• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

There is a lot of stuff that is still close hold FOUO or classified, so I wouldn’t throw too many stones.

Lots of stories about low tech successes are both vastly over stated, and also some have heavy support behind the scenes.
 
Here's the link to the Joly speech to the Economic Club that Blair referenced.


If I'm honest I have to say that my biases make it difficult to see any major shifts in focus. I would prefer a more full throated defence of Canada's interests in a troubled environment rather than trusting to reshaping the climate.
 

What was billed as a major foreign policy speech by the Foreign Minister, Melanie Joly, two years into her surprise cabinet appointment, proved mostly empty of substance and devoid of anything new. Lots of generalities and bromides, though, and a hint of uncorked idealism from an old bottle.

You can follow the speech on CPAC, here:

CPAC

Delivered before an audience of the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto on October 30, the Minister began, necessarily, by reviewing Canada’s position on the war in the Middle East. Nothing new here. She described the horror of Hamas’ terrorist attack; affirmed Israel’s right of self-defence; emphasised the need to obey international law during the armed conflict; and stressed the importance of establishing a humanitarian pause or “truce” to allow much-needed aid into the Gaza strip. There was a little more punchiness in a reference to settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, which she said must stop. There was no reference to a future plan for the region beyond embrace of a two-state solution.

Then she shifted gears, in and out of French, to the broader international threat environment. To set the scene she reached for a Madeleine Albright (former US Secretary of State) quote about international relations being more like a game of pool than of chess. Thanks, tips. Nothing from the storehouse of Canadian wisdom and experience on foreign affairs?

Joly talked about two guiding principles for Canadian foreign policy:

Defence of Canadian sovereignty

The conduct of pragmatic diplomacy

On the sovereignty theme, she promised that the long-delayed defence policy update will come out and prove Canada’s commitment to bolstering its military capacity. Over to you Minister Blair.

Joly briefly reviewed the geographic compass point in an upbeat fashion. The moderator afterwards called this an “optimistic outlook.” To put it mildly.

Looking to the south she said Canada would work with the US on border security and immigration. (That’s it?)

To East, across the Atlantic, Joly claimed Canada as a reliable NATO partner and strong supporter of Ukraine. Nothing about what the future might hold; nothing about support for a Ukraine peace plan; nothing about Putin’s Russia.

To the West, Joly affirmed the Indo-Pacific strategy, with a bit of a twist, suggesting the emphasis should be on closer ties with two key Asian states, Japan and South Korea. The current friction between Canada and India, and reduced hopes of an Indian connection as a counter-weight to China, was described as a “moment in time.” The clock might stretch on that one, Salvador Dali fashion. On relations with China—zero, baby.

Where Joly went further was in regard to the Northern compass point. She promised that Canada would safeguard the Arctic and exercise sovereignty, without saying anything about how. She said Canada will make the necessary investments to ensure economic development in the North, again nothing on how. Easy talking points. She promised that Canada will work with the Nordics and the US on Arctic issues. No mention of the future of the Arctic Council or what to do about Russia as a key Arctic power.

Joly then turned to democratic protections and promised strong defences against foreign interference, surprisingly without mentioning her own department’s leading role in countering disinformation.

She did say a ‘Foreign interference Transparency Registry ‘was coming, misnaming it a “Foreign actor” registry. But this is in the purview of the Minister of Public Safety, Dominic Leblanc. So a promise she can’t deliver on.

Joly committed to sending foreign diplomats who engaged in foreign interference packing. OK, let’s see some action on that front with regard to the Russians, and a little quicker and more decisive action when news surfaces of Chinese diplomats’ meddling.

But the best of a badly under-cooked speech was left for last.

Joly tackled the theme of Canada’s approach to pragmatic diplomacy. Actually, she turned the concept on its head and talked about an idealistic policy in which Canada would perform as an independent honest broker in global affairs, avoiding any tendency to see the world as divided into two camps (heaven forbid not democracies versus autocracies, nor like-minded economies versus unfriendlies). For guidance she turned to the work of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, suggesting that his legacy was to keep allies close but to ensure Canada stayed open to different global perspectives. That might sound good as a distant lesson from the Cold War (if true—I leave that to Trudeau pere scholars), but it is far from a pragmatic response to the current divides in international relations and far from an embrace of the reality that the international system has reached, as she said (quoting from her boss, quoting from Joe Biden), an “inflection point” in terms of the threats facing it.

Perhaps the most quotable quote from the speech was Joly’s insistence that “I am a door opener, not a door closer.” Wow, is that what Canada has become? A flunkey in the service of an outmoded idea about Canada’s role in the world?
 

