News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.4K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 320     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 875     0 

Martin moves foreign policy closer to US

A

Are Be

Guest
What's going on here? Where are the knee - jerk America haters?
HERE'S WHAT I'D LOVE TO SEE: THE TORONTO STAR BENDING OVER BACKWARDS, SAYING THAT LIBERAL INFATUATION WITH AMERICA IS WARM AND TENDER, NOT MEAN LIKE A PC GOVERNMENT'S PRO U.S. STANCE

Martin focuses on Bush
Photo: Jorge Uzon/AFP
Prime Minister Martin and his wife Sheila arrive in Mexico Sunday for the Summit of the Americas.

By LOUISE ELLIOTT
Canadian Press

UPDATED AT 6:30 PM EST &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Sunday, Jan. 11, 2004

Advertisement

Monterrey, Mexico — The delicate task of establishing personal rapport will be Paul Martin's first order of business when he meets George W. Bush this week, the Prime Minister said Sunday.

Improving relations with the U.S. President requires more than a list of objectives and a sharp pencil — it needs personal chemistry, Mr. Martin said during a flight to a special Summit of the Americas meeting.

"Getting to know [Mr. Bush] is obviously a very important part of this," he told reporters aboard the Prime Minister's Airbus 310.

Mr. Martin is hoping to inject his own personal, informal style during the two-day summit, which will include a half-hour of private time with Mr. Bush on Tuesday.

"Formal meetings — I don't know what that gives you, it's photo ops ... everyone has his speech to read," he said. "But at an informal meeting there's an exchange of opinions. For me that's very important."

Priority items — the mad cow crisis, respect for the Canadian passport, Iraq reconstruction and softwood lumber — will also be raised, he said.

But the desire to get to know other leaders personally sets Mr. Martin apart from his predecessor, Jean Chrétien, as he makes his first international foray as Canada's leader.

Mr. Chrétien, who has been criticized for a souring of relations with the U.S. in recent years, said friendships with other world leaders — including the U.S. president — had little importance in world affairs.

Mr. Martin signalled an intention to talk about multilateralism with Mr. Bush. The lack of a United Nations mandate was a key reason for Canada's refusal to participate in the Iraq war.

"I certainly hope we can talk about Canada's broader international vision as well, what I believe is a very important decade, what I believe is a very important role the international institutions play," he said.

Appearing relaxed, Mr. Martin joked with reporters that the trip was different from his travels as finance mininster because "there's 30 reporters and I'm not flying commercial."

Mr. Martin, who met Mr. Bush once before — coincidentally also in Monterrey during an economic development conference about 18 months ago — said personal chemistry is a key ingredient to successful diplomacy.

"I think it's important but ... in the end, countries represent interests, they represent their own interests and that is always going to predominate, but there's no doubt in the role that the personal side plays," he said.

Several factors suggest the two men will hit it off.

Despite superficial differences in style — Mr. Bush is a drawling southerner, Mr. Martin a cautious northerner — both leaders hail from political families where the father was a prominent politician in his own right.

Add to that a healthy dose of respect by both for free enterprise — Mr. Bush, a Republican, is likely to approve of Mr. Martin's success as a businessman — and most observers expect the two men to get along well.

"They're going to hit it off and enjoy being alone in the backroom," predicted Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University.

"Mr. Martin will know how to ingratiate himself with Mr. Bush."

Mr. Martin is known as a skilled negotiator internationally whose greatest strength may be meeting and organizing behind the scenes, Prof. Jacek noted.

That will likely play well with a President who, like Mr. Martin, spent much of his youth organizing for his father's political successes.

With new security, health and trade problems preoccupying Canadians, some argue there needs to be a new emphasis on warm personal relations between the two leaders.

Last year, a string of public insults by aides and MPs directed at the U.S. and at Mr. Bush personally — in the most infamous an aide to Mr. Chrétien called Mr. Bush a "moron" at a NATO summit in Prague — brought the relationship between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Bush to a virtual standstill.

The final slap came when Mr. Bush cancelled a planned visit to Ottawa last spring, and then found time to meet the Australian Prime Minister.

Past friendships have proven critical to advancing Canadian interests south of the border, — for example, Brian Mulroney's close ties to Ronald Reagan and later, George H.W. Bush, which were instrumental in achieving his goals such as the free-trade agreement.

