Why John Baird May be the Best Choice as Foreign Affairs Minister

Aztec legend spoke of a great god, named Quetzalcoatl, who was bearded, ugly, dressed in black with silver armour. It was predicted that he would arrive on their shores on a particular day, to destroy them all.

As luck would have it, the butcher Hernando Cortez, arrived on the very day in 1519, with his group of "fair-skinned bearded strangers", prompting Emperor Montezuma II, out of fear, to offer great riches and hospitality, hoping to spare himself and his people.

I don't know if there are any ancient legends predicting that a loud mouthed buffoon, would arrive one day demanding riches, but given Canada's current foreign policy, that is exactly what is going to happen.

In his book Imperialist Canada, Todd Gordon speaks of the systematic plundering of the Third World, and Canada's role in it.

Just like the other major capitalist powers, Canadian capital is driven by a logic of expansion. The insatiable drive to seek out new markets and territories in which to accumulate wealth in the capitalist game of survival of the fittest drives it deeper into sovereign indigenous lands within its borders and increasingly beyond its own borders. This expansionary process is made possible by the aggressive policies of the Canadian state.

... Driving Canadian foreign policy, for instance, is the goal of creating the conditions for the successful international expansion of Canadian corporations, at the heart of which is forcibly opening up the markets and resources of the Global South. The list of options in its imperialist toolkit is varied, as I will show, and includes both bilateral and multilateral (with its imperial partners) policies. Canada actively pursues one-sided trade and investment agreements with poor countries, forcibly liberalizes markets in the South through International Monetary Fund-imposed structural adjustment policies, ignores flagrant human rights violations committed in defence of Canadian investments and is pouring increasingly large sums of money into the development of a military with the capability to project its power abroad. (1)

This explains the purchase of the F-35s, deemed unsuitable for the Arctic.

When the 2010 budget was brought down, David MacDonald of the Canadian Centre for Policy, questioned our "Foreign Policy shift"

... Canada is cutting foreign aid and increasing spending on expensive military equipment. "Our foreign policy is moving more toward combat military operations and away from the kind of reconstruction operations that are really what's necessary ... The question going forward is once Afghanistan ends, what are we going to do with these choppers?" (2)

Our foreign policy is no longer about protecting human rights or providing needed assistance, but about bullying smaller nations into allowing us to exploit their natural resources and labour force.

There is no bright side to Canadian investment in the South. It is accomplished by displacing indigenous people and poor peasants from their land (to get at mineral and oil deposits, for example), destroying ecosystems and ruthlessly exploiting the sweat labour of typically poor women in the region's export processing zones, where workers' rights are minimal if they exist at all. We can also add to this the steep burden of debt obligations Third World governments are forced to pay Canadian banks, money which otherwise could go to social programs for their own citizens. The significant increase in corporate earnings in the Third World, in other words, is happening on the backs of some of the world's most vulnerable people; it is matched by a corresponding increase in displacement and misery. (1)

Researcher Ellen Gould also spoke of Canada's new aggressive foreign policy.

On the international stage, Canada is a major proponent of financial liberalization. At the WTO, Canada heads a group of delegations pressing developing countries to open their economies to the supposedly superior services of foreign financial institutions. ... The enormity of what's at stake in the WTO financial sector negotiations is revealed in a February 2006 bargaining request sent from Canada's Department of Finance to developing countries. Canada asked that foreign financial institutions be guaranteed rights to "establish new and acquire existing companies" in all financial sectors. This would mean among other things that countries would have to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of their banks and insurance companies. (3)

Of course much of this is being done under the guise of "spreading democracy", even after many American groups realized that this spreading of democracy was no longer as profitable as it once was.

In December of 2009, Michael Allen from the University of California wrote:

Canada is poised to set up a new democracy assistance organization, based on the experience and structures of existing foundations, but reflecting distinctively Canadian characteristics and priorities. A proposal has been tabled in the House of Commons, with legislation likely to follow next month, to form a Canadian Centre for Advancing Democracy, funded by an annual parliamentary appropriation of $30-70 million. A new poll by the US-based Council on Foreign Relations suggests that supporting democracy has fallen out of favor with the US foreign policy elite. (3)

The Harper government will appropriate 30-70 million a year to spread "democracy", whether recipients of all this democracy like it or not.

So given Canada's new aggressive foreign policy, fast becoming the Third World's bully, John Baird is a perfect choice to act as the "enforcer".

While Canadians may be left dealing with Montezuma's revenge.

Continuation:

Friedman's Gold and Argentina

A Harper Majority and the Future of the FTAA

Sources:

1. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 9-13

2. Straight Goods, March, 2010

3. The "D" Word out of Favour? Don't Tell the Canadians, By Michael Allen, December 2009

European Diplomat Says Harper Should Remain Silent

A very good piece in the Edmonton Journal by a former Canadian diplomat: Harper has no business bragging about his foreign policy

The prime minister's laudatory remarks about his government's foreign policy performance are completely at variance with its dubious and dismal record on the world stage. Some less charitable souls would describe Canadian foreign policy under Harper's ideologically driven views as an outright disaster, a complete reversal of the stellar role Canada once enjoyed in promoting sound and responsible policies on a wide range of important issues.