What was billed as a major foreign policy speech by the Foreign Minister, Melanie Joly, two years into her surprise cabinet appointment, proved mostly empty of substance and devoid of anything new. Lots of generalities and bromides, though, and a hint of uncorked idealism from an old bottle.

You can follow the speech on CPAC, here:

CPAC

Delivered before an audience of the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto on October 30, the Minister began, necessarily, by reviewing Canada’s position on the war in the Middle East. Nothing new here. She described the horror of Hamas’ terrorist attack; affirmed Israel’s right of self-defence; emphasised the need to obey international law during the armed conflict; and stressed the importance of establishing a humanitarian pause or “truce” to allow much-needed aid into the Gaza strip. There was a little more punchiness in a reference to settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, which she said must stop. There was no reference to a future plan for the region beyond embrace of a two-state solution.

Then she shifted gears, in and out of French, to the broader international threat environment. To set the scene she reached for a Madeleine Albright (former US Secretary of State) quote about international relations being more like a game of pool than of chess. Thanks, tips. Nothing from the storehouse of Canadian wisdom and experience on foreign affairs?

Joly talked about two guiding principles for Canadian foreign policy:

Defence of Canadian sovereignty

The conduct of pragmatic diplomacy

On the sovereignty theme, she promised that the long-delayed defence policy update will come out and prove Canada’s commitment to bolstering its military capacity. Over to you Minister Blair.

Joly briefly reviewed the geographic compass point in an upbeat fashion. The moderator afterwards called this an “optimistic outlook.” To put it mildly.

Looking to the south she said Canada would work with the US on border security and immigration. (That’s it?)

To East, across the Atlantic, Joly claimed Canada as a reliable NATO partner and strong supporter of Ukraine. Nothing about what the future might hold; nothing about support for a Ukraine peace plan; nothing about Putin’s Russia.

To the West, Joly affirmed the Indo-Pacific strategy, with a bit of a twist, suggesting the emphasis should be on closer ties with two key Asian states, Japan and South Korea. The current friction between Canada and India, and reduced hopes of an Indian connection as a counter-weight to China, was described as a “moment in time.” The clock might stretch on that one, Salvador Dali fashion. On relations with China—zero, baby.

Where Joly went further was in regard to the Northern compass point. She promised that Canada would safeguard the Arctic and exercise sovereignty, without saying anything about how. She said Canada will make the necessary investments to ensure economic development in the North, again nothing on how. Easy talking points. She promised that Canada will work with the Nordics and the US on Arctic issues. No mention of the future of the Arctic Council or what to do about Russia as a key Arctic power.

Joly then turned to democratic protections and promised strong defences against foreign interference, surprisingly without mentioning her own department’s leading role in countering disinformation.

She did say a ‘Foreign interference Transparency Registry ‘was coming, misnaming it a “Foreign actor” registry. But this is in the purview of the Minister of Public Safety, Dominic Leblanc. So a promise she can’t deliver on.

Joly committed to sending foreign diplomats who engaged in foreign interference packing. OK, let’s see some action on that front with regard to the Russians, and a little quicker and more decisive action when news surfaces of Chinese diplomats’ meddling.

But the best of a badly under-cooked speech was left for last.

Joly tackled the theme of Canada’s approach to pragmatic diplomacy. Actually, she turned the concept on its head and talked about an idealistic policy in which Canada would perform as an independent honest broker in global affairs, avoiding any tendency to see the world as divided into two camps (heaven forbid not democracies versus autocracies, nor like-minded economies versus unfriendlies). For guidance she turned to the work of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, suggesting that his legacy was to keep allies close but to ensure Canada stayed open to different global perspectives. That might sound good as a distant lesson from the Cold War (if true—I leave that to Trudeau pere scholars), but it is far from a pragmatic response to the current divides in international relations and far from an embrace of the reality that the international system has reached, as she said (quoting from her boss, quoting from Joe Biden), an “inflection point” in terms of the threats facing it.

Perhaps the most quotable quote from the speech was Joly’s insistence that “I am a door opener, not a door closer.” Wow, is that what Canada has become? A flunkey in the service of an outmoded idea about Canada’s role in the world?
What a deep thinker we have for a Foreign Minister...

Little wonder the world views us as not being a serious nation.
 
hold GIF
 
Passing off old announcements as new committments
It will be interesting to watch Michael Chong as FM when PP wins the next election. I have high hopes for Mr Chong and quite honestly, would prefer him to be the leader of the Conservatives.
 
