaller regional groupings.

Another item on that agenda is protectionism. The 2013 Global Trade Alert observes that over 3,330 new government protectionist measures — trade remedies, local content requirements, discriminatory regulatory practices — have been reported since 2008. A record 431 measures were imposed in the last year in what the GTA calls “a quiet, artful, wide-ranging assault on free trade”.

The G20 nations account for 65 per cent of protectionist measures, notwithstanding their pledge for a ‘standstill’ at the London 2010 summit.

The agenda also includes international investment. Barriers to investment continue to plague G20 economies. Governments need to further open their economies.

Another agenda item: fiscal policy. This means saving in good times so you can spend in recession and then get back to balance as quickly as possible.

Finally, there is sustainable development. It is easy to look at the Millenium Development goals as a glass half-empty. However, significant progress has been made in increasing the resources of international financial institutions, building infrastructure, improving food security, financial inclusion and reducing the cost of remittances.

Developing countries now account for more than half of the world’s economic activity and more than half of global exports. China is now the number one world exporter. A recent report from the Lowy Institute argues that development and global economic issues must be ‘mainstreamed’ into the G20’s core agenda.

What does the St. Petersburg summit want to achieve?

On the website created for St. Petersubug, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he had two objectives for the summit: achieving balanced growth and job creation. The ‘watchwords’ of the meeting will be:

  • Growth through quality jobs and investment;
  • Growth through trust and transparency;
  • Growth through effective regulations.

Eight priority areas have been identified:

  1. A framework for strong, sustainable and balanced growth;
  2. Jobs and employment;
  3. International financial architecture reform;
  4. Strengthening financial regulation;
  5. Energy sustainability;
  6. Development for all;
  7. Enhancing multilateral trade;
  8. Fighting corruption.

What is it likely to achieve?

Don’t expect a lot. Watch for action on the following:

Implementation of the IMF’s 2010 Quota and Governance Reform. IMF Executive Director Christine Lagarde says that “completing the 2010 quota and governance reform is essential to the Fund’s legitimacy and effectiveness.” It requires a doubling of the IMF quota resources and reviewing the IMF quota formula in order to adequately reflect the current weights of its members.

Resurrecting the Doha Round. Currently on life support, a global agreement could result in GDP increases of approximately $960 billion and create over 18 million jobs worldwide, according to a study by the Peterson Institute’s Gary Huffbauer and Jeff Schott prepared for the International Chamber of Commerce. At their April meeting in Doha, the ICC argued for progress in five areas:

  • Concluding a trade facilitation agreement;
  • Implementing duty-free and quota-free market access for exports from least-developed countries;
  • Phasing out agricultural export subsidies;
  • Renouncing food export restrictions;
  • Expanding trade in IT products and encourage growth of e-commerce worldwide.

Exchange rate and incentives competition. The number of governments competing for foreign investment by lowering their tax rates has increased. As Martin Wolf recently observed, “policies aimed at export-led growth impose contractionary pressure on trading partners, particularly in times of deficient aggregate demand and ultra-low interest rates. In the last decade, we have seen the largest and most persistent exchange rate interventions ever.”

Structural reform. The OECD has encouraged the G20 to embrace structural reforms and a switch in emphasis from politically-charged current account rebalancing to labour product market reforms for medium-term growth and a growing consensus on fiscal frameworks.

The division over how to deal with debt-to-GDP. The U.S. and others favour a more flexible stance. They are not likely to agree on specific quantitative fiscal targets but likely will concentrate instead on reducing debt-to-GDP over the medium term.

What does Canada want?

Prime Minister Harper wants the summit to result “in commitments for further action on key issues such as financial regulation and trade liberalization.”

Our main objectives include commitments toward:

  • Greater transparency: Canada and Russia have co-chaired the G-20 Anti-Corruption Working Group.
  • Accountability: In tracking progress on commitments made at previous G-20 Summits and especially on the Development Working Group commitments established at the Toronto G-20 Summit.
  • Financial sector reform: G20 members have agreed to implement the regulatory requirements of Basel III, the international standard for stronger regulation of the banking sector.

Beyond the summit agenda, a great deal of other business gets done at these meetings. Mr. Harper can be expected to discuss the Canada-Europe trade agreement with European leaders, progress on the Trans Pacific Partnership and the always-important Canada-U.S. agenda with President Obama.

So do we really need a G20?

Yes. The G20 filled a gap in the architecture of top-table meetings.

The permanent members of the Security Council — Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States — represent the world of 1945 and the early Cold War. As we have seen over Syria and other crises, getting the Security Council to act constructively is very difficult. Reforming the Security Council to make it more representative of today’s geo-political situation has been an exercise in futility.

The G-8 group is Eurocentric and does not include China, India or Brazil. So the G-20 made sense.