How does Harper get away with making these statement and few in the media challenge him? Like the ads that Canada is walking tall, when in fact we're cowering in the corner now, hoping no one sees us.

Some Canadian travelers are sewing American flags on their caps and backpacks.

Good turnout at the advance polls today, so let's keep our fingers crossed that the opposition gets enough seats to oust him.

If the Agenda is Hidden in Plain Sight Why Can it Not be Seen?

There is one item in the Conservative platform that has gone largely unnoticed during this campaign, but may be one of the most important.

It is the establishment of an office of religious freedom in the Department of Foreign Affairs. What does this mean?

In an oft quoted speech to the right-wing Civitas Society, in 2003:

... he [Stephen Harper] outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. The only route, he argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or “neo-cons,” as they’d become known, but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence ...Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ..." (1)

Many believe, and I have no doubt that they are right, that if given a majority, Harper will criminalize abortion and end gay marriage. But putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments, for holy purposes, is far more alarming.

And adding this to the Conservative platform, is clearly a call out to what he referred to as 'Theocons', to get him his majority, where their wish will be his command. Many have been disillusioned with his failure to legislate their agenda. This may be their last best chance.

Yesterday Jonathon Malloy had an op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail: Hidden in plain sight: The Tory evangelical factor

There are many statements made by Mr. Malloy that need to be addressed, beginning with this one: "A prominent Ottawa journalist I consulted said it’s “just a sop to ethnic communities.” But the proposal’s greater impact is among millions of suburban white evangelical Christians, many of whom consider religious freedom a bigger issue than same-sex marriage or abortion."

So this was written for "suburban white evangelical Christians"? It's not about "religious freedoms" at all.

Malloy referred also to the "Coptic Christians in a key Mississauga swing riding", something the media believes that this is all about. I'm familiar with that story, and unfortunately, as is often the case, we only heard one side.

First off, I want to say that what happened to the Coptics was horrible. Six Coptic Christians were murdered in the Egyptian village of Nag Hamadi, sparking riots, and the violence continues today.

However, in situations like this a proper investigation must take place, and before we go in with guns blazing, all diplomatic avenues must first be exhausted.

According to professor of political sociology at the American University of Cairo, Said Sadek, the incident is part of a broader tribal culture, where sex is used as a weapon. And the murder of the Coptic Christians was retaliation for the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Muslim girl.

In fact a local bishop confirmed that some of his parishioners had received phone calls and threats alleging that Muslims "will avenge the rape of the girl during the Christmas celebrations."

When a rally was held in Toronto to raise awareness to the plight of the Coptics in Egypt, one attended by the Conservative MP Bob Dechert in the "swing riding" of Mississauga, the rhetoric revealed something else.

A Syrian Christian woman told me, "I'm sorry, but white people have to wake up." ... with so many Muslims in Toronto, she has to deal with them as part of her job. When her ignorant Canadian boss told her she had to be nice to them, she said she would be polite but he couldn't make her like them. She said Muslims will be pleasant and get along when they are a minority but, when there are enough of them in the country, they will become forceful and insist on Sharia law.

Yet many who come to Canada, do so to escape that kind of oppression.

It is very dangerous to establish foreign policy that could incite hatred at home. We must demand an explanation from Mr. Harper. What is the intent of this new office established to appease "suburban white Evangelical Christians"?

Malloy also says: "Canadian evangelicals pray regularly for “house churches” in China and other secretive Christian gatherings. One best-selling evangelical book, God’s Smuggler, is about a Dutchman who transported Bibles across the Iron Curtain in his car during the Cold War."

So this is about proselytizing, not rescuing. Something the Geneva Convention forbids. Yet guns have been found, many used by our soldiers, that have scripture engraved into the gun barrels. And Christian groups are pushing for more Bibles in Afghanistan.

We need to pay attention to this people. This is not what one journalist called “just a sop to ethnic communities".

And While We're at it, Let's Cut the Stockwell Day Nonsense

Malloy attacks the Liberals for abandoning Evangelicals, once again bringing up the Stockwell Day incident, when he stated that man roamed with dinosaurs.

Many of the attacks against Day came from within his own party, and they were far worse than humming the Flintstones theme and presenting him with a stuffed Barney doll.

During the 2000 Alliance leadership race when Day was running against Preston Manning, the race became a small holy war. Both men were Evangelical, but Day had created a small army of Crusaders:

Within the religious community, Families for Day was no doubt his strongest supporter. Created by Ron Beyer (head of the Calgary-based Canadian Family Action Coalition) and Garry Rohr .. Families for Day organized an E-mail campaign to sign up new members. Beyer claimed the organization signed up at least 6,000 new party members who voted for Day on the first ballot—approximately the margin of Day's lead over Manning ... (2)

This prompted Manning's team to accuse Day of creating a cult and saying that there was a "Jim Jones Kool-Aid" thing going on. (3) One of Day's people, John Carpay fired back: "I'm upset at the negative campaigning, but I hold Preston Manning responsible. He wears a fake halo and pretends to be innocent. It's rather sickening." (4)

So let's see. A Barney doll or being compared to a cult leader. I can't decide which is more offensive.