"If Mulroney had had a bad relationship with the U.S. president, we could have been left out of the NAFTA," he said. "Most trade experts would say that would have been bad for Canada."

But not everyone banks on the importance of personal relations.

"The amount of flexibility Canadian first ministers have in this area is so small — it's really very narrow," said John Thompson, an expert on Canada-U.S. relations at Duke University.

"Summit diplomacy is not what it was at a certain time," said Mr. Thompson.

Indeed, the Bush-Martin summit may be shaped by Mr. Bush's biggest preoccupation: the upcoming November election.

Mr. Martin cast doubt on whether a Free Trade Area of the Americas can be established by the deadline currently set for 2005, and said Canada should focus on bilateral agreements such as the ones it has signed with Costa Rica and Chile.

Mr. Martin was to meet Mexican President Vicente Fox on Sunday night and Chilean President Ernesto Lagos during the two-day summit, which starts Monday.

Some 34 hemispheric leaders will attend the summit, which will tackle poverty brought on by economic and political changes in the region as well as issues such as AIDS and corruption.



© 2003 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
So what? Martin's a neo-liberal. Is he denying that? So what if he meets with Bush.

Come on, Are Be... Where's the beef?
 
If the PC's were to do the same thing, there would be a call to arms.
 
Deconstructing Canada's reconstruction whine

By MADELAINE DROHAN

UPDATED AT 1:53 PM EST &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Monday, Jan. 12, 2004

Advertisement

Prime Minister Paul Martin plans to take U.S. President George W. Bush to task tomorrow for excluding Canadian companies from the bidding on $18.6-billion (U.S.) worth of reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Does he have a leg to stand on?

The Prime Minister was quick to complain after Canada and all the other countries opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq were told last month not to bother submitting bids for the prime contracts. His comment that he could not "fathom" the U.S. decision was reprinted in publications around the world, ranging from the Tonga Post to the Lahore Bazaar. (Tonga was crowing about its own inclusion on the list of potential bidders.) After initially rebuffing all complaints, the Bush administration signalled a vague openness to change late last week. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the situation would be reviewed down the road, and promised there would be talks with Canadians. Mr. Martin might be emboldened by her remarks to press his case more firmly.

But if you examine the underlying facts, Mr. Martin appears to be standing on shaky ground.

First, Canadian firms weren't planning to bid on the prime reconstruction contracts anyway because they knew they wouldn't win. SNC-Lavalin, possibly the only Canadian company with the size and international experience to take on one of the megacontracts that were put to tender last week, said publicly it had no expectation of getting any of the work. A company spokesman pointed out that they did not receive any contracts in the rebuilding of Kuwait after the Gulf war, and that was a battle in which Canada took part. The U.S. announcement did not dash any hopes, because none existed.

Second, Canadian firms have been told all along that they would be eligible for the subcontracts. This is probably what President Bush was talking about when he told former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien not to worry. Once the prime contractors have been established, they will parcel out work in smaller amounts. These subcontracts are more in keeping with the experience and capability of Canadian firms. A host of companies, ranging from Atco Ltd., which builds camp facilities, to Nexen Inc., an oil-and-gas concern, have said they are readying bids. Canada is not being completely shut out by any means.

Third, Canadian firms can bid on the work that will be funded with Canada's $300-million (Cdn.) contribution to the reconstruction effort. There have been some very misleading statements made about this money, implying that Canadian taxpayers have put up money that Canadian companies won't have access to.

That's simply not true. One-third of this money is being put into the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq, which is controlled by the United Nations and the World Bank. It was set up precisely because donor nations did not want the United States deciding where their money would be spent. The rest of the Canadian contribution has been directed to Canadian and international organizations, such as CARE Canada, the World Food Program and Unicef -- all of which are open to Canadian participation.

Fourth, and this has a direct bearing on the first point, Canada has a long history of tying its own international aid to the purchase of goods and services from Canadian companies. For example, 90 per cent of the food aid disbursed by the Canadian International Development Agency is tied to the purchase of Canadian crops.

There's a continuing debate among nations about the wisdom of using tied aid. Some governments argue that taxpayers and businesses are more likely to support aid efforts if they can see domestic benefits. It was not a coincidence that President Bush explicitly referred to U.S. taxpayers in defending his administration's decision. Other nations argue that tying aid can be inefficient because it forces recipients to buy products from donor countries when cheaper and perhaps more suitable substitutes could be found closer to home.