Like the G8, much of the value of the G20 is in its process. More people will work on the draft of the final communiqué than will actually read it but the process of getting there is what really matters. The ongoing meetings between central bankers and finance ministers (the original G20) now include separate discussions with business, civil society and think-tanks.

What matters at these summits is not the prepared statements at the main table but the frank discussions and informal meetings that take place in the corridors and meeting rooms around the main conference. Winston Churchill, who popularized the word ‘summitry’, observed that ‘jaw-jaw’ between leaders is better than ‘war-war’.

Further reading

The best Canadian sources for G20 documentation with a chronology of past summits is at the University of Toronto’s G20 Information Centre, managed for years by John Kirton. The Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo has done excellent work on the G20, especially its priorities for the G20 published for the St. Petersburg summit. This primer owes much to the session recently held at the Rideau Club, moderated by CIGI’s Fen Hampson, with Canadian Council of Chief Executives CEO John Manley, Russian Ambassador Georgiy Mamedov and CIGI’s Domenico Lombardi and Rohinton Medhora.

Canada and St. Petersburg G20

      Comments Off on Canada and St. Petersburg G20

Harper needs to play the ‘reliable ally’ card at the G20

COLIN ROBERTSON

The Globe and Mail Wednesday, Sep. 04 2013

Prime Minister Stephen Harper goes to the Constantine Palace in St. Petersburg on Thursday for the G20 summit. He has three roles to play: To be a good friend; a reliable ally; and, always, to be our chief diplomat in advancing Canadian interests.

The backdrop to this summit is Syria, especially now that U.S. President Barack Obama has delayed an armed response until he has the sense of Congress.

In Britain, last week’s House of Commons defeat has left a diminished Prime Minister David Cameron. Mr. Cameron will appreciate the advice of the like-minded Mr. Harper, who also understands the challenges of parliamentary government.

Mr. Cameron and his foreign minister William Hague are Mr. Harper’s staunchest foreign friends and supporters. They are also our steadfast advocates within Europe for the stalled Canada-Europe trade agreement.

Mr. Obama is likewise afflicted by Syria. He comes to St. Petersburg seeking allies. He will welcome Mr. Harper’s assistance in building international support to enforce the norm against the regime of Bashar al-Assad for using poison gas.

When blunt language is required, Mr. Obama can count on Mr. Harper, especially during the almost-certain debate on Syrian intervention with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the lead-up to the Lough Erne G8 summit, Mr. Harper condemned Mr. Putin’s support of the “thugs of the Assad regime” and underlined the “G7 plus one” divide between the West and Russia.

The Harper-Obama relationship is not that of Harper-Cameron, but Mr. Harper understands that the dynamic of a successful Canada-US relationship depends on being a reliable ally.

The Keystone XL pipeline permit process is frustrating but Mr. Harper will recognize that the Canadian ‘ask’ has evolved into another pawn in the polarized world of Washington politics. Mr. Harper can help our cause by giving the President a preview of our forthcoming oil and gas regulations and their contribution to abating climate change.

A useful contribution to collective trade liberalization would see the two leaders recommit to their initiative on border access and regulatory alignment. We need to match the progress we have made on perimeter security with an expedited flow of people, goods and services.

Mr. Harper should push Mr. Obama on country-of-origin labelling, a noxious piece of U.S. protectionism that is effectively blocking Canadian beef and pork exports. It is also an issue on which he and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto can make common cause.

Curbing protectionism is a constant challenge. In the last year, the Global Trade Alert has catalogued a record 431 new protectionist measures with the majority imposed by G20 nations. With our economic growth dependent on trade, Canada has vital interests in further trade liberalization.

In his separate meetings with fellow leaders, Mr. Harper needs to advance the Canadian case for the Canada-Europe trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Trans Pacific Partnership would cover 40 per cent of global economic output and about a third of world trade. It aims to become the gold standard for other trade pacts. With key leaders present in St. Petersburg, side conversations can help set up progress at the next round in Bali. Canada and the U.S. have both committed to concluding the TPP negotiations this year.

If only the Canada-Europe talks could progress that quickly: Now into their fifth year of negotiations, the Europeans are increasingly skeptical that Mr. Harper wants a deal.

The Europeans thought it would be done by the end of January. The British were ready to run interference for us in Lough Erne but the offer was apparently declined. The European leadership from Brussels will be in St. Petersburg.

Mr. Harper should seize the moment and conclude the deal. When it comes to trade liberalization, half a loaf is much better than none.

European attention is rapidly shifting to the potential deal with the United States, while the EU leadership who have invested in this deal, will change next May with the EU elections.

Credit Paul Martin, Mr. Harper’s predecessor, as the architect of the G20. As Finance Minister, Mr. Martin showed foresight in recognizing that globalization obliged a new, more inclusive forum to act as the clearing house for global financial and economic issues.

