Downing St left embarrassed after President Obama scales down 1st meeting with UK PM

[cacruden]

I may view the Harperites a little more favourably than you but on this point I will agree. Even I think, we are cozying up a tad too much to the Americans. It's pretty sad to see the foreign service take a hit...though in my opinion they did bring a lot of it on themselves. I was pretty sad to see things like the sale of the High Commissioners house in London. It was a nice property on Grosvenor Square. And I do consider our backsliding on aid commitments to be inappropriate (albeit CIDA is deplorable at doing anything effective with their budget). I would have liked to have seen at least some Mulroney type independence that pushes the US to action (acid rain, South Africa, etc.) rather than blind acceptance of Uncle Sam's policies.

I don't see the cozying up as a bad thing, it was more of a necessity after the anti-americanism for politics sake before the current administration. Canada's traditional role in modern time is to try and bridge the gap between Europe and the United States, which we can only have if the US administration listens to us. If we spend all of the time just playing the anti-american card, which may be good politics, the United States stops listening to us. Yes, Bush was a little hard headed - so it might have still been difficult - but it is a job that I believe that only Canada is reasonably positioned for. It does not mean that we have to change our positions, just limiting which disagreements we let known the the whole world.

If you noticed, Harper has already started trying to cozy up to Obama - which is the right move to try and make.

CIDA does some good work - even if at times they are dysfunctional - and they do have some good people that work in that department (I have 2 sisters that have worked at CIDA - and I have had the opportunity to meet some others) it is just that one of the areas that they seem to have a problem doing - is playing the media game. Both of my sisters tend to seem to specialize in conflict areas though (Iraq, Afghanistan, Ramala - West Bank).

 

[afransen]

^ Problem is, no one is listening to what Canada has to say anymore. Canada isn't bridging any gap. The US is speaking to India, China, and the EU and Canada is standing in the corner holding its cap.

 

[Hydrogen]

Oh dear.

 

[afransen]

I agree. I've always thought the 'liaison between US and EU' is crap. Canada never did that. What we did was back up the US in many international organizations, except when they were being asses.

 

[Hydrogen]

^The whole idea of Canadian middle-of-the-road soft power has always been over-played - particularly in this country. And you are right, the perceived role of "liaison" between the US and EU is mythological.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not that this middle-of-the-road approach has failed. It's worked well. Wherever I travel, I have always met folks that thought Canada was a nice country with nice people. Yet, that's exactly the problem as well. We are just nice. Like that nice girl you chatted up once. Nice and boring. Canadians often forget that being nice also means that you never stood up for anything vehemently enough that you made enemies. We never had interests that we considered worth defending to the hilt in the post-war era. I'd like to see a more principled foreign policy rather than one that has us as the nice guys all the time. This should mean standing up to the Americans some times (Iraq war) and supporting them other times (Afghanistan war). This should mean backing the rights of Israelis to live in peace (and their right to use force to attain that peace) and condemning its military excesses when they go to far. It should mean calling China out on their human rights records and trade practices and doing so in a public fashion that can compel change, not simply giving them a few polite remarks behind closed doors). Those are but a few examples. It makes me sick to no end when some of our politicians attend virtual LTTE, Hamas or Hezbollah rallies in Canada. Or when they make convenient excuses not to ban certain groups just because they have a social service wing. Do these politicians not realize that their equivocating gets people killed on the other end?

 

[Tewder]

A nation needs an identity or perspective, and an understanding of it, to form a policy. Outside of Quebec Canada's identity now is Multiculturalism and so it would be contrary to this identity to formulate any strong policies on international affaires for risk of offending Canadian communities that have been encouraged to maintain their identities and ties with their homelands. We've heard it said many times here that positing or promoting a 'Canadian' identity other than Multiculturalism will inherently be exclusionary and so shouldn't be done. In a way this is only fair.