There are no reliable figures on how much Canadian aid is tied and the government is currently reviewing this policy. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates it is somewhere between 50 and 75 per cent for Canada, and 75 per cent for the United States. The point is that Canada can hardly complain that the United States is putting restrictions on how its aid dollars are spent, when we often do much the same thing. You could even argue the U.S. is being more open than usual by including the members of its "coalition of the willing."

There is no question that the Americans' handling of the announcement about the bidding was needlessly provocative and has done nothing for international consensus on Iraq. But Canada's case is not as solid as Mr. Martin has made out.

mdrohan@sympatico.ca



© 2003 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Are be. But the previous Prime Minister actually got along fabuously with President Clinton. Its just this atrocity in the White House that most Liberals, and the overwhelming majority of Canadians, have a problem with.
 
Yes, Are Be, we're all mindless Liberals out to kick the PCs for no good reason other to cheer on our football team. Yes, Are Be, we have no mind of our own, we only say Liberals good, PCs bad because that's the way we've always done it and no amount of reason will change us. Yes, Are Be, we flood the Politics forum with posts trumpeting our limited points of view. Yes, Are Be, we are unwilling to listen to constructive arguments telling us to view the political situation with an open mind.

Oh, wait, that's not us; flip the party monickers around and that's you.

:rollin

...James
 
arebes3sm.jpg
 
We're just being calm and rational because it pisses you off, Are Be. :rollin
 
Well.. We've got the right wing in power and in opposition at both the federal and provincial level-- so there is, I agree, good reason for not just calm, but optimism. :tup:
The feds and the province are backing off on Kyoto already. :tup:
McGuinty is thinking of allowing 3P hospitals. :tup:

European style mass rapid transit in existing rights of way is just around the corner . :tup:

Best "FEEL GOOD" EDITORIAL IN THE STAR IN QUITE SOME TIME:

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
Jan. 14, 2004. 01:00 AM
Editorial: This bad idea won't die


Just a friendly reminder to the new government at Queen's Park: Voters understood when they cast their ballots on Oct. 2 that Premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberals were opposed to using public-private partnerships (P3s) to build hospitals.

But today it's hard to know where the Liberals stand.

This week, Health Minister George Smitherman added to the vagueness when asked whether his government will allow more of these hospitals to be built.

He admitted six other hospitals received permission from the previous Tory government to explore the P3 model. The Liberals haven't decided what to do and will "deal with them on a case-by-case basis," he said.

That's hardly a definitive "No."

In Opposition, the Liberals attacked the Tories for plans to have private interests finance and build hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa.

But a month after taking power, the Liberals essentially signed on.

Under the Tory plan, the hospitals would revert to the public after 20 or so years. The Liberals would see the public paying a mortgage instead.

Either way, the P3 approach costs the public more in the long run. That's because governments can borrow money cheaper than the private sector, and because private companies need to make profits.

The average age of Ontario hospitals is 40-odd years. We are going to need lots of money to fix them up.

Governments like P3s because they make their books look better. Borrowing is spread over many years.

But this is not about government interest; it is about the public interest. It's not being well-served.

› Get 50% off home delivery of the Toronto Star.
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
 
Where's the blind outrage for Martin not pissing on Bush, as is the typical demand of Canadians ?!?! :wtf: :wtf:

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

Until January 24th, the complete content of nationalpost.com is available for free. Read stories on this website, or view the exciting new Electronic Edition which is an exact replica of the print edition of the newspaper! After January 24th, stories marked with an will be available to registered subscribers.
Thomas Walkom loses it

National Post

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

Since he assumed the presidency of the United States in early 2001, George W. Bush has liberated 20 million Iraqis from the rule of one of the most sadistic and brutal dictators in modern human history, turned Afghanistan from a hellish theocracy to an aspiring democracy, destroyed the hub of the world's most powerful terrorist organization, dedicated US$15-billion to the fight against AIDS in poor countries and delivered a credible Middle East peace plan that might yet lead to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Given all this, to which historical figure would one properly compare the U.S. President? According to Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom, the answer is Adolf Hitler.

No, Mr. Walkom wasn't joking when he devoted his Tuesday column to this theme -- though he does lamely flog the ploy of disdaining a comparison between the two men even as he delivers one. Rather, he ties the two leaders together with such commonalities as the fact they have both donned a military uniform, they were both elected to office by sub-majoritarian electoral pluralities and they both had "admirers in Europe and North America."