The worth of summits is rarely reflected in their communiqués. More will draft that document than will read it. The utility of summitry is the process of consultations leading into the summit and then in the frank talk between leaders when they meet. What happens at the main table is usually less relevant than in the corridor discussions. It is there that things get done.

More Related to this Story

A helpful fixer role for Canada in Syria and Egypt?

      Comments Off on A helpful fixer role for Canada in Syria and Egypt?

These are Canada’s options in Syria and Egypt. None of them are easy

The Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Aug. 28 2013

So what can Canada do about Syria and Egypt where the options for policymakers range from bad to worse.

Syria is the latest example of a failing state where the dictator is doing everything he can to hang onto power including breaking international law, most recently in the apparent use of chemical weapons.

UN-sanctioned inspectors are on the ground attempting to determine the facts although US Secretary of State John Kerry has declared evidence of chemical weapons is “undeniable” and that there must be “accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons”.  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the US is “ready to go.”

Acting precipitously, as the USA and its ‘coalition of the willing’ learned in Iraq comes with a huge cost in blood, treasure and international standing. But, as Senator John McCain argues,  if the USA doesn’t make an armed response “our credibility in the world is diminished even more.”

Meanwhile, the military coup in Egypt that ousted President Morsi is a reminder that the transition to representative government takes time and requires patience.

It took the Anglosphere nearly a millennium to go from Magna Carta to the extension of the franchise to first, all men and, less than a century ago, all women. In the case of civil rights for African Americans, it is just fifty years since the March on Washington that led to legislation on voting and civil rights.

If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan it is that the road to representative government is long, crooked, tortuous and filled with disappointments.

The costs of Iraq and Afghanistan to the USA are estimated at between four and six trillion dollars (Canada’s entire economy is  $1.83 trillion).

An estimate of the costs of intervention in Syria is contained in a recent letter from General Martin Dempsey, Chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Senators Carl Levin and John McCain.

Dempsey observed that “the decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly” because it “is no less than an act of war.”

To train and advise the Syrian opposition is costing $500 million annually.

Establishing a no-fly zone over Syria, Dempsey wrote, would have a start-up cost of $500 million and a monthly bill of a billion dollars. Intervention employing special forces to secure the chemical stockpiles in Iraq would cost at least another billion dollars a month

Policymakers, as well as armchair generals and responsibility-to-protect advocates, should start any discussions on intervention by reading aloud Dempsey’s observation that the last decade has taught that it is “not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state.”

They should also heed Dempsey’s three warnings:

First, “We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action.”

Second: “We must also understand risk-not just to our forces, but to our other global responsibilities.”

Third, “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”

Intervention, Dempsey says, should also be done  “in concert with our allies and partners to share the burden and solidify the outcome.”

These considerations and the requirement for burden-sharing were discussed during the weekend conversations involving President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry with western leaders, including Prime Minister Harper.

Surveys reveal that Americans are very wary of armed intervention. Canadian attitudes are likely to be similar.

So what can we do?

The immediate consideration is humanitarian.

The UNHCR estimates that there are now nearly two million refugees, including a million children, in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Funding for the three billion dollar Syria Regional Refugee Response plan is currently only 38 percent funded. Canada has subscribed $81.5 million towards Syrian relief.

Beyond money, we should also consider ramping up our refugee intake in a way that is both strategic and humanitarian.

Experience has taught us that successful integration of refugees depends on many factors. Like the installation of democracy, some adapt better than others and sustaining Canadian support for a generous refugee and immigration program obliges policymakers to temper generosity with pragmatism.

One group that is under stress and that may require resettlement is Egypt’s Christian minority. We have condemned the attacks on the over 60 churches but their situation is precarious.

Forty years ago, in response to the expulsion of 60,000 Ugandan Asian, Canada resettled nearly 7,000.

Like the Egyptian Christians, the Ugandan Asian were a community of small business people and professionals. Today, their success is another reflection of the positive virtues of Canadian pluralism.

The Egyptian Christians would likely integrate in similar fashion, especially given the presence in Canada of their co-religionists to help in the transition.

Taking a leadership role in humanitarian relief in Syria and Egypt would give tangible substance to Foreign Minister John Baird’s ‘dignity’ agenda. It would also demonstrate, once again, the Canadian tradition as a helpful fixer.

Canada and ASEAN

      Comments Off on Canada and ASEAN

These Asian countries have formed a tight-knit web. Why is Canada still outside?

Special to The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, Aug. 21 2013

It doesn’t get a lot of attention but ASEAN – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations – is like the little engine that could. Its growing appeal as a launching pad into the rest of Asia is fuelled by its aggregate population of more than 600 million and estimated GDP of US$2.2 trillion.