Then during the Alliance leadership race in 2002, between Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper, another holy war took place.

One thing is for certain. This is going to be a dirty campaign--perhaps even nastier than in 2000, when the Tom Long campaign was accused of being a homosexual coven and Mr. Day was compared to mass murderer Jim Jones. And despite Mr. Harper's promise to avoid personal attacks--a promise made also by Mr. Day--it was his campaign that drew first blood. (5)

And after holding a "secret" rally at Briercrest Christian college, Harper accused Day of exploiting religion.

Stockwell Day yesterday continued to seek support from evangelical Christians with a barely publicized campaign stop at Canada's largest Bible college, even as one of his opponents warned the Canadian Alliance leadership race risks being "perverted" by a single-interest group. Mr. Day held a campaign rally at Briercrest Bible College in Caronport, Sask., an event that attracted hundreds and was not included in the public itinerary posted on the candidate's Web site. He campaigned earlier in the day at the evangelical Victory Church in Moose Jaw, Sask.

... Mr. Harper went public with concerns that Mr. Day is appealing to a narrow base of religious groups -- including orthodox Jews, Pentecostals and anti-abortion Catholics -- in a bid to regain the leadership post he was forced to relinquish late last year. (6)

And yet he is now doing the same thing, allowing a "narrow base" to dictate not only domestic, but foreign policy.

This is why you can't mix religion and politics. And this is why you must separate Church and State. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all religions. But then Stephen Harper never liked our Charter.

Everyone needs to be protected from violence, based on not only their religious beliefs, but their gender, colour and race. Singling out protection only for Christians who are trying to 'convert' the world, is not something we should be involved in.

But how do we get the media to start paying attention and stop cheering for a Harper majority? It's a puzzle. For Stephen Harper it's all about power and he'll do whatever it takes to hold onto it, including the exploitation of religion and culture.

So again, on May 2, vote and vote wisely. It may be our only hope.

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, By Marci McDonald, Walrus Magazine, October 2006

2. Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics, By Trevor Harrison, Black Rose Books, 2002, ISBN: 1-55164-206-9, Pg. 52

3. Harrison, 2002, Pg. 63

4. Manning Backer Drops Bid to Woo Social Conservatives, National Post, July 5, 2000

5. Strange Alliances, By Kevin Michael Grace, Report Newsmagazine, February 04, 2002

6. Day slips into Bible college for Rally, By S. Alberts, National Post, February 13, 2002

Why Our Foreign Policy Should Not be Left to Children

If there has been one area where Stephen Harper has failed Canada the most, it's been in our foreign policy. He's managed to reverse decades of diplomatic accomplishments that made Canada a leader in peace brokering.

This week Bob Rae exposed what many already knew. That our foreign policy is now being directed by Harper's backroom boys:

"If they can't control it, if the 25-year-old jihadis in the prime minister's office can't control it, it doesn't happen, and that's what's wrong about this government ... "Our ambassadors overseas ... are not allowed to comment on anything, ever, without first referring anything they might say or could say, to be approved by people in the prime minister's office," Rae said." People in the prime minister's office have probably never been to the country in question, they don't know anything about it, probably in some cases could not find it on a map, and they're the ones who are deciding these people who have been in the field for 30 years are going to be able to do their jobs.

And yet unbelievably the topic for discussion on Power and Politics, was whether or not Rae went too far in calling these little rats 'Jihadis', instead of what it means to our security, when 25-year-old staffers, who probably could not find a country in question on a map, are directing our foreign policy.

This is why I can't watch Canadian political commentary shows. I envision people like Solomon, before the show, getting hooked up to a brain cell zapper, like the gizmos you'd see on old television programs. A colander on his head with wires protruding from every hole and smoke blowing out of his ears. It's the only explanation.

The Language of Protocol

When in opposition, Stephen Harper said of our diplomats, that they spent "too much time clinking glasses at cocktail parties", clearly not understanding the importance of not only "cocktail parties", but meeting foreign leaders on a social level.

When Sonja Sinclair wrote the biography of longtime Canadian diplomat, George Ignatieff (yes, Michael Ignatieff's father), she quoted his views on the importance of protocol and of course socializing.

"... protocol is really a language, a set of rules and conventions which enable people of different nationalities, social backgrounds, and political persuasions to feel comfortable with each other, to avoid embarrassing situations, even to enjoy each other's company." (1)

In a political discussion group last night, one of the members spoke of "respect". Respecting that the citizens of another country are just as important as the citizens of your own. And that is what diplomats try to do. To meet people at their level.

Harper's backroom boys are only concerned with the political leverage. How it will advance the party's fortunes at home. Diplomacy is not part of the agenda.

So when the Harper government drastically cut the social budget of the diplomatic corp, they were naturally upset, with such a simple minded action.

The reduced spending, which reflects restraint measures taken last year, has sparked criticism from one of several retired senior diplomats who have accused the Harper government recently of not respecting the importance of cultivating social relationships with key officials and politicians in foreign capitals. Paul Heinbecker, former ambassador to the United Nations, said chaining diplomats to their desks means the huge cost of establishing and running embassies abroad is squandered.

