Nothing Could Be Further From The Truth

                                             http://www.torontosun.com/

We now know what the career staffers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs thought of Stephen Harper and John Baird. Alexander Panetta writes in the Globe and Mail:

A U.S. official expressed amazement at how deeply detested Canada’s Conservative government was by some employees of the Foreign Affairs Department.

That impression was described in a note sent three years ago to Hillary Clinton, who was then the secretary of state and whose e-mails are now being publicly released.

It was contained in a message where a U.S. official described how his colleagues across the border pleaded for his help lobbying the Canadian government not to cut a program for Haiti.

“I was a little astonished at how openly the career folks at the foreign and assistance ministries disliked their new political masters and wanted us to convince them not to cut Haiti,” said Tom Adams, in a May 2012 e-mail forwarded to Clinton and released Monday.

“In my many years here I have never seen such open disloyalty with a change of administrations. Although the political appointees told me there was no need to have the Secretary talk to Baird about Haiti, the senior career folks, on the margins, implored me to have this done.”

Harper knew that the people who had devoted their lives to international relations were not on his side. And Washington also knew that Harper's spokesmen did not represent Canadian opinion. That became obvious in the the case of Omar Khadr. A recently released batch of Hilary Clinton's emails shows how delighted the Americans were when Khadr returned to Canada from Guantanamo Bay:

There was delight in Clinton’s office over news that Omar Khadr was being released from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and repatriated to a prison in his home country.

The newly released e-mails show the then-secretary of state’s response to news that the young man was being transferred to Canada: “Thank you for all you did to get this resolved.”

She was writing to the State Department’s legal adviser – who was ecstatic at the 2012 development.

“So glad we got this done,” said the adviser, Harold Koh. “After spending the last 10 years on GTMO, at least this young man finally has another chance.”

Stephen Harper always claimed that he was speaking for the majority of Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

More And Worse Conflict

                                                                          http://en.wikipedia.org/

Michael den Tandt writes that Stephen Harper's foreign policy will outlive Harper:

It is axiomatic for Harper’s critics, certainly for those who churn out talking points for the Dippers, Grits and Greens, that this prime minister is a ham-fisted and embarrassingly unsubtle foreign-policy actor. The prima facie evidence is his notorious letter to the Wall Street Journal in 2003, penned with Stockwell Day, lamenting Canada’s refusal to participate in George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Never mind that mistake, writes den Tandt:

But here’s the thing: Harper and Baird’s basic positions have been borne out by events — both in the conflict with Hamas, and in Ukraine, since the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by a rocket attack, killing all 298 people aboard.

Really? Could it be that his minor error on Iraq has helped destabilise the entire Middle East? And could Harper's support of Israel -- while completely ignoring its occupation of Gaza  -- not have something to do with the increased rocket technology which Hamas has now aimed at Israel?

Jonathan Kay wrote a short time ago that the Harper regime is populated by punitive moral absolutists. They have tried to legislate their values into Canadian law. And they are convinced that, by exporting their philosophy to the rest of the world, they will make it a safer place.

We are approaching the one hundredth anniversary of the Guns of August. If Harper knew anything about history -- and the treaty which ended World War I -- he'd know that punitive moral absolutism simply guarantees more -- and worse -- conflict.

Abandonment

Stephen Harper has abandoned three of his senatorial appointees -- including the man he once called  "my most valuable senator."  Abandonment defines the man. And in foreign affairs, Joe Clark writes, Stephen Harper has "all but abandoned the global arena."

Foreign affairs has never been the prime minister's strong suite, even though he has spent  a lot of time in international forums. Clark writes:

In the seven years between his first election and the time I am writing this, Stephen Harper would have been exposed directly to informed and passionate leaders describing similar challenges and opportunities in the developing countries they lead. Conversations of that kind may well have influenced his willingness to serve as co-chair, with President Kikwete of Tanzania, of the UN Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health. They could have informed his government’s more recent interest in international trade, including with some countries in Africa and the Americas. However, there is little evidence of much impact on the government’s understanding of the human and political dynamics of countries outside the West.

Under Harper, Canada has lost its international credibility:

During the decades when Canada was earning a respected reputation in the world, part of our strength was that we felt no need to sit always at the head of the decision table. Our competence meant we often served there — on issues respecting arms control, the environment, human rights and international development. But Canada operated as effectively from a seat at the side, becoming trusted as a reliable, respected and responsible partner, and building concentric circles of influence on issues from defence, to development, to conciliation, to trade. Perhaps to a fault, we were known for our quiet and constructive work. By contrast, the Harper government’s performance in international affairs has shown more interest in the podium than in the playing field.