Really makes you think, doesn't it?

We won't go into further detail about Mr. Walkom's argument: Cathy Young has already explained on the facing page why comparing mainstream politicians to Hitler is foolish. Moreover, any mind prepared to accept Mr. Walkom's comparison is likely so poisoned by blind anti-Bush hatred that it seems a waste of newsprint to try to lead them out of their fever swamp. But we will say something about the Toronto Star, an otherwise respectable daily broadsheet: Its editors should know better than to publish this kind of vile nonsense.

Sadly, this is not an isolated phenomenon at the Star: Since 9/11, its opinion pages have been full of shrill anti-U.S. rants. Last May, for instance, then-columnist Michele Landsberg praised a fringe Canadian journalist, Barrie Zwicker, who believes the 9/11 terrorist attacks were likely a plot authored by "elements within the top U.S. military, intelligence and political leadership" to promote "perpetual global war." Ms. Landsberg's conclusion: "If you call him a conspiracy theorist, call me one, too."

Since that column appeared, Ms. Landsberg has retired from the Star (no doubt so she can spend more time looking for the real killer behind 9/11). One can only hope Mr. Walkom will follow suit.
© National Post 2004




Copyright © 2003 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.
 
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp OUTRAGE! OUTRAGE! OUTRAGE!!! GET YOUR JACKBOOTS ON! WATCH SOME CANADIAN TV AND RAMPAGE AGAINST THE HORRIBLE PC'S
Jan. 14, 2004. 01:00 AM
Editorial: Martin, Bush forge a healthy rapport


They broke the ice in sunny Mexico.

Prime Minister Paul Martin had ample reason to look cheerful after his face-to-face yesterday with U.S. President George Bush. He made Canada's case effectively, reported "the vibes were very, very good," and brought home some welcome bacon.

Over breakfast at the Summit of the Americas, Martin improved the Canada-U.S. atmospherics by striking up a cordial if tentative relationship with the president. He also got some "pretty unique" respect for our passport, pried open a commercial door in Iraq and won a pledge of "close co-operation" on beef.

For his part, Bush noted that "Canada and America have got . . . special status" as partners, and described Martin as a "straightforward fellah."

Getting even that much of a nod from a president who's distracted by terror, the Iraq occupation, Mexican migrant workers and domestic politics reflects well on Martin's ability to promote Canada's interests.

This is a credible start at repairing ties strained by Jean Chrétien's insensitivity, without adopting Brian Mulroney's fawning approach.

Canada's modest gains at an otherwise unmemorable Americas summit confirm that Bush wants to rebuild trust as both leaders face elections. Bush gave Martin some comfort on vexing issues of sovereignty, fairness and trade that resonate here, while Martin reciprocated by acknowledging U.S. security concerns, and pledging help.

Bush now promises to give "prior notification" to Ottawa and to consult before expelling a Canadian dual citizen to a third country, if the person is swept up in the anti-terror net. While this falls well short of an ironclad protocol to send Canadians back here, it gives us more leverage than most countries. Ottawa officials will get a chance at least to go to bat for our citizens. That may prevent another troubling Maher Arar case. He was deported to Syria, held 10 months, and abused. That infuriated Canadians and clouded Canada-U.S. security co-operation.

Bush also will let Canadian firms bid on the second and third rounds of American-financed reconstruction contracts in Iraq, worth roughly $12 billion, after freezing us out of a first round worth $6 billion. While Canada has no claim on such contracts, after opposing the war in Iraq along with most other allies, shutting us out was a poor repayment for our help fighting terror in Afghanistan and rebuilding Iraq. The new approach better reflects our status as partners in the wider campaign to thwart terror.

And while the U.S. border remains closed to our beef, Bush pledged "close co-ordination . . . on regulation, on information and on the science" of fighting mad cow disease. If that marks the beginning of an understanding that this is a North American issue, not a uniquely Canadian one, and should be tackled as such, Martin will have used his time well.

These are modest advances, to be sure. But they will help stabilize Canada's up-and-down relationship with our neighbour. As Martin put it, they "show that working together, we can arrive at a reasonable solution" to most problems. After 9/11, that bears repeating. It's a good start.

› Get 50% off home delivery of the Toronto Star.
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
 

Back
Top