Now I realize that members of Harper's base, after learning of this, probably pulled the straw out of their teeth long enough for a "'bout bloody time!" and applauded the cost cutting measures. But what are we losing in the long term? Far more than just a seat on the UN Security Council.

In Embassy this week, on the editorial page, they spoke of the Bev Oda affair and it's implications.

The Bev Oda scandal will not endear CIDA to its detractors—including a prime minister and Conservative government who view the agency as a nuisance staffed by granola-eating hippies and lazy NGOs feeding off the system. (2)

How do you build from that? Our NGOs already live in fear that their funding could be cut at any moment. They are the people on the ground, trying to feed the world's poor and keep them safe. Those who "respect" the value of all of the world's inhabitants.

They now talk softly and carry a big picture of Stephen Harper. It appears to be the only thing that keeps them in business.

Pollster Nik Nanos this week suggested that Michael Ignatieff missed an opportunity to write his own narrative, allowing the Conservatives to write it for him, with their "just visiting" ads.

I think a good example of Michael Ignatieff the man, and how he views the world, comes from his book 'Blood and Belonging.' As the son of a career diplomat, he has travelled extensively, meeting world leaders, and "clinking glasses". But when working as a war correspondent, he interviewed war lords, peasants and soldiers alike.

Contrast that to Stephen Harper who never even had a passport before he became prime minister.

I've read Blood and Belonging three times, and one of my favourite passages deals with batons, of all the crazy things. When Ignatieff visited the grave of former Yugoslav president, Josip Tito (Michael's father was the Ambassador to Yugoslavia, from 1956-1958), he wrote of Tito and those seemingly meaningless pieces of wood.

He liked greenhouses. So he built himself a greenhouse. He used to rest there, among the poinsettias and the cactuses, like an old lizard in the sun. Now they have buried him in the greenhouse, in front of his residence in Belgrade. There is a large white marble slab, with bronze lettering which reads Josip Broz Tito, 1892-1980.

No one much visits any more, and the place is neglected. On the day I visit it is raining, and rain is dripping from a broken skylight on to the Marshal's grave. Nobody cares.

On his birthday in 1945, some teenagers ran a relay race from Kragujevac to Belgrade and presented him with a baton. Every year of his reign, the 'youth' of Yugoslavia repeated that race, and at the end of it they presented the old dictator with the relay batons. His birthday became 'Youth Day'. Twenty thousand batons are kept in the museum next to his grave. Nobody visits the batons any more. (3)

Those objects might not mean much to the casual observer, other than in why there are so many, but they once meant something to the people who grew up in the former Yugoslavia under Tito. They are part of their heritage, good or bad. Michael Ignatieff was able to give life to those batons.

This is not a hero worship for me. I don't expect to agree with all of his actions when he's prime minister. In fact I can guarantee that I won't.

And I don't expect him to have all the answers.

But in another huge difference between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper. At least we will be allowed to ask the questions.

Sources:

1. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0, Pg. 62

2. ANOTHER NAIL IN CIDA’S COFFIN? Embassy Magazine, February 23, 2011, Pg. 6

3. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, By Michael Ignatieff, Vintage Press, 1994, ISBN: 0-09-938951-7, Pg. 38

Roméo Dallaire: They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children

"We will stay to bear witness to what the world doesn't want to see" - Roméo Dallaire.

I read Dallaire's book: Shake Hands With Devil about the genocide in Rwanda, and it not only broke my heart but left me with a profound admiration for this man.

When Stephen Harper secretly rewrote our foreign policy, forbidding our foreign service from using terms like "child soldier", "gender equality" and "humanitarian", it had a far reaching effect.

According to Adrian Bradbury:

The terms "gender equality," "child soldiers," "international humanitarian law," "good governance," "human security," "public diplomacy" and "The Responsibility to Protect" have been blacklisted from government parlance ....These terms were once championed by Canada, are in wide use around the world, and represent a wide range of international norms and precedent.

Make no mistake, these semantic changes represent fundamental shifts to Canadian foreign policy. Each of the banned or altered terms carry with it significant policy implications, most related to the international human rights agenda. For example, when speaking of the war in the DRC, where upwards of 3 million people have been killed, and rape is widely used as a tool of war, the terms "impunity" and "justice" can no longer be used when calling for an end to, and punishment for, sexual violence.

Roméo Dallaire has written another book: They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children, in which he lambastes our shift in foreign policy and our attitude toward child soldiers, including Omar Khadr. Expect Dimitri Soudas to come with head spinning and eyes bulging, condemning Dallaire as another liberal hack.

But we have got to start listening to these people. They know. They have seen this first hand.

Michael Ignatieff travelled to Rwanda as a war correspondent with Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and saw the carnage. He wrote:

"Stretched out on the floor are row upon row of dust-coloured skeletons in rags. A dirty light slants across femurs, ankles, hipbones, shoulder joints, teeth, skulls. No flesh remains. There’s no smell of putrefaction. The clothing has faded to the colour of ash. Boutros-Ghali shuts his eyes and quietly mutters, ‘Everywhere we work, we are struggling against a culture of death."

