Exorbitant costs: $1Billion (that’s 1,000 Million of your taxpayer dollars) for security alone—and it will likely be much more when the bills finally come in. That doesn’t include the Fake Lake, the rest of the non-security hosting costs, let alone the tally for lost tourism, lost business and destruction of retail premises. No one knows what those costs will end up being—despite our repeated requests, the Harper government avoids all of our questions. The only thing we DO know is that the cost will have been enormous. And now, questions are mounting about favouritism and indeed possible corruption in the awarding of lucrative contracts. We will continue to probe, through the House of Commons National Security Committee and otherwise.
Unwarranted force, arrests and our civil liberties: I join the many others calling for a public inquiry based on what happened on the streets of Toronto. Despite all the excuses about “security”, the world saw Toronto—this fabulous, colourful, vibrant, safe and friendly city—as a war zone wasteland with burning cars, police violence and a trampling of civil liberties. The examples of unwarranted arrests, intimidation and inappropriate treatment of innocent, peaceful civilians continue to mount. We MUST stand for human rights, civil liberties, free speech, freedom of (peaceful) association and protest. These are critical in a democracy—it’s about far more than simply voting. Only when these rights are protected, indeed promoted, is a vote, a society, truly democratic. Not only must our police and government officials show the highest respect for these fundamental laws and liberties—they are supposed to be ones protecting them. In this case they didn’t. We must insist that they do. An inquiry is needed. The Ontario ombudsman will now review the ‘quiet’ introduction of sweeping powers (see the Globe and Mail article), and the Toronto Police have initiated a civilian review of police conduct—but Stephen Harper’s government appears to have been at the core of the decisions and the orders being given. We need to know what those orders were, who was giving them, what position those orders may have forced the Toronto police into, and who, ultimately was directing this reprehensible response.
Stephen Harper’s G20: The blame for much of this lies squarely with Stephen Harper. Harper’s last-minute decision to include the G20 in downtown Toronto (he gave the City all of 15 minutes’ notice before the public announcement); Harper’s refusal to consider options, even after Toronto itself expressed major concerns about costs, loss of revenue, security, and a multitude of other real problems for Torontonians; Harper’s handing Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair and the Toronto police a near-impossible security task while, it appears, insisting that the Integrated Security Unit be coordinated from the Privy Council Office; the Harper government’s incompetence at managing money (your taxpayer dollars!), allowing costs to spiral out of control... Stephen Harper must be held accountable to Canadians for this.
The Liberal Party’s reaction: We have demanded answers from the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews. We have also joined in a request with other opposition MPs to have the House of Commons National Security Committee meet as soon as possible to investigate just what happened, and why, and asking Minister Toews to appear. Questions Liberals are asking, and which we hope can be asked at Committee soon, include: Who was ultimately giving security commands during the G20? Who designed the security plans for the G20? What security advice did the government consider before putting the summit in downtown Toronto? How were the contracts for security assistance (and indeed other summit hosting requirements) awarded? What was done, if anything, to manage costs? Who was responsible for the awarding of those contracts and what were the criteria? Given the Harper government refusal to answer almost any question, this will be tough, but we will continue to push.
Canada’s international role: I may be biased, given my own background in international relations and international law, but Canada should be playing a significant part in world affairs—more even than we are now. We have long punched above our weight, and as an example of a successful economy, of an even more successful pluralistic society based on our tremendous diversity and other strengths, and militarily (WWI, WWII, the Korean War, peacekeeping and Afghanistan). We have a real role to play on the international stage, a terrific opportunity to lead by example. As the influence of the G8 wanes and the importance of the G20 increases, it is critical that Canada have a significant role in the G20, particularly now in its early stages. (Kudos to former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin who, a number of years ago, proposed the idea of the G20 as an international financial forum in the first place.) Despite all of what has happened, I’m not upset that Canada agreed to host the G20, as part of the responsibility of that international role. I AM, however, very upset at how extraordinarily mismanaged the whole affair was by the Harper government. Exorbitant costs, unwarranted force, trampling of civil liberties, questions of favouritism and indeed possible corruption in the awarding of lucrative contracts—Canadians demand answers, and the world is watching....Stephen Harper must be held to account.