Most problematic is Mr. Harper's "megaphone diplomacy." He doesn't engage in the world -- he lectures it. That kind of behaviour is dangerous:

During the Cold War, the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Peter Carrington, urged the superpowers to avoid what he called “megaphone diplomacy.” That was defined as “diplomacy based on assertion through the media rather than on discussion,” and Lord Carrington considered it a dangerous practice between nuclear-armed superpowers. It is as counterproductive today, especially for a country like Canada, which has real skills and assets in diplomacy, when we apply them.

Clark suggests that Canada's foreign policy is deeply rooted in the prime minister's psyche. He doesn't like to talk to people -- either at home or abroad:

The government has indicated its preference for bilateral discussion where, by definition, the number of factors and actors is limited and easier to predict, if not control. That seems to be a strong personal instinct, and extends well beyond international policy. It may be why he avoids the federal-provincial conferences and co-operation at home which have been key to critical Canadian accomplishments — from health care to the free trade agreement, the environmental round table to the Kelowna Accord.

If Stephen Harper abandons his "most valuable" people, it's no wonder he chooses to abandon the world.

No Progressive

The Harperites -- not surprisingly -- accused Thomas Mulcair of traitorous behaviour when, during his recent Washinton gambit, he did not give his full throated support to the Keystone XL pipeline. He was, they said, damaging Canada's international reputation.

But four of Canada's former prime ministers have recently suggested that Stephen Harper is doing a superb job of trashing our international reputation without any help from Mulcair. Consider Jean Chretien's terse comment:

"I'm travelling the world. The image of Canada today is not what it was," Chrétien told Global News on Sunday.

Then we have Paul Martin's assessment:

Paul Martin said that Canada was no longer "well-positioned" to be a player on the international stage and put the blame on Harper.

"[The United Nations is] going to be looking for countries that have a role to play internationally," he told Postmedia.

"Well, if you have walked away from Africa, if you have walked away from climate change, you’re not going to have a great deal of influence in the rest of the world."

The bad reviews, however, don't just from former Liberal prime ministers. The most stinging assessment comes from Joe Clark. He says that Harper has abandoned the "strong and positive traditions" which were the bedrock of the old Progressive Conservative Party:

"It's certainly clear in international affairs, where its focus has been very narrow on the military and on trade," he [told] the McGill Daily.

"Much of the emphasis upon CIDA, which had been upon actual development dealing with poverty, has been replaced now by a supportive role [in] trade arrangements, not necessarily in the poorest countries.

"Our relations with many parts of the world where we had historically strong partnerships have deteriorated."

Even Kim Campbell opined that, "We have pulled back a little from our effort to be serious players, and I’d like to see us do more."

Clark and Campbell were Progressive Conservatives. The first thing Harper did when he assumed the leadership of his "new" party was to drop the first adjective. As Stephen Harper stands naked before the world, it's obvious that there is nothing progressive about the man.

Smug Stupidity

Jeffrey Simpson wrote in yesterday's Globe and Mail that:

Under the Harper government, Canada lost its bid for a Security Council seat – the first time it had ever been defeated. Were a vote held today, chances are Canada would get even fewer votes.

Consider Canada's performance on the world stage since Stephen Harper became prime minister:

The latest egregious example of truculent morality was this week’s visit by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to the West Bank. At a meeting with the most moderate leadership in Palestinian Authority history, the Canadians lectured the Palestinians on the terrible mistake they’d made in seeking United Nations membership, a bid that won strong support in the General Assembly.

The week before the West Bank lecture, the Prime Minister was telling Europeans how they should deal with their economic crisis during a speech in Davos. This likely impressed Canadians, but not Europeans. The last thing they need is gratuitous advice from a North American country that, frankly, doesn’t count for much in Europe, as anyone who’s lived there knows. And the advice is especially unwelcome when it’s layered with self-applause by Canadians about how well their economy has done.

In climate-change negotiations, the government’s attitude of palpable disdain for the Kyoto Protocol, coupled with its own deplorable record of inaction against greenhouse-gas emissions, shredded whatever credibility Canada might have aspired to enjoy.

And so it goes. Canada has caught what used to be an American disease -- telling the world that it should be more like us. The American authors Eugene Burdick  and William Lederer wrote a novel about this kind of  international smugness, The Ugly American.

Stephen Harper says he is hell bent on transforming Canada. Do we really want to go there? Are we to be known as the home of the smugly stupid?