This week International Trade Minister Ed Fast will meet in Brunei with ASEAN Economic ministers to promote Canadian trade and investment.

The ten nations – Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam – just celebrated their 46th anniversary. Created initially as a bulwark against communism, it has become an Asian model for regional economic cooperation. Four of its members – Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam – are also in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.

ASEAN’s goal is to develop an Economic Community with free flow of goods, services and investments by the end of 2015. ASEAN nations are working on improving competition policy, increasing foreign equity in services industries, mutual recognition of professional qualifications – the kinds of things we should do more of within the Canadian federation.

Canada has had a formal relationship with ASEAN since 1977. In recent years we have upped our regional commitment with the 2009 appointment of an ASEAN ambassador, 2010 accession to their regional peace treaty, and the 2011 joint declaration on trade and investment.

In addition to our contributions through the Asian Development Bank, CIDA invests more than $130 million focusing on human rights and disaster risk.

After nearly a decade of few high level visits, Governor General Johnston and Prime Minister Harper have recently made official visits, with recurring missions by Ministers Baird and Fast.

‘Face’ and sustained relationship-building matters in Asia and our record has been weak on both counts. We need to sustain high-level engagement, especially if we are to gain admission to the security-focused East Asia Summit.

ASEAN nations represent Canada’s 7th largest trading partner. Our investment in the region is greater than in China and India combined. ASEAN investment in Canada grew over four-fold during the last five years, including the acquisition of Progress Energy by Malaysia’s Petronas.

While our focus is on trade, sustaining the relationship requires a commitment to regional security as well as the socio-cultural. The people-to-people ties are growing. Nearly ten thousand students from ASEAN countries study each year in Canada. Last year we admitted more than 37,000 permanent residents and there are nearly 18,000 temporary foreign workers from the region.

Created in 2012, the membership of the Singapore-based Canada-ASEAN Business Council numbers twenty-one companies, representing our financial, mining, manufacturing and engineering industries.

In proclaiming Canada to be an Asia-Pacific nation at last week’s ASEAN reception at Ottawa City Hall, Foreign Minister John Baird underlined the importance of ties with ASEAN promising that “we will continue to increase our engagement to its fullest potential.”

We have work to do.

ASEAN has free trade area agreements with Korea, India and China and a comprehensive economic partnership with Japan. The ASEAN-Australia New Zealand Free Trade Area eliminated tariffs on incoming ASEAN products last year and restrictions in both directions will end by 2020.

The US-ASEAN Expanded Economic Engagement Initiative is ambitious and results-oriented. It includes simplified customs procedures and joint development of investment principles along the level of ambition set by the Trans Pacific Partnership. The US-ASEAN Business Council is highly developed and has offices throughout the region.

The European Union is the largest foreign investor in the region. ASEAN is the EU’s third largest trading partner after the USA and China. The EU is in FTA negotiations with Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. Their long-term goal is a EU-ASEAN FTA.

The Europeans finished negotiating a free trade agreement with Singapore last year. The US-Singapore FTA was concluded in 2004. Our own FTA negotiations with Singapore (like those with Korea) stalled.

We risk developing a reputation as a country that can’t close a deal.

A recent report, prepared for Canadian business looked at six sectors aerospace, agrifood, automobile, clean tech, ICT, oil and gas arguing that Canadians wanting to get into the market need to identify their niche and then determine the best entry point. It warned that Singapore aside, the biggest impediments to doing business in ASEAN are corruption, infrastructure and inept bureaucracy.

Connectivity is the mantra of ASEAN. Their ‘master plan’ envisages huge investments in infrastructure and technology including upgrades to roads and rail, and megaprojects like a high-speed rail line from Singapore to China. We have the capacity to get a piece of the action.

If we are serious about ASEAN we need to sustain our embrace. Ministers have to make regular visits across the Pacific. Deliverables – regional and country-by-country – need to be realistically defined and priorized. For obvious strategic reasons, Indonesia, whose Foreign Minister is in Canada this week, requires special attention.

We are playing catch-up with the competition in ASEAN but the rewards will be worth the effort.

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

More Related to this Story

Time to send an Envoy to Tehran

      Comments Off on Time to send an Envoy to Tehran

Canada needs to be ‘on the ground’ in Iran: Time to reopen the embassy

COLIN ROBERTSON The Globe and Mail Friday, Aug. 09 2013

If we are serious about engaging Iran then we need to re-establish diplomatic relations.

September will mark a year since we closed our Embassy in Tehran and declared Iran’s diplomats personae non gratae because we feared for the safety of our diplomats and in protest for Iranian behavior.

Responding to last Sunday’s inauguration of Iranian President Hassan Rowhani, Foreign Minister John Baird proclaimed that ‘proof of strategic shift’ required Iran to change its nuclear policies, respect human rights and cease meddling in Syria.
These priorities are right and in the correct order. A nuclear Iran with ballistic missiles threatens stability in the Middle East and beyond, including cities on the eastern seaboard of North America.