MND Blair is using political speech. He is referring to commitments to purchase the F35, the Long Range Patrol Aircraft replacement, the NSSP and other already announced buys. What he doesn't say is whether the gov't will commit to a sizable increase to the baseline funding of DND.
What a truthful or up to date POL.?
 
Do you really think Joly wrote that speech?
Edited some portions more likely, to remove ‘we’ or ‘Canada’ and replace with ‘I’….Katie Telford probably let those minor Jolyisms stay, since they didn’t material affect the ‘warm fuzzy’ (aka. Peeing in a dark suit) sense of awesomeness that Canadians should feel comfortable believing of themselves.
 
Edited some portions more likely, to remove ‘we’ or ‘Canada’ and replace with ‘I’….Katie Telford probably let those minor Jolyisms stay, since they didn’t material affect the ‘warm fuzzy’ (aka. Peeing in a dark suit) sense of awesomeness that Canadians should feel comfortable believing of themselves.

Harder..... faster..... deeper..... stop moaning!

Prayers - what did you think I was talking about?
 

What was billed as a major foreign policy speech by the Foreign Minister, Melanie Joly, two years into her surprise cabinet appointment, proved mostly empty of substance and devoid of anything new. Lots of generalities and bromides, though, and a hint of uncorked idealism from an old bottle.

You can follow the speech on CPAC, here:

CPAC

Delivered before an audience of the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto on October 30, the Minister began, necessarily, by reviewing Canada’s position on the war in the Middle East. Nothing new here. She described the horror of Hamas’ terrorist attack; affirmed Israel’s right of self-defence; emphasised the need to obey international law during the armed conflict; and stressed the importance of establishing a humanitarian pause or “truce” to allow much-needed aid into the Gaza strip. There was a little more punchiness in a reference to settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, which she said must stop. There was no reference to a future plan for the region beyond embrace of a two-state solution.

Then she shifted gears, in and out of French, to the broader international threat environment. To set the scene she reached for a Madeleine Albright (former US Secretary of State) quote about international relations being more like a game of pool than of chess. Thanks, tips. Nothing from the storehouse of Canadian wisdom and experience on foreign affairs?

Joly talked about two guiding principles for Canadian foreign policy:

Defence of Canadian sovereignty

The conduct of pragmatic diplomacy

On the sovereignty theme, she promised that the long-delayed defence policy update will come out and prove Canada’s commitment to bolstering its military capacity. Over to you Minister Blair.

Joly briefly reviewed the geographic compass point in an upbeat fashion. The moderator afterwards called this an “optimistic outlook.” To put it mildly.

Looking to the south she said Canada would work with the US on border security and immigration. (That’s it?)

To East, across the Atlantic, Joly claimed Canada as a reliable NATO partner and strong supporter of Ukraine. Nothing about what the future might hold; nothing about support for a Ukraine peace plan; nothing about Putin’s Russia.

To the West, Joly affirmed the Indo-Pacific strategy, with a bit of a twist, suggesting the emphasis should be on closer ties with two key Asian states, Japan and South Korea. The current friction between Canada and India, and reduced hopes of an Indian connection as a counter-weight to China, was described as a “moment in time.” The clock might stretch on that one, Salvador Dali fashion. On relations with China—zero, baby.

Where Joly went further was in regard to the Northern compass point. She promised that Canada would safeguard the Arctic and exercise sovereignty, without saying anything about how. She said Canada will make the necessary investments to ensure economic development in the North, again nothing on how. Easy talking points. She promised that Canada will work with the Nordics and the US on Arctic issues. No mention of the future of the Arctic Council or what to do about Russia as a key Arctic power.

Joly then turned to democratic protections and promised strong defences against foreign interference, surprisingly without mentioning her own department’s leading role in countering disinformation.

She did say a ‘Foreign interference Transparency Registry ‘was coming, misnaming it a “Foreign actor” registry. But this is in the purview of the Minister of Public Safety, Dominic Leblanc. So a promise she can’t deliver on.

Joly committed to sending foreign diplomats who engaged in foreign interference packing. OK, let’s see some action on that front with regard to the Russians, and a little quicker and more decisive action when news surfaces of Chinese diplomats’ meddling.

But the best of a badly under-cooked speech was left for last.

Joly tackled the theme of Canada’s approach to pragmatic diplomacy. Actually, she turned the concept on its head and talked about an idealistic policy in which Canada would perform as an independent honest broker in global affairs, avoiding any tendency to see the world as divided into two camps (heaven forbid not democracies versus autocracies, nor like-minded economies versus unfriendlies). For guidance she turned to the work of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, suggesting that his legacy was to keep allies close but to ensure Canada stayed open to different global perspectives. That might sound good as a distant lesson from the Cold War (if true—I leave that to Trudeau pere scholars), but it is far from a pragmatic response to the current divides in international relations and far from an embrace of the reality that the international system has reached, as she said (quoting from her boss, quoting from Joe Biden), an “inflection point” in terms of the threats facing it.