Maybe these are harsh realities, but the country formerly known as Canada, used to care about these things. Apparently we no longer give a damn.

Geoffrey York wrote in the Globe recently: Peacekeeping passes Canada by

For nearly 40 years, Canada was one of the top UN mission contributors. By the 1990s, more than 50,000 Canadian soldiers had become peacekeepers - more than any other nation. A poll found that 69 per cent of Canadians considered peacekeeping "a defining characteristic of Canada."

What defines us now? Guns? Prisons? Gangs? If you listened to Harper you would certainly think so.

Peter Langille says: Don’t write off the future of peacekeeping

The enduring loyalty of Canadians to United Nations peacekeeping should not be treated – as it often is these days – as an unwanted remnant of the past. Canadians are correct in believing that peacekeeping has a vital role to play in the increasingly challenging world of global conflict.

If you read Lawrence Martin's book, Harperland, you'd know that Stephen Harper views our foreign policy as a "clash of civilizations" and believes he's equipped to lead us into battle because he once talked to his friend about the Cold War.

"Peace" is not in his vocabulary.

I wish Stephen Harper wasn't in mine.

Michael Ignatieff believes that Harper has burned bridges abroad

In a major foreign-policy speech on Tuesday in Montreal, Ignatieff says that Canada’s failure to obtain a seat on the United Nations Security Council should be a wake-up call about the country’s dwindling reputation abroad.

“The world forced us to look in the mirror and we don’t like what we see,” Ignatieff says, calling the UN rebuff a “clear condemnation” of the way the Harper government has conducted its politics abroad.

And Linda McQuaig believes that the UN snub could haunt Conservatives

Redesigning Canada’s role in the world has been one of the key changes attempted by the Conservatives. They’ve spent years trying to sell Canadians on a new narrative — about Canada as a nation that keenly shoulders heavy burdens in real wars, having shaken off that girlie peacekeeping stuff. Harper-era TV ads for the Canadian Forces have shunned peacekeeping images and instead urged young Canadians to “fight chaos; fight terror; fight with the Canadian Forces.”

But this attempt to repackage us as a warrior nation has always been a top-down effort, orchestrated by Conservatives and our military establishment, not a grassroots yearning among Canadians for a more muscular role in the world. Indeed, exactly the opposite has been the case.

Is she right? I hope so, because I don't like where this country is headed.

The Politics of Insecurity: Diplomacy and Clinking Glasses

During WWII, when Vincent Massey was high Commissioner in London, his personal assistant* wondered what was the sense of all the protocol. Bombs were going off around them and he was expected to pay attention to the smallest details.

But what he learned from Massey was:

"... that protocol is really a language, a set of rules and conventions which enable people of different nationalities, social backgrounds, and political persuasions to feel comfortable with each other, to avoid embarrassing
situations, even to enjoy each other's company." (1)

So while we can scoff at the formal and ceremonial aspects of diplomacy, what we need to understand is that an important component of diplomacy is respect, and that includes respecting another nation's customs and their leaders.

I'm still reading Lawrence Martin's Harperland, and I don't quite know what to think of it. It's filled with contradictions.

Being billed as explosive before it's release, I'm finding much of it is excusatory. Martin brings out a lot of the more irrational components of Harper's character, but then will seemingly go out of his way to excuse them.

I never expected the book to be anti-Harper, and would have been disappointed if there was no balance. But while Martin flippantly highlights Harper's extensive use of profanity, that will only shock the Religious Right, who once believed he was an Evangelist; he glosses over the areas that should be shocking to all Canadians, since they have a profound effect on our future.

And the most important one is foreign policy.

When Stephen Harper dismisses our diplomats as "glass clinkers", Martin agrees. I found that quite alarming.

The book does take note of our prime minister's inexperience in foreign affairs, but then claims that because he talked about the Cold War with a friend, that made up for it. I talk about a lot of things with friends. It doesn't make me an expert on any of them.

And to top it off, no one in his caucus was any better prepared.

Given that, you would think that they would then turn to the diplomats. The ones who not only learned foreign languages but also the language of protocol. The things that break down barriers and pave the way to negotiations.

But the exact opposite happened. Stephen Harper has continually undermined our foreign service, because their knowledge of the world, contradicts his own; which is really a lack thereof.

Harper may have discussed the Cold War with his friend John Weissenberger (2), but unfortunately his understanding of world issues ends there. His foreign policy is based on ideology and the appeasement of religious extremists.

The danger of that is glaring. It is something that cannot be excused or brushed off with silly notions that discussions with a friend can replace the advice of those in the field.

And unfortunately that applies to every other decision this government makes. Experts are "university types" and advocates are "special interest groups". I find it all inexcusable.

I'll finish reading the book before I pass a final judgement, because I am very much a fan of Lawrence Martin. But so far ... ahhhh!

Footnotes:

* That personal assistant went on to become one of Canada's longest serving diplomats, dubbed a 'peacemonger' by the press. A title he wore with pride. He would go on to marry Vincent Massey's niece, and in fact proposed to his future bride at Massey's home. The family was pleased. Her name was Alison Grant who would become Alison Ignatieff and the mother of Michael Ignatieff.

