New Foreign and Defence Policy Statements - 19 Apr 05

[Edward Campbell]

Not sure what to make of the Conservative take on this:

I think we should take the Conservative statement at face value.

Many Canadians, moderately well informed and non-Conservative Canadians too, have concerns about the combination of the budget announcement and the Policy Statement.

The budget's $12.7 Billion came with some strings attached, which is a government's right, but without benefit of a current White Paper.  Now we have a Policy Statement, which does not have enough detail to be a White paper, after we heard various vast policy type plans announced by the new CDS.  The process is muddled, to say the least.

Someone, preferably Ken Calder, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy, should be crafting a White Paper to be delivered by whichever band of rogues and thieves forms the next government.  Until then there is no money to implement many (any?) of the CDS' vast plans, but some shouldn't cost too much.

Meanwhile soldiers (sailors and aviators, too) better continue doing more and more with less and less because inflation is eating away at the steady state which will obtain for a few years, at least, under the Liberal plan.

I think Rick Hillier's job is safe with anyone except the NDP (who would want to parachute Maude Barlow in as CDS).

 

[civvy3840]

What are the od's of the NDP winning the election though. It's mostly between the Conservatives and the Liberals right?

 

[Infanteer]

More on Paracowboy's "talking a good game":

- Our Recruiting system is so systemically scrambled up that it takes on average 6 months to get guys through the door.  The much touted 5,000 troops - how are they going to be put through our current system, are the 3 Doctors we allow access to med files going to suddenly deal with the influx of thousands of more files? 

-  Much of the problem above also lies in a disjoint with the training system.  Say they finally do get processed and show some interest in sticking around.  Are we going to have a 5,000 man PAT Brigade to hold them while they hang out at the bottlenecks in the training system?

- Talk of new kit is real nice, but our procurement system is so convoluted that I have a feeling it will drag any plans into the mud.  We've recently had discussions on this on another thread, so I know the issue is still relevent.

Just a few more issues.  But they are there: training, recruiting, procurement, physical fitness, mental preparedness, archaic reserve system, etc, etc.  Some of things are in-house; they need to be dealt with by the CF.  Some of these require a joint effort between the CF and the DND/Government-at-Large to fix.  But even though I'm an optimist, I can't help agreeing with Paracowboy that these systemic faults need to be addressed before or during the effort to build SOC units, expeditionary forces, etc, etc.

I really don't see how having a bigger military that is plagued by the same systemic problems is going to ameliorate much.

 

[McG]

-   Much of the problem above also lies in a disjoint with the training system.   Say they finally do get processed and show some interest in sticking around.   Are we going to have a 5,000 man PAT Brigade to hold them while they hang out at the bottlenecks in the training system?

The Army and CF are not oblivious to this.  The army has committed to establishing a strategic reserve every year.  However, it can be committed to any number of tasks, and SR06 may find itself with the task of individual trg.  This would mean 2 VP and its attached elements become a giant school to pump new recruits through BMQ, SQ, and possibly even MOC trg.

 

[pbi]

The Army and CF are not oblivious to this.   The army has committed to establishing a strategic reserve every year.   However, it can be committed to any number of tasks, and SR06 may find itself with the task of individual trg.   This would mean 2 VP and its attached elements become a giant school to pump new recruits through BMQ, SQ, and possibly even MOC trg.

MCG: This would IMHO not be a very likely role for the reserve or "Surge" TF. It is the Army's back-pocket item to deal with the unforseen mission or the urgent need to reinforce an existing mission. It is more likely (but not much easier, given our instructor situation...) that any surge of people to the training system would happen by means of "raiding" LFAs that are outside the High Readiness point on the cycle. The problem with that (as we all know too well...) is that it is those same Offrs/NCOs who are needed for dozens of other tasks in order to make the other parts of the Army Managed Readiness cycle work, so that units can GET to High Readiness in the first place. IMHO rebuilding our junior leadership cadre is ouir most important task. If we can't do that, we won't be able to do much else. As we've already noted, just pouring recruit bodies, money or new gear into a broken training system is like pouring water into a bucket with no bottom.

Cheers

 

[fatbax]

The biggest question that I have is where are we going to find 1000, let alone 5000, fit people that want to be in the army?  From my perspective, the PT standards that exist will only allow for more unfit and placid people to become members of an already unfit army.    As far as new kit, if you can't carry it, why do you need it!!!! :threat:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The biggest question I have is how long a dingleberry like yourself lasts on this forum.

MOD WARNING...add something to the conversation or you will be subtracted from the member count.

 

[fatbax]

I would guess that an apology would be in line here if i didn't see people during PT and on EX struggling with the current kit lists that units put out. :'(  If there are 1k or 5k people outthere then I say sign them up.  If, and I see it as a LARGE but not impossible if, we can get a more mobile and flexible army out of it then its good.  If it is just another plan that will never be fully realized then what is the use of forcing the issue. hug and kisses "dingleberry" :dontpanic:

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is an opinion piece from today’s Globe and Mail by Gordon Smith, University of Victoria and, formerly, deputy minister of foreign affairs in Ottawa.  It is reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060203.wxcoforeign03/BNStory/specialComment/

Mr. Harper, some advice on foreign affairs

BY GORDON SMITH

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2006 POSTED AT 8:25 AM EST
FROM FRIDAY'S GLOBE AND MAIL

Dear prime-minister-designate:

The election campaign barely touched on global problems and opportunities, yet both will soon confront you. Indeed, even before you have formally taken office, you have had to deal with an important issue in Canada-U.S. relations and the victory of Hamas in Palestine.

From my experience, you will find a loyal, competent and hard-working public service to advise you.

As you form your cabinet, there are a few things you might wish to consider.