Showing posts with label International relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International relations. Show all posts
9.7.10
21.9.09
Canada's place in a changing world.
My first degree was in International Relations (UofT), and when I went on to study and practice law, a significant portion was international law, and international trade and commerce.
Since the end of my "formal" studies, I have continued to be a student of international affairs, recognizing the importance of international relations to so much of what we do.
And I am so proud of what Canada and Canadians have done on the international stage, from my grandfather and others in WW1, my father landing on D-Day in WW2, to people like Lester Pearson winning the Nobel Peace Prize (and doubly proud that Pearson was a Liberal--proud as I am of what my Dad accomplished in WW2, he was definitely Conservative!)
I was therefore really pleased that Michael Ignatieff spoke this past week on his vision for Canada's place in the world, on Canada re-establishing itself as a constructive participant in world affairs. Even more, I was really excited about the substance he offered, with a number of concrete ideas about what we can, and should, do. Please read Michael Ignatieff's speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa. I'd love to hear what you think.
Since the end of my "formal" studies, I have continued to be a student of international affairs, recognizing the importance of international relations to so much of what we do.
And I am so proud of what Canada and Canadians have done on the international stage, from my grandfather and others in WW1, my father landing on D-Day in WW2, to people like Lester Pearson winning the Nobel Peace Prize (and doubly proud that Pearson was a Liberal--proud as I am of what my Dad accomplished in WW2, he was definitely Conservative!)
I was therefore really pleased that Michael Ignatieff spoke this past week on his vision for Canada's place in the world, on Canada re-establishing itself as a constructive participant in world affairs. Even more, I was really excited about the substance he offered, with a number of concrete ideas about what we can, and should, do. Please read Michael Ignatieff's speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa. I'd love to hear what you think.
25.6.09
Canada and the world
Particularly with my background in international relations and international law, I feel very strongly about what role Canada can and should be playing internationally--and what that means, or can mean, to us at home. I wish I'd written what Joe Clark (former Prime Minister) just did, but credit where it's due, he has just written an excellent piece in the Ottawa Citizen ("Play to Canada's strengths; If we measure our influence by military might or economic influence, it will continue to decline -- Canada should focus on its talent for diplomacy", The Ottawa Citizen Wed Jun 24 2009) I highly recommend it to everyone, and I thank you, Mr. Clark, for expressing what I also believe so eloquently.
Here is the article:
Play to Canada's strengths; If we measure our influence by military might or economic influence, it will continue to decline -- Canada should focus on its talent for diplomacy
The Ottawa Citizen
Wed Jun 24 2009
Page: A15
Section: News
Byline: Joe Clark
Source: Citizen Special
Once, Canadians played an influential and innovative role on the international stage. Now there is a relative absence in global affairs that is aggravated by declining budgets for diplomacy and development.
The decline in Canada's capacity to address significant changes in the world did not happen suddenly. Most of it is due to developments beyond our borders and the emergence of new powers and economies.
When Canada and Italy became members of the G-7, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) among others were not considered part of the competition. Now, emphatically, they are.
As the world's religious, cultural and economic divides grow deeper, our diversity and our diplomatic abilities have become more relevant.
The critical international skills needed to shorten these divides include prominently the ability to draw differences together, to manage diversity, to generate trust -- the traditional and genuine signature qualities of Canada.
To the Harper government's credit, Canada is now increasing its defence spending. For too long, we had let other countries carry an increasing share of our defence burden. But our diplomatic and development resources are being run down now as steadily and certainly as our defence resources were run down in earlier decades.
It is worth asking: Why the double standard? Why is Canada more prepared to accept our share of the military burden than we are of the diplomatic and development burdens?