Mr. Baird is to be encouraged in getting to know the regional players through his frequent travel. His use of social media, as demonstrated recently at the Munk School’s Global Dialogue with Iranian civil society, is innovative diplomacy.

Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom continues to churn out lively releases on human rights abuses, although their targets would likely pay more attention if they toned down the adjectives. A useful initiative for the Office would be to resurrect the ‘two-track’ research aimed at opening channels for dialogue with Iran conducted by the University of Ottawa’s Peter Jones.

Effective diplomacy is about ‘being there.’ This means having a presence on the ground so that you can look, listen and speak out when necessary.

A diplomatic presence does not imply regime endorsement but rather it is the conduit for official dialogue and discussion. Withdrawal of diplomatic personnel is an extreme step that should only be done if there is a personal threat to our diplomats or when a declaration of war is imminent. In between, there are gradations of presence, based on Winston Churchill’s conviction that ‘jaw-jaw’ is better than ‘war-war’.

The Middle East is complicated, confusing and frustrating but Canada has interests – commercial, political, and social. Through refugee re-settlement, immigration and study, there is a growing regional diaspora living in Canada. As we learned in the 2006 evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon, there is also a growing Canadian expatriate population whose interests oblige our protection.

Through the past half century of global primacy, the U.S. has developed a cadre of smart, experienced practitioners who devote their lives to finding solutions to difficult international problems. Their number includes Ambassador Tom Pickering who, with colleagues William Luers and Jim Walsh, has written ‘For a New Approach to Iran’. It builds on the ongoing, excellent work of the non-partisan Iran Project, which is designed to improve the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Pickering et al note that while Iran has the basic ability to make a bomb, its nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach. The election of Mr. Rowhani, whose platform included engaging the international community, offers opportunities to influence Tehran.

They argue that ‘coercive diplomacy’ – more sanctions and angry rhetoric – is counterproductive because it hardens resistance to change and reinforces the hardliners.

On military intervention, they recall McGeorge Bundy, President Lyndon Johnson’s national security advisor during the Vietnam War. In a retrospective interview, Mr. Bundy observed that what surprised him most was “the endurance of the enemy.” Too much emphasis had been placed, concluded Bundy, in “the power of coercion.”

Canadian practitioners should draw inspiration from Mr. Pickering and the work of the Iran Project.

Our knowledge of Iran now depends on the reportage of foreign correspondents, the intelligence shared by our friends and allies and what we glean through the Iranian community living in Canada.

This is not adequate if we are to seriously engage Iran and encourage their ‘strategic shift.’ We need our own eyes and ears on the ground. Our policy will oblige patience, persistence and a step-by-step process of proof and verification to build trust.

As a first step towards building confidence, Mr. Rowhani should guarantee the safety of our diplomats. Then it will be time to send a Canadian envoy back to Tehran.

More Related to this Story

Awaiting a US Envoy to Canada

      Comments Off on Awaiting a US Envoy to Canada

U.S. Envoy To Canada: Nomination In Limbo As Obama Weighs Keystone

CBC |  Posted: 08/07/2013

The fate of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which has become a thorny issue in Canada-U.S. relations, could be holding up U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision for the next U.S. envoy to Canada.

Obama may be holding off on a nomination because he doesn’t want to have the U.S. Senate “hold that candidate hostage,” Colin Robertson, a former diplomat, now working as the vice-president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute told CBC News.

While the nomination must be confirmed by the Senate, U.S. senators can place a hold on presidential nominations, a practice that can be used as a tactic to advance policy or political goals regardless of party lines.

Diplomat Richard Sanders will mend the gap and serve as the newest American representative to Canada until a new ambassador is confirmed, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa announced last week.

Sanders, who arrived in Canada on July 22, will act as chargé d’affaires in the interim as a matter of due course, following the departure of outgoing U.S. ambassador David Jacobson, whose term ended on July 15.

According to Robertson, Jacobson’s own nomination was delayed when then Democrat Senator Chris Dodd put a hold on it because he was unhappy with another appointment.

In this case, it may very well be that Obama doesn’t want any U.S. senator to hold his next ambassador to Canada as leverage to force his hand on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, Robertson said.

“This isn’t a slight against Canada, it’s U.S. politics.”

Keystone XL the ‘dominant issue’

CBC News reported in April that Obama had picked Bruce Heyman, a partner from the investment firm of Goldman Sachs in Chicago, for the Canadian post.

Heyman, one of Obama’s top fundraisers, was set to be vetted and nominated for the job, but four months later there is still no word on Obama’s nomination.