Previous:

The Politics of Contempt: The Nixon-Harper Ticket

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

The Politics of Conceit: "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"

The Politics of Opportunity: Election Tampering

The Politics of Jabberwocky: As Canada Plummets Down the Rabbit Hole

The Politics of Ballyhoo: David Emerson and the Soft on Sovereignty Trade Deal

The Politics of Religious Nationalism: Taking us Down a Dangerous Path

Sources:

1. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0, Pg. 62

2. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 79

Did the Conservatives Engineer a Break-In as Part of a Hostile Take Over?

The unfolding story of the hostile takeover of our Human Rights agency, is becoming very serious.

While the staff was at the funeral of a member who it is believed suffered a heart attack because of actions taken by the Harper government, someone broke in looking for files, while leaving the cash.

The government is determined to change our foreign policy from the even handed approach that Canada has always been noted for, to an aggressive course of action in the Middle East.

Jason Kenney has been involved in possible terrorism, with nuts like John Hagee and Charles McVety, and it has now reached epidemic proportions. But again, there's nothing we can do about it for at least another month.

The fact that many immediately suspected the Conservatives of engineering the break-in, is telling. We no longer trust this government. In fact it's so bad that some are suggesting they are planning a false flag attack at the Olympics.

I don't buy it, but it shows what happens when a nation begins to fear their government. I'll be so glad when the House resumes and hopefully they will vote non-confidence. We have enough ammo now, in the form of information, to defeat this bunch I think.

And of course, while the fear surrounding the Olympics is unjustified (I think it's just all the security that's making people nervous. He's going himself for heaven sake.), what's happening in Montreal, is cause for concern.

What were burglars looking for at Montreal rights agency?
Break-in is latest chapter in ugly saga
February 6, 2010
Bruce Campion-Smith
Richard Brennan Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–The 11th floor office of Rights and Democracy in central Montreal had been closed for the day to give staff time to grieve the death of their popular president, Rémy Beauregard. That's when the burglars struck ...

Update: Vulnerable Children and Why Stephen Harper Should Never Have Rewritten Our Foreign Policy

I posted the other day on Haiti, the Vulnerable Children and Why Stephen Harper Should Never Have Rewritten Our Foreign Policy. I have been concerned that since our aid workers are no longer allowed to include sexual exploitation or rape in their reports, that Canadians would not be aware of of the plight of some of the world's most vulnerable children; especially now. This in turn could mean that we won't demand that they are made a priority.

I have also questioned why so many soldiers, because at home, Harper is being hailed as a hero, but word on the ground is that it's looking more like an invasion and occupation than a relief mission.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know our soldiers are committed to helping, but is that the government's priority?

Ben Ehrenreich also raises the question Why Did We Focus on Securing Haiti Rather Than Helping Haitians? That is a very good question.

The Star has picked up the story, and I hope that others will follow. If they hoped to turn Harper's fortunes around, they should realize that Canadians are not that shallow. This story is excellent, because it speaks to the difficulty of maintaining order in a country that has been broken by U.S. foreign policy.

Haitian children kidnapped and sold, aid workers fear
January 30, 2010
Brett Popplewell Staff Reporter

PORT-AU-PRINCE–Kidnapped children. Multiple rapes. Gang violence. A burgeoning black market. And the unknown whereabouts of 4,000 criminals.

These are but a few of the problems overwhelming police and peacekeepers tasked with maintaining order in a post-apocalyptic Haiti. On Wednesday, the Star watched as a hungry mob turned violent when the World Food Program tried to dole out 1,266 bags of rice to the masses. Friday, the Star revisited the site and found some of those bags being sold at a marked up value of $40 a bag.

But of all illegal activities, the reported kidnappings of children, and the related fears they could be trafficked into the sex trade or sold into domestic servitude and international adoptions, is the only criminal activity that cannot be confirmed....

Stephen Harper Takes Another Stab at Denying Human Rights

I posted the other day about Stephen Harper's heavy handed approach to human rights and his planting of another lapdog to avoid accountability.
It's not bad enough that he has rewritten our foreign policy to exclude protection of women and children from sexual exploitation, but he's turned our human rights agencies at home, inside out.

Haroon Siddiqui explains:

Harper remains silent on rights agency fiasco
By Haroon Siddiqui Editorial Page

Only a handful of non-Canadians, such as Nelson Mandela, have been bestowed the Order of Canada. Last year, Dr. Sima Samar of Afghanistan was so honoured, for defending human rights, especially women's rights – the same values that are at the core of Canada's Afghan mission.

So it's highly embarrassing that she has resigned in protest from the board of Canada's leading human rights agency, Rights and Democracy. She quit over what she felt were the autocratic and ideological ways of its Stephen Harper appointees, especially the chair, Aurel Braun, professor of political science at the U of T.

