Canadian Foreign Policy with Conrad Black

To contact us Click HERE




It is natural for Canadians tothink that their foreign policy as a minor side show under the shadow anddirect leadership of the USA.  Yet that has never been true. Historically Canada has been able to often do what the USA could not and be well ahead of Washington on manyimportant decisions. 
I expect current Canadian policytoward Israelas decisive and important and it turns out even timely.  The newly emergent Arab political consensusmust reach a satisfactory settlement with Israeland all others are either self excluded or tainted as is the USA.
The next three years will see oilpipelines to the East Coast and the West Coast established on a priority basishowever quickly the Keystone pipeline is approved.  This will allow Canadato secure markets in SE Asia and the EasternSeaboard.
Canada dumped gold as a reserve along time ago for good reason.  We produce ample gold to start with and in fact present pricing is now generating acceleration in gold production.  At the same time arevolution in underground mining technology is upon us and a huge number of depositswill come on line.  Even US productionis hugely Canadian owned or was at least.
Gold is a commodity thatsatisfies human hoarding instincts.  Itis now been produced on a scale never contemplated because of this.
Otherwise, our policy towardemerging nations is typically targeted and surprise, surprise is also activelyreviewed.  We no longer are prepared to send hand outs to assuage a false sense of guilt or some such argument.  Obviously some do not like this.
Conrad Black: A foreign policy for an ascendant Canada
Conrad Black | Feb 9, 2013 
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/09/conrad-black-a-foreign-policy-for-an-ascendant-canada/
In May, I will be publishing a book about the history of the strategicpolicies that guided the United States from its colonial status prior to the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) to the achievement of absolute global paramountcy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. (The factthat the subsequent years have been less successful takes nothing from theastonishing and almost uninterrupted rise of that country prior to the collapseof the U.S.S.R.)
This has put me in a receptive mood for the Canadian defence and publicpolicy think-tanks that occasionally ask me for my opinion about Canada’s stance in contemporary international relations. In general, I think the Harper government has been commendably hard-headed on a variety of fronts but perhaps overly cautious on others.
On climate change, for instance, the Harper government has been cautious about hurling itself into the deep end of carbon taxes and the like (in contrast to former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, who came close to infringing animal-cruelty laws by naming the family dog “Kyoto,” after the farcical accord agreed to in that Japanese city). Most Canadians support Mr. Harper’s approach, but his lack of environmental bona fides is a constant subject of attack by liberal media and activists.
The same can be said of the Harper government’s policy regarding the Middle East. Non-governmental opinion, andapparently that of many officials within the Foreign Relations and NationalDefence departments also, seems to oppose the government’s pro-Israeli policy,and to purport to believe that Canada has lost influence in theArab world. But it is a complete chimera that Canada ever had anyinfluence in the Arab world, and only the occasional tourist buying carpets in the soukh is all the proverbial Arab street would know of Canada.
Canada has acquired some influence with Israel.But more importantly, Stephen Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird have takena position that is moral and courageous. The fact is that Israel should not negotiate with anyone who doesnot accept the right of Israelto exist as a Jewish state. All those who claim to favour the return toIsrael of sufficient numbers of allegedly displaced Palestinians and theirdescendants to swamp the Jewish population of Israel are just as much, if moresubtly, advocating the extermination of the state of Israel as those who wishto obliterate it militarily.
Israel was legitimately constituted as a Jewishstate by the United Nations in 1948, and was prepared to live within theborders it was then given. The Arab powers went to war in 1948 to strangle thenascent Jewish state, just three years after the liberation of the Nazi deathcamps that murdered half of the world’s Jewish population (six million Jews, aswell as six million non-Jews). The same powers went back to war in 1967 tocrush Israel, and lost again, yet now claim an absolute right to return to the1967 borders, and to object to the construction of settlements anywhere in theWest Bank territories that Israel occupied in that war. This construction isthe only pressure Israel canassert to persuade even the Palestinians to accept the legitimacy of Israel as aJewish state, albeit with borders still to be determined.
