News   Jun 21, 2024
 4.8K     6 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 1.8K     3 
News   Jun 21, 2024
 2K     1 

Canada and the World

A lengthy (for a news paper article) piece in the Globe and Mail seeks to discuss why Canada needs a better strategy (or any at all?) to ensure we matter more in the world; and particularly in the United States.

The piece starts at the high level (the general) and then uses our role in Uranium in particular for a deeper dive on ways in which Canada can bolsters its economic and strategic/security importance.


I think the point made is well taken. Canada has natural resources and a variety of other advantages, and that we don't take sufficient advantage of those for our own benefit or our allies.
 
Last edited:
Canada is providing $65 million in developmental funding and humanitarian relief to Lebanon, International Development Minister Ahmed Hussen said Friday.

The aid package includes $38 million for development assistance and another $27 million in humanitarian aid, which Hussen said would go towards supporting vulnerable populations.

 
Pays to have a large ethnic minority in Canada apparently. Half a billion dollars over a decade to a country with debatable strategic relevance to us beyond immigrant ties.
 
I think the point made is well taken. Canada has natural resources and a variety of other advantages, and that we don't take sufficient advantage of those for our own benefit or our allies.

This has been the CPC's argument for building more pipelines and increasing oil and gas production. Expanding LNG is literally Poilievre's climate policy and part of his foreign policy. I think it's a bit of a stretch. But if we're going that route, there has to be a deliberate effort and it has to actually overcome contradictions (like our own climate goals).

Also, as a way to get out of other obligations (like NATO spending targets), it's going to be a rather long shot. I doubt we'll get a pass unless the resources we are able to provide (in a relevant timeframe) are utterly gamechanging. We aren't going to get a pass for promising additional gas or resources a decade from now.
 
This has been the CPC's argument for building more pipelines and increasing oil and gas production. Expanding LNG is literally Poilievre's climate policy and part of his foreign policy. I think it's a bit of a stretch. But if we're going that route, there has to be a deliberate effort and it has to actually overcome contradictions (like our own climate goals).

Also, as a way to get out of other obligations (like NATO spending targets), it's going to be a rather long shot. I doubt we'll get a pass unless the resources we are able to provide (in a relevant timeframe) are utterly gamechanging. We aren't going to get a pass for promising additional gas or resources a decade from now.

We aren't even willing to offer LNG to Europe as a way to cut their dependence on Russia.

AoD
 
Got a link? I'd love to read more. Shunning China is the way forward.

The shunning is annoying them, it seems. China is pissed at Canada.


Give the above article from last month, I just sent the below message to the Canadian consulate in Hong Kong:

"I am considering to travel to Hong Kong to visit our new importer. I am an experienced traveler to China, having first exhibited at the Hofex show in 2001, and participated in Prime Minister Paul Martin's trade mission in 2005 to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. In 2018 I exhibited in Shanghai and then in 2019 visited Sam's Club in Shenzhen. I believe I have been to China eight times in my career. Given all my experience I am still concerned about personal safety, as the federal government has issued a travel advisory, https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/hong-kong recommending travelers take high caution. I was also alarmed by the arbitrary detention of the two Canadian businessmen Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, thinking that could have easily have been me detained. Perhaps I am overestimating the travel risk. Can you please provide some information so I can reassure both my employer and family. Thank you."

Let's see what they reply.
 
The shunning is annoying them, it seems. China is pissed at Canada.


Give the above article from last month, I just sent the below message to the Canadian consulate in Hong Kong:

"I am considering to travel to Hong Kong to visit our new importer. I am an experienced traveler to China, having first exhibited at the Hofex show in 2001, and participated in Prime Minister Paul Martin's trade mission in 2005 to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. In 2018 I exhibited in Shanghai and then in 2019 visited Sam's Club in Shenzhen. I believe I have been to China eight times in my career. Given all my experience I am still concerned about personal safety, as the federal government has issued a travel advisory, https://travel.gc.ca/destinations/hong-kong recommending travelers take high caution. I was also alarmed by the arbitrary detention of the two Canadian businessmen Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, thinking that could have easily have been me detained. Perhaps I am overestimating the travel risk. Can you please provide some information so I can reassure both my employer and family. Thank you."

Let's see what they reply.
Should you get a reply, it will no doubt be generic and contain the phrases "we take X seriously" and "the safety of our citizens is our top priority".

Our foreign service is just as ignored as our military.

Hint (no doubt you already know this): register with the Consulate in Hong Kong.
 
Hong Kong is done. Nobody should be doing business there anymore. Either do business directly in China or elsewhere in Asia. There's no point in the intermediary anymore.
 
Didn't it turn out that the two Michaels were actually spies?
 
Didn't it turn out that the two Michaels were actually spies?

Meh. Spy is such a strong word. Kovrig was doing what all diplomats do. He was engaging local expats to collect information. Spavor wasn't even aware he was "spying". He was sharing information he'd discovered through business contacts. If this is grounds for detention, we could detain just about every Chinese government employee in Canada.

In the broader discussion, China specifically chose to target two Canadian citizens specifically because they felt there would be little to no consequences. They would never have considered detaining two Americans on such flimsy charges. And that's exactly why every Canadian should think twice about travel to China.
 
Meh. Spy is such a strong word. Kovrig was doing what all diplomats do. He was engaging local expats to collect information. Spavor wasn't even aware he was "spying". He was sharing information he'd discovered through business contacts. If this is grounds for detention, we could detain just about every Chinese government employee in Canada.

In the broader discussion, China specifically chose to target two Canadian citizens specifically because they felt there would be little to no consequences. They would never have considered detaining two Americans on such flimsy charges. And that's exactly why every Canadian should think twice about travel to China.
I would never consider traveling there, at least not until their vile government falls and is replaced by a democratic system. Until then, I'm more than happy to spend my tourist dollars on deserving places.
 
I would be interested to here @kEiThZ take on who the new CDS (Chief of Defense Staff) will be; and whether that aligns w/his own preferences.

The Globe had a piece out today, behind the paywall, but the key bit (the list of players) is in the intro:

1716321567907.png


From: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...g-choices-for-new-chief-of-the-defence-staff/

When one gets further in to the piece, a Globe source (unnamed retired General) suggests that Auchterlonie is likely out of the running for being too outspoken, while the other two male candidates are apparently both two-star generals vs Jennie Carignan's three.

The suggestion being that she is the front runner for the post.
 
She's capable and respected. It's unfortunate that her appointment might come with the taint of woke politics unfortunately. And most people think Carignan is a foregone conclusion based entirely on gender and the government's history on such appointments.

I don't envy her though. She's inheriting a demoralized institution in decline with a government that doesn't care. I wish her luck. I wouldn't want the job.
 

Back
Top