She walked out at a board meeting in Toronto Jan. 7, when Braun and cohorts (enjoying a majority for the first time) pushed through several items on which they had been battling Remy Beauregard, the president of the Montreal-based agency. They "repudiated" his granting of about $10,000 each to Israel's human rights group, B'Tselem, and two Palestinian groups after the Israeli war on Gaza last year.

They tossed out a Beauregard ally, Riveros Franck, a Bolivian pro-democracy activist, though he had agreed to serve a second term. Braun and allies had earlier authored a negative evaluation of Beauregard, overturning a previous positive one. I am told they spent $17,000 waging a legal battle to keep their deliberations secret.

Samar said over the phone from Kabul that she found it incongruous that a centre dedicated to human rights had violated the rights of its top employee; that rather than being transparent, it was secretive; and instead of standing up for the victims of human rights violations, it was siding with the violators.

Four of Beauregard's predecessors – including Ed Broadbent and Warren Allmand – called on Harper to hold an inquiry. And 45 of 47 staff at the agency demanded the resignation of Braun, as well as vice-chair Jacques Gauthier and director Elliot Tepper.

Braun has since said it is ridiculous to blame him and others for Beauregard's sudden death. They were only doing their job as they saw fit, while they felt he wasn't.

But Broadbent feels differently. He told me: "I do not recall, in my long public life, such an unwarranted assault on a senior public servant, none, and I don't recall a sequence of events where you had such a total undermining of a PMO appointee being treated so shabbily and dying in the middle of it.

"Without drawing a direct parallel, I can think of only one incident, Herbert Norman, our envoy to Egypt, a friend of Lester B. Pearson, committing suicide" – in 1957, after having been accused of being a Communist sympathizer. "That was the McCarthy era."

Samar was quoted by the National Post Saturday as saying: "Honestly, I thought that maybe we speeded up his passing away with the stress we put on him." Harper has yet to comment on the controversy. That's in keeping with his silence last year on two letters to the government from dissident directors complaining about Braun's actions.

In November, the cabinet named two new board members. They ended up siding with Braun, thus completing the hostile takeover. While lacking that majority, Braun cancelled a meeting in October, at a cost of $15,000 in non-refundable air tickets and translation contract, says one source.

Since Beauregard's death, Braun has issued a blizzard of denials and explanations. He called a board meeting for last Friday. The staff in Montreal said the office was to be closed that day, in memory of Beauregard whose funeral was Saturday. Braun went ahead with the meeting, anyway, in Toronto. The board appointed an interim president – none other than Gauthier, the vice-chair whose resignation the staff had demanded.

The standoff continues. There remains the larger issue of Harper emasculating institutions that used to operate at arm's-length, independent of the partisan needs and ideology of the ruling party.

"This is another example of another independent agency having their independence either totally ignored or squashed or interfered with," Broadbent said. "This is extraordinarily serious in terms of Canadian democracy."

Stephen Harper's Contempt For Human Rights and the Rule of Law is Charting a Dangerous Course

The problem with having a government that operates in such secrecy, is that we are not often aware of the things they are doing behind our backs.

It becomes especially alarming when those things they are doing, threaten to put Canada on a course that the majority of citizens would not want to see us travel.

The most vibrant red flag, is their position with Israel. While polls reflect that most Canadians would like to see a two state solution, the Conservatives have instead hooked their wagon to nuts like John Hagee and Charles McVety, who want nothing less than a nuclear war in the middle east, to fulfil a biblical prophesy.

Jason Kenney is pushing to make any criticism of Israel be declared anti-semitism and we saw those horrible hate mail flyers they distributed to predominantly Jewish ridings. I think targeting and profiling Jewish-Canadians is one of the worst forms of anti-semitism. Though loading them in boats and shipping them 'home' to Israel, is probably the worst, especially when you look at what is supposed to happen to them once they get there.

Harper has also been secretly rewriting our foreign policy, to exclude human rights as a priority. Adrian Bradbury, Founder and Executive Director of Athletes for Africa and Football for Good, explains what this means.

An internal DFAIT email was leaked this summer which outlined a series of shifts in the language of Canadian foreign policy. These changes were politically directed, coming from Foreign Affairs Minister Cannon’s office.The terms "gender equality," "child soldiers," "international humanitarian law," "good governance," "human security," "public diplomacy" and "The Responsibility to Protect" have been blacklisted from government parlance.

While already limited to an unprecedented degree on what they are allowed to say in public, Canada’s civil servants and diplomats are now banned from using certain words.

And:

The shift from the term International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to simply International Law, not only blurs two entirely different concepts, but abandons the legal mechanisms developed to protect the rights of civilians, women, and children, aid workers, and prisoners of war, rather than states, in armed conflict. IHL also underlies the International Criminal Court, which Canada was instrumental in founding. Are we abandoning the ICC as well?

And of course Jason Kenney is working overtime to defund any NGOs that do not share his warped vision of the world.

Now there is another very troubling story about Harper's interference in our own human rights agency; Rights and Democracy, the Montreal-based institution that backs Canada's foreign policy by supporting the rule of law...


We are seeing a pattern here, and must start demanding some answers from this government.

