When it comes to foreign policy, some nations choose enlightened self-interest, others excel in cynicism and still others (often tyrannies) favour patronizing lectures to the world from a perch of moral superiority.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to embrace all three approaches, depending on the issue, the enemy of the moment, and Canada's immediate economic interests. This could be interpreted as useful agility, but it often looks more like confusion.
At the least, it undermines Harper's strident insistence that Canada will always do the right thing, not the expedient thing, on the world stage. We will no longer "go along to get along" he announced not long ago. We will stand up to tyrants, we will not jettison our values in pursuit of money, we will turn away from the craven moral relativism of previous Liberal governments.
And we will continue selling asbestos to any country careless enough, or desperate enough, to buy it. Our government continues to insist, against all credible evidence and the serious qualms of some of its own backbenchers, that the chrysotile produced until recently at two Quebec sites can be mined safely; "ethical asbestos," if you will.
Arguably, as strong a moral case can be made against continued exports of heavy crude from the Alberta tarsands as against asbestos. Fossil fuels might not kill people as directly as asbestos does, but burning them - especially the energyintensive "dirty oil" from the tarsands - contributes to the climate change that is having devastating consequences everywhere.
No one is suggesting turning off the taps overnight. But the Conservative government isn't even talking about environmental sustainability these days. Essentially, we are saying to the world that our resources are for sale to the highest bidder, no strings attached, no awkward questions asked. Seal pelts, uranium, coal - whatever. (OK, not marijuana. That's dangerous.)
But it is oil that everyone, especially China, wants. Honestly, they don't love us for our personality.
Harper's reversal on China has been well-documented, but who would have predicted he would be leading one of Jean Chrétien's Team Canada missions this week? That's what it looks like: scant mention of human rights abuses, the ceremonial signing of business contracts long in the making, two gift Pandas to keep photographers happy and hints of free trade talks to come. Values, what values?
As Harper has learned, belatedly, China is too powerful an economy to ignore, or insult. And this is a propitious moment: it seems eager to increase its already significant stake in Canada's oil industry. A tough-minded prime minister could, perhaps, extract compromises - promises of jobs in Canada in return for increased access to our resources, and, at least, environmentally responsible development.
Our economy is dwarfed by China's, but when it comes to oil, it is a seller's market and we have another eager customer right next door. But Harper has shown no appetite to date for "interfering" in market forces - unless, as in the case of potash, he is pushed. An unnamed official was quoted this week in the China Daily, a pro-government paper: "We can feel the Canadian government welcomes Chinese investment without setting any restrictions."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to embrace all three approaches, depending on the issue, the enemy of the moment, and Canada's immediate economic interests. This could be interpreted as useful agility, but it often looks more like confusion.
At the least, it undermines Harper's strident insistence that Canada will always do the right thing, not the expedient thing, on the world stage. We will no longer "go along to get along" he announced not long ago. We will stand up to tyrants, we will not jettison our values in pursuit of money, we will turn away from the craven moral relativism of previous Liberal governments.
And we will continue selling asbestos to any country careless enough, or desperate enough, to buy it. Our government continues to insist, against all credible evidence and the serious qualms of some of its own backbenchers, that the chrysotile produced until recently at two Quebec sites can be mined safely; "ethical asbestos," if you will.
Arguably, as strong a moral case can be made against continued exports of heavy crude from the Alberta tarsands as against asbestos. Fossil fuels might not kill people as directly as asbestos does, but burning them - especially the energyintensive "dirty oil" from the tarsands - contributes to the climate change that is having devastating consequences everywhere.
No one is suggesting turning off the taps overnight. But the Conservative government isn't even talking about environmental sustainability these days. Essentially, we are saying to the world that our resources are for sale to the highest bidder, no strings attached, no awkward questions asked. Seal pelts, uranium, coal - whatever. (OK, not marijuana. That's dangerous.)
But it is oil that everyone, especially China, wants. Honestly, they don't love us for our personality.
Harper's reversal on China has been well-documented, but who would have predicted he would be leading one of Jean Chrétien's Team Canada missions this week? That's what it looks like: scant mention of human rights abuses, the ceremonial signing of business contracts long in the making, two gift Pandas to keep photographers happy and hints of free trade talks to come. Values, what values?
As Harper has learned, belatedly, China is too powerful an economy to ignore, or insult. And this is a propitious moment: it seems eager to increase its already significant stake in Canada's oil industry. A tough-minded prime minister could, perhaps, extract compromises - promises of jobs in Canada in return for increased access to our resources, and, at least, environmentally responsible development.
Our economy is dwarfed by China's, but when it comes to oil, it is a seller's market and we have another eager customer right next door. But Harper has shown no appetite to date for "interfering" in market forces - unless, as in the case of potash, he is pushed. An unnamed official was quoted this week in the China Daily, a pro-government paper: "We can feel the Canadian government welcomes Chinese investment without setting any restrictions."
Really? Whatever happens next - and China could end up owning much of our oil, gas and energy infrastructure if brakes are not applied soon - that country's leaders are clearly no longer on Harper's list of tyrants.
The new enemy is Iran, the latest focus of Harper's moral indignation. There may be uncertainty among U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, but Harper has "absolutely no doubt."
Further, the current regime wouldn't hesitate to use it, he says. He adds "there is absolutely no doubt they are lying" when they insist they are only interested in the peaceful use of nuclear power.
He could be right; the Iranian regime is dominated by anti-Semitic, anti-Western religious zealots, although the country itself is more complex.
But does that justify another unwinnable war in the Middle East; does it justify provoking a nuclear conflagration; do we want to further cement enmity to the west, risk Israel's survival, and kill thousands upon thousands of Iranians? How, exactly, would that serve Canada's interests?
Yet, it sounds as if Harper is preparing public opinion for war against Iran and privately promoting it. After saying that "all options," including military, are being considered, Harper told Peter Mansbridge recently he has "raised the alarm as much as I can," with allies.
But, he added, "obviously I don't advocate particular actions publicly. I work with our allies to see if we can get consensus."
Forced to choose, I would prefer a cynical leader to a moral crusader.
They are less dangerous.
The trouble with Harper is you never know which one you're going to get.
The new enemy is Iran, the latest focus of Harper's moral indignation. There may be uncertainty among U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, but Harper has "absolutely no doubt."
Further, the current regime wouldn't hesitate to use it, he says. He adds "there is absolutely no doubt they are lying" when they insist they are only interested in the peaceful use of nuclear power.
He could be right; the Iranian regime is dominated by anti-Semitic, anti-Western religious zealots, although the country itself is more complex.
But does that justify another unwinnable war in the Middle East; does it justify provoking a nuclear conflagration; do we want to further cement enmity to the west, risk Israel's survival, and kill thousands upon thousands of Iranians? How, exactly, would that serve Canada's interests?
Yet, it sounds as if Harper is preparing public opinion for war against Iran and privately promoting it. After saying that "all options," including military, are being considered, Harper told Peter Mansbridge recently he has "raised the alarm as much as I can," with allies.
But, he added, "obviously I don't advocate particular actions publicly. I work with our allies to see if we can get consensus."
Forced to choose, I would prefer a cynical leader to a moral crusader.
They are less dangerous.
The trouble with Harper is you never know which one you're going to get.
Original Article
Source: ottawa citizen
Author: Susan Riley
No comments:
Post a Comment