Gimbol's diatribe and screed

Talking point on Foreign policy

I've mentioned in a previous post that that paragon of liberal propaganda the Toronto Star is less supportive of the current leader of the LPC than the party itself.

Case in point

The explanation may lie in who he is. His specialty is not domestic politics but foreign policy, on which he's on the wrong side of Canadians (having backed both the Afghan and Iraq wars, "coercive interrogation," excessive executive power, American imperialism, etc.).He is like John Kerry in 2004, unable to shed the burden of having backed George W. Bush. Given the clarity of Canadians on much of post-9/11 politics, Ignatieff is even less likely to win as Harper Lite than Kerry could as Bush Lite.

Which brings me to the point, of what direction the parties have on foreign policy...and that niggling little problem I keep coming back to that the LPC still hasn't addressed.

The Conservative approach is that we need to keep our borders strong, and here is the crucial point, recognized internationally.

The NDP is the same boilerplate its always been, get out of (insert international agreement here) and join the (insert left wing cause here).

The Bloc approach is too easy and reinforces a fact that they will never form a government. Whatever is in the interests of Quebec (going to have to do some work to burst that rhetorical bubble soon).

The liberals.....well unfortunately the liberals don't really have a specific policy or platform other than to say what a great guy Lester Pearson was. If you take the Toronto Star columnists word for it, the LPC has a policy, but the guy leading the party is some Bush clone that hasn't the skill set or the roots to really be believed when he expounds on it.

The lesson learned here is that foreign policy is based on a nations ability to project its influence internationally.
So ask yourself, what action or policy would make other nations sit up and take notice when you make your way on stage?
The one that comes to my mind is the example of the US carrier fleet.
Can't say which US president said it (may have been Clinton) but the statement was that if there was some crisis somewhere the pres would ask "where are the carriers?".
The fact that a nation is able to "express" its wishes beyond its borders in this way is an impressive thing, but the wherewithal to build up a carrier fleet much less man it, is beyond the capabilities of a nation of 33 million let alone our tax base....its unrealistic.
So that leaves us restricted to acting within our borders or in concert with those nations that reflect our nations values.....our closet neighbour comes to mind as the one nation we would be closest to in foreign policy, if its beneficial for them its going to benefit us. Add the grain of salt that I'm specifically responding to foreign policy.
The other factor would be our reputation to deal in good faith. One administration (or its members) not openly mocking another would be a good thing, so if a certain party has a history of being warm and fuzzy to a country one day but dissing them when they think they are not paying attention probably isn't going to to be taken as an honest broker. The fact is that our closest neighbour / trading partner is a superpower, and we need to choose wisely when we are going to object to their acts or deeds.
But I digress, just because I'm drifting.
Foreign policy should be based on doing those things that enhance and strengthen your nations legitimacy internationally. The framing of which should also be cognizant of three pillars.

• International recognition of you borders.
• Capability to maintain and protect your territory.
• The population's willingness to recognize and obey your laws

It stands to reason that if it came to the crunch, our success or failure may hinge on whether we have the US at our back....*cough*arctic territorial dispute*cough*

I guess my point is this, the conservative foreign policy is a willingness to work with other partners, but when required to go it alone has done so in a way that is not confrontational. They also understand that global agreements to be global must include all the global players equally.

The liberal policy, which is ambiguous, is based on two points; glorify Lester Pearson, and appeasement of terrorists. Seriously, the position the liberals take is totally dependant on the audience at that particular moment, so there isn't anything they really believe in other than whats fashionable at the moment (i.e.:Kyoto accord).

But its not going to matter apparently as the left leaning faction of the liberal party (the ones that will drift into the NDP the longer Ignatieff stays around) will never believe whats coming out of Ignatieff's mouth when he speaks about the one subject he's supposed to be an expert on because of his past....or as our TORSTAR editorialist suggests, Micheal Ignatieff was for the Afghan mission before he was against it.

Labels: Conservative majority

posted by gimbol @ 6:31 AM