White Papers take a long while to produce, tend to be anodyne, and are soon forgotten. What count most are the specific decisions made by cabinet about policy and allocating resources.

The distinction between domestic and international issues is increasingly blurred. This makes issue management more difficult and requires the involvement of you and those who serve you so the correct balance and direction can be set.

Canada has limited assets in the international arena. I urge you to reverse the decision to split the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I also urge you to see Canada's development assistance as a critical arm of foreign policy.

There are many problems in the world over which Canada has no influence. There is always media pressure for comment. It reduces our credibility, however, if we make hortatory statements that are inevitably ignored outside our borders.

The victory of Hamas has complicated the situation in the Middle East. Should we join those who wish to turn off the aid spigot until this duly-elected government declares its acceptance of Israel and an end to violence? Political Islam is a reality with which we will have to come to terms. That doesn't mean acceptance of future violence, but it does mean doing as we have done before -- dealing with people who have been "terrorists" in the past (think of Israel's own Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir), and accepting forms of democracy not directly descended from Westminster or Jefferson.

On the Arab-Israeli file, the key decisions will be taken by the Quartet (the UN, U.S., EU and Russia). Canada should try to influence these decisions by having its own position and by being ready to take a specific, but not central, component of this huge issue -- say, water resources -- and to devote significant intellectual and financial capital to it.

While easier said than done, Canada should base its international actions on its national interests. Balancing various groups' pressures is a near impossibility. We should not be embarrassed about asking where Canada's interests lie, and acting accordingly. Nowhere is this more important than on Israeli-Palestinian issues.

You have stated clearly that you do not want to see Canada's climate-change policy determined by the Kyoto regime and want a "made in Canada" approach to greenhouse-gas emission reductions, as well as an energy policy that ensures maximum benefits are attained from technology. There are important opportunities here.

The U.S. will never agree to participate in Kyoto-type reductions and neither will China or India. Canada could take a lead in developing a better approach at the global level.

With respect to Canada-U.S. relations, the key is never to lose sight of national interests. The U.S. certainly won't. Right now, it is preoccupied by its security and the war on terrorism. While the threat that weapons of mass destruction might one day be used by terrorists is a concern for us, it is important to remember that, for most of the world, security problems are seen very differently. Many more people are killed in internal conflicts by AK-47s and machetes than by terrorists. Canada can help achieve a broader global understanding of the various challenges and responses to security needs.

There are far too many poor people in the world. The solutions are not easy and require more collaboration and imagination than we have thus far achieved. Building capacity in developing countries is something Canadians understand and are good at.

Our armed forces and diplomats are now on the front line. They need the appropriate equipment and resources. But we shall never have enough to do everything everybody might like. It is important the government specify what roles it foresees and capabilities it requires; then one can work back to what equipment should be bought.

In closing, I urge you to set clearly the objectives of the government, and then hold people to account. Be cautious, however, of those who advocate a complex system of checks and balances. The result could be that the capacity to produce the results you want would be jeopardized.

Yours truly,

Gordon Smith
Gordon Smith, a former deputy minister of foreign affairs, is director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria, and chairman of the International Development Research Centre.
© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Below (or above, depending on how you have decided to view posts) is an opinion piece by former deputy minister of foreign affairs Gordon Smith.  Mr. Smith is a wise man, a distinguished public servant and scholar; Mr. Harper would do well to consider his advice, but: Mr. Smith is also wrong on a couple, but only a couple, of points.

He urges Harper ” to reverse the decision to split the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.”  That’s muddle-headed.  Economics should trump foreign policy; we are a trading nation; our trade department should be merged with our industry department into a super ministry which will –

• Rival Finance in its political power and influence and, therefore attract the best and brightest in Ottawa; and

• Have, and use, its own parallel foreign service.

I am probably repeating myself (from a discussion of intelligence services, I think) but collectivization didn’t work for farms in Russia and it doesn’t work for policy in Ottawa (or Washington) either.  A little good, old fashioned competition, even within government always does more good than harm – of course there will be problems, diplomats and officials will trip over one another, now and again, but, overall, the foreign affairs department is a lousy place to develop and implement trade policy.

He also says, ” With respect to Canada-U.S. relations, the key is never to lose sight of national interests. The U.S. certainly won't. Right now, it is preoccupied by its security and the war on terrorism … Canada can help achieve a broader global understanding of the various challenges and responses to security needs.”  Maybe I’m missing something but insofar as we are dealing with Canada-U.S. relations then we must appreciate and deal with the fact that the US ”is preoccupied by its security”.  We can blather on about small arms treaties until we are blue in face; the Americans are (relatively) unconcerned about foreign folks in dusty, dirty, far-off lands killing each other with AK-47s.  They are ‘preoccupied’ with people who want to, plan to and are killing Americans.  If we want to trade ‘freely’ (unencumbered by onerous security restrictions) with our best friend and closest neighbour then we had better worry a lot more about American preoccupations with security and a lot less about other foreign folks killing one another.

For the rest, I agree:

• Put Canada’s national interests first, always, without fail.  There is an unwritten implication here: we must define (and maybe debate) our national interests – the Globe and Mail and National Post have no more claim to know the national interest than do the striped-pants, weak kneed pissants in foreign affairs.  The Middle East, proper, may not be one of Canada’s central issues except in so far as it influences Central Asia where we are likely to invest treasure and troops for a generation;

• Deal with the Americans firmly, fairly, honestly and, above all and in sharp contrast to the Chrétien and Martin governments, professionally;

• Get out of Kyoto – as fast as we can.  It is, always was, a European con-game, and attempt to redress, by international regulation, Europe’s decline vis-à-vis the USA; and

• Redesign and re-equip the military to promote and protect our national interests anywhere in the world, whenever needed. 

Edit: format