Perhaps the most quotable quote from the speech was Joly’s insistence that “I am a door opener, not a door closer.” Wow, is that what Canada has become? A flunkey in the service of an outmoded idea about Canada’s role in the world?

The counter to the Joly speech and pragmatic diplomacy

Dominic Raab MP is a former foreign secretary and deputy prime minister
Lyndon Johnson apparently once quipped that a rival was so dumb, he “couldn’t chew gum and walk at the same time”. Ironically, Johnson found that America’s deeper entanglement in the Vietnam war overwhelmed his bandwidth, undermining his ability to multitask across domestic agenda and foreign policy. Today, with war in Gaza threatening to spill over into the region, impasse in Ukraine and governments struggling to tame inflation, the US-led Western alliance is fraying – struggling to cope with the geopolitical multitasking we face.

The evidence is not just Vladimir Putin’s rash invasion of Ukraine, which will require marathon levels of stamina in the Western supply of military hardware and cohesion if Volodymyr Zelensky is to prevail. Tyrants have been emboldened, with brutal dictators seizing power in Zimbabwe and Sudan. Nicolás Maduro – Hugo Chavez’s successor in Venezuela – persuaded the US to ease sanctions, on the promise of free elections next year. Yet, this week, a court stuffed with Maduro lackeys suspended the primary ballot organised to choose the opposition candidate.

Elsewhere, second order issues don’t get the attention they merit. There is little heavyweight diplomatic focus on the dangerous Serb-Albanian tensions in Kosovo, or the knife-edge run-off in the Argentine presidential elections, pitting a Peronist minister against an insurgent “anarcho-capitalist” – in the most consequential ballot there in years.

Even where Western capitals focus on a strategic challenge, such as China, they are easily distracted. For all the chest-beating by China hawks, there has been scant debate about Taiwan’s elections in January. And yet no single development will have more impact on the risk of war in Taiwan over the next four years – with all the global consequences that entails.

The traditional race between the hawkish pro-independence DPP and the pro-unification KMT could be upended if the KMT agrees a deal with the new Taiwan People’s Party, which touts a formula it says would enable engagement with China without prejudicing sovereignty. Whatever the wisdom of these positions – and mindful of the need to respect Taiwanese democracy – the Western stake in the outcome could not be greater, but is scarcely articulated.

This short concentration span reflects a changing world. The bipolar certainties and solidarity of the Cold War have been overtaken by a more multipolar, complex, and fragmented world. The rise of the East – led by China and India – has reduced the West’s relative power. Polarised domestic politics, from Washington to Bratislava, have reasserted a more hard-headed appraisal of national self-interest. Negotiations stumble on relatively straightforward challenges: the EU and Australia can’t even agree a free trade deal. Internationalism in foreign policy is inevitably being eclipsed by sharper realism across national capitals.

We have re-entered an era of “balance of power” geopolitics. But it is not the same as Henry Kissinger’s much touted pre-First World War paradigm. There are more international players in 2023 than there were in 1910. Governments have less reaction time in a digital world, while transnational threats, from pandemics to climate change, absorb attention.

Internationalists may balk at the implications, but they are unlikely to halt the tide of more realist foreign policy – on all sides. The US, whether Biden or Trump wins in 2024, is likely to become even less interventionist, and more resentful of European free-riding under America’s security umbrella. The EU will hanker for more strategic autonomy, but governments will deny Brussels the means.

The supply of arms to Ukraine is unlikely to match demand, leaving an attritional stalemate.
While appalling in humanitarian terms, it may blunt Putin’s capacity for mischief-making elsewhere. China, too, will find its international ambitions, from Belt and Road to the reunification of Taiwan, constrained by stalling economic performance and rumbling social discontent.

This changing kaleidoscope also creates opportunities for mid-sized nations. Whether it is peace-making and investment in East Africa, trade and maritime cooperation in South East Asia, or the supply chains for critical minerals in South America, the UK can advance its interests if we adapt and align in agile clusters with like-minded countries.

An emphasis on pragmatism will eclipse virtue-signalling tweets. Citizens and investors will see through cliché-coated press releases. If rational heads prevail, the world may just find this reckoning with realism leads to a period of greater stability.

Both Raab and Joly are keen on pragmatism and engagement but I suspect that the pair of them are approaching the table from different sides.

Raab seems to be more firm on national self-interest.
 
Back
Top