In this world of shifting power, how long would Canada have a place at the table of a G-8 Summit? Would we make the cut of a G-20? In other words, would we keep our seat in the inner circle of countries that define international trade and military, diplomatic and development policy?
Not if we focus narrowly on trade and economic policy, or define our international profile disproportionately by military presence. For all our growth and innovation, Canada can have more influence in politics and diplomacy than we do in trade. Economic power reflects size; diplomacy depends more on imagination, and agility, and reputation. Canada's political strengths have more currency again, if we choose to use them.
From some perspectives, foreign policy is just another necessary function of the state -- self-respecting countries need a police force, a tax policy, a foreign policy, a defence policy. In that view, foreign policy is a function, not an attribute -- and some of the traditional foreign policy functions are less relevant in this highly connected, mobile world.
Twenty years ago, the end of the Cold War changed the fundamental dynamics of foreign policy in western countries. The priority became trade and economic growth. Governments chose to believe that trade would combat poverty, that market models would release energies that were inherently democratic, and that military force would contain local challenges and disorders.
The twin failures of the military intervention in Iraq, and the collapse of the financial system, demonstrate the limitations of that faith.
At the same time, there is a shifting of power -- economic, cultural, political, even military. Fareed Zakaria argues this is not about anyone's decline -- but rather the rise and assertion of new forces. Call it a "post-American world," call it a BRIC world, this is a new situation, in which Canada needs to evaluate its assumptions and capacities.
If British economist and author Barbara Ward was right in describing Canada as the "first international country," if Canadian travellers and businesses who stitch on the maple leaf are right, if we have something distinctive to offer, we should treat Canada's "international vocation" as an asset -- as we treat our energy resources, our literacy and ingenuity, and our diversity as assets.
Let's list just five of our assets as Canadians that can be most relevant in this changing world:
1. Our diversity at home.
We have more capacity than most to build and enlarge relations with the cultures and societies whose global influence is on the rise. For one thing, so many of those cultures are dynamic parts of our own identity -- South Asian, Chinese, African and Caribbean diasporas, and a disproportionately large and innovative refugee population.
But, as importantly, those citizens are treated with respect, and now guaranteed equality before the law, in this open, immigrant nation whose tradition of diversity is so deep that it pre-dates our confederation itself.
2. Our ability to bridge differences.
We have earned respect as a partner in the developing world and generally carry the advantage of not being seen as seeking to impose our views and values on other countries.
We are the only member in the G-8 that carries neither an imperial nor a colonial taint and in that we have been a natural and practised bridge between the richer world and the poorer.
3. The different North America.
The world still reveres the American ideal of equal opportunity, even if it is bruised or disappointed by what U.S. policy has actually been in practice. Canada is closest to that democratic reputation that is so admired about the United States, and we are not yet subject to the negative stereotypes.
We are the other North America, and we need to emphasize that distinction.
4. Our multilateral instinct.
For more than half a century, Canada has promoted a multilateral system precisely because nations our size were not big enough to protect ourselves alone. We have a profound interest in a world that works -- SARS strikes here, refugees come here, pollutants pollute here, and close relatives of Canadians die in virtually every conflict in the world.
Our national interest has always included international co-operation -- not in any airy-fairy way, but as the practical centerpiece of our trade policy, through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organisation; our security policy, through NATO and other alliances, and our support for international standards and agreements in health, human rights, and the environment.
This isn't a posture -- it is a Canadian characteristic, as real as winter.
5. Our ability to work with non-state actors.
International affairs have been transformed by new phenomena -- the emergence of powerful and focused foundations, such as NGOs; the new commitment, for whatever reasons, to corporate responsibility; and the role of remittances.
The World Bank estimates that, in 2008, remittances totalled $375 billion, most of it going to developing countries, involving some 200 million migrants -- or three per cent of the world's population. Those are big figures.
Yet, for all these private or non-government initiatives, this is still an institutional world. Sovereign states still make the critical decisions -- to cut or increase budgets, respect or break treaties, send or withdraw troops, pay or withhold their membership contributions, confront or ignore crises.