It’s possible Heyman backed out of the nomination of his own accord before the vetting process was complete, but even if Obama had made Heyman’s nomination official, any hope that a new U.S. envoy could get the nod this summer evaporated last week when Congress headed into a five-week summer break pushing all confirmations to the fall.

A decision over the controversial pipeline could also come this fall.

Uncertainty over the fate of the pipeline project may be affecting other aspects of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

TransCanada’s $7-billion proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Alberta’s crude south to refineries in Texas, is “the dominant issue” between the two countries right now, said a former U.S. ambassador to Canada.

In an interview with CBC News, David Wilkins, Jacobson’s predecessor, said Keystone XL has “sort of sucked the air out of the room.”

The former ambassador, appointed by George W. Bush, is now a partner at the U.S. firm of Nelson Mullins, where he chairs the public policy and international law practice group. Its primary focus is on representing businesses on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border.

“It’s imperative the U.S. go ahead and make a decision on that.”

Otherwise, “it’s tough to tackle other issues,” Wilkins said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated last Friday the Canadian government’s assertion that the proposed pipeline would boost employment “on both sides of the border.”

Harper’s comments came days after the U.S. president downplayed the number of jobs that might result from the building of the pipeline, citing vastly lower numbers than supplied by the U.S. State Department’s draft environmental analysis of Keystone XL.

Canada, eh?

Although Ottawa isn’t London or Paris, being appointed to serve in Canada does not appear to be a hard sell south of the border.

Gordon Giffin, who was appointed ambassador to Canada by president Bill Clinton, said that “to be U.S. ambassador to Canada is one of the premier opportunities any president can offer someone.”

In this country much is made about Ottawa’s reputation as a boring city, but in the U.S. a posting in Canada is “something that is sought and competed for,” Giffin said in an interview with CBC News.

According to Wilkins, about one-third of American ambassadors are political appointments. “That is, they generally have a relationship with the president, they are not career foreign service officers.”

Perhaps it’s not so surprising then, that Obama has consistently rewarded his top fundraisers with political appointments.

Whoever the next U.S. ambassador is, both Wilkins and Giffin agree it’s imperative that the next envoy have the ear of the president.

“Some of our ambassadors drink wine and hold cocktail parties for a living. In a Canada-U.S. dynamic, you have a full-time job. It’s not just a ceremonial position,” Giffin said.

Wilkins, who is from South Carolina, conceded that our Canadian winters “would be the only hesitancy somebody from the south may have about coming to Canada.”

Even Giffin, who grew up in Canada for 17 years before returning to the U.S., admitted “Ottawa was a little bit colder” than he expected.

The only way around that, Wilkins said, was to “embrace the weather, not the TV.” Wilkins said part of the Canadian experience was to skate on the Rideau Canal, even if it was just once a year.

“I stumbled around and looked pretty awful, but I got off without ever getting hurt.” If anything, it made for “good speech material,” Wilkins joked.

The Republican from South Carolina said he became “very familiar with Canadian maple syrup” and did try poutine at least “one time.”

Wilkins said the best thing he did was to visit Canada’s 13 provinces and territories during his first six months as ambassador, and he offered this simple advice to the next U.S. ambassador: “Get out from behind your desk, get out from the embassy.”

see also

U.S. envoy post to Canada in limbo as politicians duke it out over Keystone XL project

On Public Diploamcy at our Washington Embassy

      Comments Off on On Public Diploamcy at our Washington Embassy

War of 1812 commemorations, Strange Brew screening among Washington Embassy’s activities last year

by Lee Berthiaume Postmedia, August 8, 2013

OTTAWA — Canada’s embassy in Washington hosted a half-dozen visits to the oilsands last year, inviting not just congressmen and their staff, but U.S. Department of Energy officials, think-tank experts and even journalists.

Yet as important as those visits were to promoting the oilsands and the Keystone XL pipeline, they represented only a fraction of the embassy’s activities when it came to promoting Canada — and advancing the federal government’s agenda.

Newly released records show the embassy sponsored a congressional visit to Alberta during the Calgary Stampede, fitness sessions featuring the creator of the popular P90X exercise program, and even a screening of the movie Strange Brew, complete with Tim Horton’s donuts and Canadian beer.

There were also nearly half-a-dozen events promoting the War of 1812, including an art show and a lecture by a prominent military historian and adviser to former U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, who says Canada won the conflict.

The oilsands tours were the most expensive activities undertaken by the embassy at a cost of between $20,000 and more than $90,000 each.

The rest of the initiatives were relatively small, with the majority costing less than $10,000, with the embassy seeking partnerships where it could.

The documents, obtained by Ottawa-based researcher Ken Rubin, do not give a clear total of how much the embassy spent on advocacy last year, though one planning estimate puts the number between $500,000 and $800,000.