Siddiqui: Stephen Harper's homegrown human rights problem
Untimely death of respected rights advocate casts harsh light on Ottawa's hardline support for Israel
By Haroon Siddiqui Editorial Page
January 24, 2010

Stephen Harper is in trouble for being ham-fisted with Parliament and several public institutions. He has also caused a ruckus by penalizing those who dare criticize Israel.

Fused together, those two traits can be combustible enough. Adding a third element, catering to his party's conservative ideologues, the Prime Minister has created a major crisis at Canada's leading international human rights agency ....

Harper Government Has Traded Humanitarian Aid For Bullets

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Adrian Bradbury, Founder and Executive Director of Athletes for Africa and Football for Good, recently wrote a piece on Canada's new direction when it comes to foreign policy:

An internal DFAIT email was leaked this summer which outlined a series of shifts in the language of Canadian foreign policy. These changes were politically directed, coming from Foreign Affairs Minister Cannon’s office. The terms "gender equality," "child soldiers," "international humanitarian law," "good governance," "human security," "public diplomacy" and "The esponsibility to Protect" have been blacklisted from government parlance.

While already limited to an unprecedented degree on what they are allowed to say in public, Canada’s civil servants and diplomats are now banned from using certain words. (1) Last year Oxfam Canada was critical of Harper's foreign aid to Afghanistan. (Unfortunately they may be one of the humanitarian organizations on the chopping block.) "Oxfam Canada welcomes Canada’s commitment to increase aid to Afghanistan but remains concerned that military objectives are trumping aid effectiveness in setting priorities." (2)

Not long after that, the Toronto Star reported of the G8 Summit:

During this year's summit, humanitarian groups closely following the talks accused Canada of trying to water down the G8's key 2005 commitment to double aid to Africa by 2010 and a pledge to spend $60 billion fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. This was denied by Canadian officials, but it was clear that, after watching Harper at the G8 for three years, anti-poverty activists longed for the days when Liberal prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin used their influence to push their summit counterparts to open their wallets and do as much as possible for the world's poor. (3)

The Harper government made other changes to our foreign policy without permission or advice from anyone, that almost went unnoticed until Embassy magazine reported on them:

With subtle strokes of the pen, it appears the Conservative government has been systematically changing the language employed by the foreign service and, as a result, bringing subtle but sweeping changes to traditional Canadian foreign policy.

In an email communication obtained by Embassy, staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs express concern about frequent changes being made to commonly used terms, particularly where such changes are not consistent with accepted Canadian policy, and which may be carried out to minimize international obligations on issues as complex as the Omar Khadr case.

Among the changes identified are the excising of the word "humanitarian" from each reference to "international humanitarian law," replacing the term "gender equality" with "equality of men and women", switching focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention of sexual violence, and replacing the phrase "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict." (4)

This is all part of a very disturbing pattern, I'm afraid.

Sources:

1. The Government's Newspeak: Recent changes to the language of Canadian foreign policy represent a fundamental shift in how the country presents itself to the world, By Adrian Bradbury, The Mark, December 2, 2009

2. Despite billions wasted, more foreign aid needed: Oxfam, By Richard Foot, Canwest News Service, April 26, 2010

3. Harper has changed Canada's progressive image: G8 positions show why country now seen as hard-nosed conservative player on world stage, Toronto Star, July 8, 2008

4. "Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language, Embassy Magazine, By Michelle Collins, July 29, 2009

Harper's Foreign Policy Goes Against Canadian Values

When first coming to power, Stephen Harper aligned himself with George Bush's foreign policies, charting a course for Canada that is completely alien to us.

Now four years later, we are often reviled by other nations, and have lost our respected standing on the international stage.

I'm doing something a little different with my blog, trying to organize archives, etc. so I'm using this page to link my stories to Canada's new foreign policies under Stephen Harper.

Feel free to use anything.

We have to start preparing ourselves for the next election, by reminding Canadians that Stephen Harper and his party are the wrong fit for Canada and really must be put out to pasture, before they completely destroy this country.

The links below will direct you to archived posts on a variety of foreign policy directions.

Israel and Antisemitism

Harper's War on the United Nations

His New non-Humanitarian Policies

International Embarrassment

.

The Reform Conservatives Prove Again They Have no Conscience

Actually, the video is probably the least of the horrendous ways that our current government has destroyed this country's integrity. They clearly lack any kind of moral compass. And remember, we paid the salary of the man with the camera.

So should we really be surprised that Harper's Reformers have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar again? However, this isn't about their criminal activities.

I wanted to share Lawrence Martin's column in the Globe and Mail, discussing just how poorly we are now viewed on the global stage. From partisan attacks with the Foreign press, to having developing nations walk out on our feeble climate change proposals; we are losing our place on the international stage.

Canada used to be the one with the global conscience

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama prompts a question. Where would the current Canadian Prime Minister finish in the Nobel committee's rankings? Would our guy, Stephen Harper, be short-listed, middle-ranked, long-listed or worse? If you guessed worse – as in the Nobel jurors wouldn't touch him with a barge poll – you've probably nailed it.

The Nobel priorities are disarmament, multilateralism, the extension of olive branches to adversaries etc. Those components were usually central to Canadian foreign policy ....