The challenge and opportunity now is to marry mandate with imagination -- combine the creativity of these independent forces with the capacity-to-act of institutions. Who could do that better than Canada? Those partnerships are what happened in the fight against apartheid, in the negotiation of the Land Mines Treaty, in the Kimberley Process to stop the trade in blood diamonds, and in a wide range of less-publicized initiatives.
Canada has always been an act of will. We didn't come together naturally. We haven't stayed together easily. Confederation was an act of will. So were medicare, equalization, the Charter of Rights, and free trade. One reality of our country is that we have to keep proving our worth to our parts.
We are a wealthy, lucky country, increasingly self-absorbed. It is easy to take our good fortune for granted, or to see ourselves principally as British Columbians, or Quebecers, or environmentalists, or simply taxpayers, and thus to become smaller than our whole.
So we need to look to issues and aspirations that reach across the lines and attitudes that might otherwise set Canadians apart, and to characteristics that distinguish us, legitimately, from comparable societies.
Foreign policy is that kind of issue.
Our sense of "international vocation" has helped define and reinforce Canadian identity since the end of the First World War. It is an asset with a double value. It could strengthen us at home, and now, in an era when the mediation and management of diversity are such critical components of international affairs, it could have an important impact on the world.
Joe Clark is a former prime minister of Canada.
Here is the article:
Play to Canada's strengths; If we measure our influence by military might or economic influence, it will continue to decline -- Canada should focus on its talent for diplomacy
The Ottawa Citizen
Wed Jun 24 2009
Page: A15
Section: News
Byline: Joe Clark
Source: Citizen Special
Once, Canadians played an influential and innovative role on the international stage. Now there is a relative absence in global affairs that is aggravated by declining budgets for diplomacy and development.
The decline in Canada's capacity to address significant changes in the world did not happen suddenly. Most of it is due to developments beyond our borders and the emergence of new powers and economies.
When Canada and Italy became members of the G-7, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) among others were not considered part of the competition. Now, emphatically, they are.
As the world's religious, cultural and economic divides grow deeper, our diversity and our diplomatic abilities have become more relevant.
The critical international skills needed to shorten these divides include prominently the ability to draw differences together, to manage diversity, to generate trust -- the traditional and genuine signature qualities of Canada.
To the Harper government's credit, Canada is now increasing its defence spending. For too long, we had let other countries carry an increasing share of our defence burden. But our diplomatic and development resources are being run down now as steadily and certainly as our defence resources were run down in earlier decades.
It is worth asking: Why the double standard? Why is Canada more prepared to accept our share of the military burden than we are of the diplomatic and development burdens?
In this world of shifting power, how long would Canada have a place at the table of a G-8 Summit? Would we make the cut of a G-20? In other words, would we keep our seat in the inner circle of countries that define international trade and military, diplomatic and development policy?
Not if we focus narrowly on trade and economic policy, or define our international profile disproportionately by military presence. For all our growth and innovation, Canada can have more influence in politics and diplomacy than we do in trade. Economic power reflects size; diplomacy depends more on imagination, and agility, and reputation. Canada's political strengths have more currency again, if we choose to use them.
From some perspectives, foreign policy is just another necessary function of the state -- self-respecting countries need a police force, a tax policy, a foreign policy, a defence policy. In that view, foreign policy is a function, not an attribute -- and some of the traditional foreign policy functions are less relevant in this highly connected, mobile world.
Twenty years ago, the end of the Cold War changed the fundamental dynamics of foreign policy in western countries. The priority became trade and economic growth. Governments chose to believe that trade would combat poverty, that market models would release energies that were inherently democratic, and that military force would contain local challenges and disorders.
The twin failures of the military intervention in Iraq, and the collapse of the financial system, demonstrate the limitations of that faith.
At the same time, there is a shifting of power -- economic, cultural, political, even military. Fareed Zakaria argues this is not about anyone's decline -- but rather the rise and assertion of new forces. Call it a "post-American world," call it a BRIC world, this is a new situation, in which Canada needs to evaluate its assumptions and capacities.