Former diplomat Colin Robertson, who served much of his career in the United States, says the federal government actually used to spend much more on these types of activities, which together are called public diplomacy.

And while some Canadian taxpayers may be upset that the embassy hosted a “tailgating party” during U.S. President Barack Obama’s inauguration, or that congressmen took in the Stampede on their dime, Robertson says these things do work.

“My own observation is that these things do have effect, even if it is very difficult with an individual event to say A, B and C happened,” he said. “This is all subtle and you don’t move by great leaps but by inches.”

Using the War of 1812 to advance Canada’s interests might seem a curious choice, but Robertson noted the military is a key part of the American culture and that one in five members of Congress has military experience.

According to the documents, the subtext of the War of 1812 events was to highlight the 200 years of peaceful co-existence between Canada and the U.S., while highlighting Canada as an important friend and ally in North American and global security.

It was the same message Canadian diplomats hoped to convey when the embassy hosted a reception in honour of the Devil’s Brigade, a group of Canadian and American elite commandos who served together in the Second World War.

Similarly, the embassy “disguised an intense fitness workout” featuring P90X creator Tony Horton last September to highlight the strength and readiness of Canada’s military, according to the documents.

“Sprinkled throughout will be a strong visual of Canada’s military men and women who are dedicated to physical and mental well-being. There will be reminders of our evolving role in Afghanistan and our partnerships with other countries to engage in hot spots worldwide.”

The embassy also donated several P90X workout videos to the Washington, D.C., school system, which officials said would reinforce the priorities of both governments, namely Michelle Obama’s exercise campaign and Health Canada’s fight against child obesity.

The total cost of the event was $1,500.

The vast trading relationship between Canada and the United States, as well as the integrated nature of the two countries’ economies, also featured prominently in the diplomatic events.

This included VIP receptions held to mark the opening of an exhibit on Canada’s 50 years in space as well as visits by the National Ballet of Canada and Cirque du Soleil, all of which were seen as an opportunity for Canadian diplomats to talk trade.

Trade was also the impetus behind the Stampede visit, which also included a tour of beef and cattle operations in a bid to eliminate a new rule that would require Canadian beef and other agricultural products to be labelled.

That tour cost $28,852, though the number of participants was not indicated.

Canadian Taxpayer Federation president Gregory Thomas said he would like to see a line-by-line tally for the events to ensure “they weren’t doing the job in a way that was lavish or unseemly and makes you want to shake your head.”

But he also said selling Canada is an essential objective for the federal government and Canadian diplomats, and that he supports activities that go towards meeting that goal.

“When you see the way Canadian industries like the oilsands are misrepresented on the world stage,” Thomas said, “obviously Canadians have to push back against that kind of thing and our diplomats abroad have a tough job.”

A number of other countries, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom and even China have dedicated agencies devoted to public diplomacy efforts.

Former Canadian diplomat Daryl Copeland, who has written a book on new ways of doing diplomacy, said Canada used to be a leader when it came to public diplomacy but has fallen behind the pack under the Conservative government.

Some Canadian diplomats have also quietly complained that the government is muzzling them when they are working abroad, which Copeland said undercuts the potential benefits of activities that are undertaken by embassies.

PAFSO Strike

      Comments Off on PAFSO Strike

Experts divided over foreign service strike’s impact on Canada’s brand Provided by iPolitics

By | Jul 29, 2013

As the foreign service strike intensifies, experts are divided on the overall impact of the union’s job actions on Canada’s image abroad.

The Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers (PAFSO) has been in a legal strike position since April 2 and without a contract since June 2011. The union is demanding equal pay for equal work because some junior diplomats earn up to $14,000 less than colleagues doing the same work in Ottawa.

The union has taken job action over the past two months, including targeted rotating strikes and picketing at major Canadian missions. The effects of the strike have been felt around the world, especially by frustrated visa applicants.

However, the impact of the strike on Canada’s international stature is a topic for debate among Canadian foreign policy experts.

For Andrew Cohen, an Ottawa-based columnist and author of While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World, the strike has reflected badly on the Canadian government.

“There’s been a great deal of skepticism about how this government has treated diplomats and how we treaty diplomacy,” he said.

Cohen said there’s a long history of foreign service officers being underpaid in comparison to their equivalents who work as economists and lawyers in the public service. He highlighted the fact that most PAFSO members have at least two university degrees, speak two or more languages and carry impressive resumes — something that should be reflected in their compensation. Despite the stereotype of diplomats wining and dining in swanky restaurants and homes abroad, many foreign service officers live in modest, sometimes dangerous, conditions without fair compensation for the compromises they make, he said.

The Treasury Board begs to differ. It said the union has been presented with a fair offer and highlighted some of the perks, known as Foreign Service Directives, members are entitled to. These include a reimbursement of up to 50 per cent for dry cleaning expenses, the shipment of personal vehicles and household items to a diplomat’s posting, and a foreign service incentive allowance recognizing the challenges associated with living abroad.