As Israel has demonstrated in Gaza and Sinai that it will uprootsettlers to achieve a durable peace, those who rankle at Canada’s policyshould reconsider their fantasy that Canada would have any influence with theArabs if it aligned its position against Israel. It would merely be joining theranks of witless dupes in Europe and Africawho echo or acquiesce in the anti-Semitic blood libels of the United Nations.As I have written here and elsewhere before, the Palestinians are entitledto a viable state (to which they may return), but not to a blank cheque from the world to violate every agreement they make with Israel as they have Oslo. The Harper-Baird foreign policycorrectly reflects this.
There also seem to be reservations in politically fashionable circles about the comparative recent de-emphasis in Canadian aid to Africa in favour of aid to Latin America. But surely officialpolicy is correct. Latin America has made much swifter and more uniformprogress than Africa in recent years, and is in our hemisphere where we can make common cause much more easily and plausibly than with the polyglot Babel of 53 African states.
Most of Latin America has even reached the level of political maturityof being able to preserve democracy after electing a leftist government (as in Uruguay, Hondurasand possibly even Venezuelaand even Nicaragua).As a member of the Organization of American States, Canada can work with thesensible Latin American countries and provide a salubrious influenceindependently of the historically uneven positions taken by the United States ina region that it essentially considered an American suzerainty under the MonroeDoctrine from the 1820s until recently.
If America’sleaders will not seriously attack demand for drugs in their own country, theyshouldn’t expect neighbours to fight the ‘drug war’ for them
There does seem to be a slowly bubbling consensus in official and foreign policy establishment circles to propose reform of international institutions, especially NATO and the United Nations. Canada, as I have noted before, is well-qualified to do this.
There is also some enthusiasm for another complete review of foreign,defence and trade policy in Canada. Such a review should result in a defence policy that was less dependent on passive confidence that the U.S.national interest would require that country to include Canada under its defence umbrella as if it werepart of the United States.Such a policy has not been entirely reliable since the end of the Cold War, asthe two countries, though natural allies, do not have identical interests.
We should join a continental missile defence system, but we should alsoencourage the Latin Americans not to reduce themselves to Civil War in supportof the insane American “war on drugs” (which the United States has lost). If theUnited States will not seriously attack demand for drugs in its own middle andupper classes, as opposed to just trolling through poor African-Americandistricts and imprisoning a half-million of their inhabitants each year, andwill not use the world’s greatest national military forces to assure their ownborders in adequate numbers to avoid stifling legitimate commerce and tourism,it should not expect its neighbours to do it for them.
Canada should explore defence consortia with foreign groups, especially in regard to the acquisition of war planes; and if we stick with the F-35 fighter, we should ensure that we derive benefit from its production. There is no economic stimulus as effective and benign as national defence, nor any adult education program as effective as the Armed Forces.
Canada will raise its influence in the world and its nationalself-confidence with a larger and more capable military, including some navalvessels that show the flag proudly. (We could show a little more panache withuniforms also.)
There are two other areas that need immediate attention.
In energy, we must complete the oil pipeline to the Eastern provinces at once. It is insanity for the eastern half of our petroleum-richcountry to import oil at a cost substantially above what we receive for much ofour own Western oil exports.
And the Bank of Canada should stop accumulating U.S. dollars (whichas a matter of American policy are being steadily devalued), and shouldaggressively stockpile gold, which is certain to increase in value over timeand of which our current reserves, in a gold-producing country, are 84th in theworld, on a par with Mozambique and Sri Lanka, and only 1/13th of our U.S.dollar reserves.
Successive governors of the Bank of Canada prior to Mark Carney soldhundreds of tons of gold at prices that were clearly disadvantageous. This toois insanity, and insanity rarely is effective as national strategic policy.
It is not a flattering comment on Parliament and the media that thepublic policy debate on some of these issues has not been more enlightening.