If British economist and author Barbara Ward was right in describing Canada as the "first international country," if Canadian travellers and businesses who stitch on the maple leaf are right, if we have something distinctive to offer, we should treat Canada's "international vocation" as an asset -- as we treat our energy resources, our literacy and ingenuity, and our diversity as assets.
Let's list just five of our assets as Canadians that can be most relevant in this changing world:
1. Our diversity at home.
We have more capacity than most to build and enlarge relations with the cultures and societies whose global influence is on the rise. For one thing, so many of those cultures are dynamic parts of our own identity -- South Asian, Chinese, African and Caribbean diasporas, and a disproportionately large and innovative refugee population.
But, as importantly, those citizens are treated with respect, and now guaranteed equality before the law, in this open, immigrant nation whose tradition of diversity is so deep that it pre-dates our confederation itself.
2. Our ability to bridge differences.
We have earned respect as a partner in the developing world and generally carry the advantage of not being seen as seeking to impose our views and values on other countries.
We are the only member in the G-8 that carries neither an imperial nor a colonial taint and in that we have been a natural and practised bridge between the richer world and the poorer.
3. The different North America.
The world still reveres the American ideal of equal opportunity, even if it is bruised or disappointed by what U.S. policy has actually been in practice. Canada is closest to that democratic reputation that is so admired about the United States, and we are not yet subject to the negative stereotypes.
We are the other North America, and we need to emphasize that distinction.
4. Our multilateral instinct.
For more than half a century, Canada has promoted a multilateral system precisely because nations our size were not big enough to protect ourselves alone. We have a profound interest in a world that works -- SARS strikes here, refugees come here, pollutants pollute here, and close relatives of Canadians die in virtually every conflict in the world.
Our national interest has always included international co-operation -- not in any airy-fairy way, but as the practical centerpiece of our trade policy, through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organisation; our security policy, through NATO and other alliances, and our support for international standards and agreements in health, human rights, and the environment.
This isn't a posture -- it is a Canadian characteristic, as real as winter.
5. Our ability to work with non-state actors.
International affairs have been transformed by new phenomena -- the emergence of powerful and focused foundations, such as NGOs; the new commitment, for whatever reasons, to corporate responsibility; and the role of remittances.
The World Bank estimates that, in 2008, remittances totalled $375 billion, most of it going to developing countries, involving some 200 million migrants -- or three per cent of the world's population. Those are big figures.
Yet, for all these private or non-government initiatives, this is still an institutional world. Sovereign states still make the critical decisions -- to cut or increase budgets, respect or break treaties, send or withdraw troops, pay or withhold their membership contributions, confront or ignore crises.
The challenge and opportunity now is to marry mandate with imagination -- combine the creativity of these independent forces with the capacity-to-act of institutions. Who could do that better than Canada? Those partnerships are what happened in the fight against apartheid, in the negotiation of the Land Mines Treaty, in the Kimberley Process to stop the trade in blood diamonds, and in a wide range of less-publicized initiatives.
Canada has always been an act of will. We didn't come together naturally. We haven't stayed together easily. Confederation was an act of will. So were medicare, equalization, the Charter of Rights, and free trade. One reality of our country is that we have to keep proving our worth to our parts.
We are a wealthy, lucky country, increasingly self-absorbed. It is easy to take our good fortune for granted, or to see ourselves principally as British Columbians, or Quebecers, or environmentalists, or simply taxpayers, and thus to become smaller than our whole.
So we need to look to issues and aspirations that reach across the lines and attitudes that might otherwise set Canadians apart, and to characteristics that distinguish us, legitimately, from comparable societies.
Foreign policy is that kind of issue.
Our sense of "international vocation" has helped define and reinforce Canadian identity since the end of the First World War. It is an asset with a double value. It could strengthen us at home, and now, in an era when the mediation and management of diversity are such critical components of international affairs, it could have an important impact on the world.
Joe Clark is a former prime minister of Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