But Cohen said he thinks the Treasury Board’s “stubborn” attitude reflects more than just a refusal to entertain PAFSO’s demands for equal pay.

“Does this simply reflect a distaste for not just public servants but particularly diplomats? And is it playing to a public sense that these are pampered, spoiled public servants who wander around at cocktail parties and sip sherry in tuxedos, in leather back chairs and have a view of diplomacy from the 1940s,” said Cohen. “I think when you talk to foreign officers today, that’s not so at all.”

Cohen, a loud critic of Canada’s “pinch-penny diplomacy” and foreign policy, said the government’s inability to come to an agreement with its own diplomats simply adds to the country’s “diminishing” international image, which, in the past, has been fueled by its lack of involvement at the world stage. He cited Canada’s recent withdrawal from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and its failure to win a UN Security Council seat in 2010.

“I think it makes us look like a smaller, more parochial place that really cares less and less about its stature in the world,” said Cohen.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s Press Secretary Rick Roth said he rejects the “assumption” that the strike has affected Canada’s image abroad.

“Canadian diplomats are still working around the world standing up for Canadian interests and values – and Canada’s stellar reputation reflects this ongoing work,” he said in an email.

While other experts agree the PAFSO strike has affected Canada’s reputation, they question how far-reaching that effect has been.

Former Canadian ambassador Paul Heinbecker said the communities affected by the strike, such as students, visitors, business people and immigrants applying for Canadian visas, are probably more likely to rethink Canada’s image.

“With those particular communities, it affects the image of Canada. Will it affect the image of Canada with the man in the street? Probably not,” said Heinbecker. “It affirms that Canada is a difficult country to get into, … arbitrary and unpredictable.”

Daryl Copeland, who worked as a Canadian diplomat for 30 years, serving on the PAFSO executive, said the strike has probably not done any long-term damage to the Canadian brand because the “boutique union” represents such a small portion of the Canadian federal public service. But he also said the strike hasn’t exactly improved Canada’s image.

“I think it would be safe to say that it’s unlikely to have burnished the reputation because it’s caused undoubtedly some people inconvenience,” said Copeland.

Former PAFSO President Colin Robertson, who served as a foreign service offer from 1977 to 2010, said he believes the union’s demands are legitimate, but completely rejected the notion that the strike has damaged the Canadian brand.

“I think if you asked anybody abroad and said did you know the Canadian foreign service is on strike? They would look at you like you’re on Mars,” said Robertson.

Putting questions of Canada’s image aside, Robertson said the strike is definitely having an impact in a way the union and Treasury Board probably never expected — on the Canadian economy.

According to PAFSO President Tim Edwards, rotating strikes involving immigration officers have resulted in a 60 to 65 per cent drop in visa issuance in targeted missions and a 25 per cent drop system wide. Canada’s tourism, education and business sectors have especially felt the effects of delayed visa issuance.

The longer the strike continues, the more Canada will lose, said Robertson. For instance, if a visa applicant applies to Canada and doesn’t get their visa in time, they will start to look — and take their ambition, knowledge and money — elsewhere.

“If they can’t get to Canada, they say, ‘Alright I’ll go to the States, Australia, Europe.’ They get an experience there but they don’t get the experience in Canada. That’s not just a cost in tourism, that’s a cost in opportunity and investment.”

While experts agree on the impact of the strike on the Canadian economy, it remains unclear how the strike has affected the business of government.

In an email statement last week, PAFSO said the union’s job actions have contributed to the cancellation or postponement of more than a dozen cabinet-level visits or trip segments since mid-May, including trips to the U.S., Middle East and Asia. It did not elaborate on which specific visits were affected. However, Baird’s office had a firm response to the union’s claim — zero trips have been affected. Both sides continue to stick to their guns.

As of Monday, the strike was ongoing. Following an offer from PAFSO to enter into third-party binding arbitration, Treasury Board agreed under conditions — something that baffled Heinbecker.

“It sounds like the government is trying to negotiate the arbitration, in order words setting preconditions to the arbitration, which would defeat the purpose of the arbitration. If that’s what’s going on, then it’s bad faith by the government,” said Heinbecker.

After nearly a week of negotiation between the striking foreign service and Treasury Board, an attempt to reach an agreement to enter binding arbitration failed Friday, leading diplomats to move ahead with walks outs at fifteen of Canada’s largest visa processing centres. As the two sides continue to argue over who brought the attempt to arbitrate to a halt, the negotiation process seems to have come to a standstill.

Until an agreement is reached, the union said there will be no change in PAFSO’s job actions, including rotating strikes and picketing. Experts agree that the longer the strike continues, the more Canada risks tarnishing its image at home and abroad.