Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

If Justin Trudeau and the Liberals lose this election, they will have only themselves to blame.  Of course, they would have required a time machine to avoid one of the big scandals--Trudeau's awful behavior that got in the news this week.  Blackface/brownface has been wrong forever.  Emmett Macfarlane pointed out that a pivotal cultural moment was a 1975 All in the Family episode where a noted bigot, Archie, felt awkward about being in blackface, teaching a lesson about what was and was not acceptable more than forty years ago.

So, JT has done it three times at least at the time I am writing this.  There has been lots of coverage today, but I was in a workshop (see blog post tomorrow) so I am writing this without having read most of the coverage.  The news suggests a level of cluelessness and privilege that is both breathtaking and unsurprising.  How dumb, immature, and insensitive must you be to keep on doing this?  He said he likes to dress up to a fault, essentially.  WTF?!

Other folks can explain this better than I can, but obviously being a privileged pretty boy meant not thinking too hard about stuff even when much of society had agreed that blackface/brownface is damned offensive.  And before folks say that this is an American problem--that Canadians don't have the same racial politics--please.  Canadians get enough American cultural products, and Canada has had enough of its own history of racial discrimination (remember, JT admitted Canada committed genocide against its First Nations) that, yeah, any semi-aware person would know not just now but way back in 2001 that blackface is wrong.

I will move onto whether this matters.  Well, it already has.  That is, JT's bad judgment in this area affected the trip to India, where he dressed up Bollywood-style, embarrassing Canada and giving fodder to those who wanted Canada to look bad (that would be Prime Minister Modi).  Back at home, the bigger scandal, seeking to protect scandal-ridden SNC-Laval meant pressuring the Attorney General, who happened to be an Indigenous woman.  Which then undermined his rep as being a feminist and being better on the treatment of First Nations.  So, we have a pattern of JT taking for granted the feelings of non-white folks, not just in the past but in the present.  Yes, he did some good stuff for First Nations peoples, including the commission to look into the missing women and improvements in access to drinkable water.  But it does seem to be the case that whenever it gets mildly inconvenient for the Liberals to do right by the First Nations, they go the other way.  It is easy to apologize (although I don't want to trivialize some of the meaningful apologies Trudeau has given over his term in office), but harder to do stuff when it conflicts with other interests.

That the talk and the action do not match up, as Hasan Minhaj pointed out on his show, is not that new (Stefanie VH and I discuss JT on that show on this week's podcast).  Folks are profoundly disappointed.  Are they still going to vote for the Liberals?  Probably, but perhaps not as much turnout and some party switchers, which then means that, yes, the Liberals, who had an easy election due to the other major parties having lousy leaders, may snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

How will I vote in my first election in Canada?  Kind of like I have in some elections in the past: holding my nose. 

Tough Times in Canadian Politics

One of the basic tendencies of Trumpian politics is that when the GOP is accused of something, they say what about Hillary's emails or Bill's sexual assault or whatever.  And I get that, so when I try to keep that in mind as I ponder the conundrum in Canadian politics: as the election nears, will folks be turned off more by Justin Trudeau pushing the Attorney General to give the wildly corrupt SNC-Lavalin firm (too big to prosecute?) a break or by Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservatives, dabbling with the toxic brew that is white supremacy?

It might seem to be whataboutism to raise Scheer's dalliances with the darkest side while Justin Trudeau is struggling with a corruption scandal BUT they are happening at the same time.  So, it is not digging from something to draw a false equivalency, but seriously considering which is worse--violating the rule of law a bit or pandering to racists just a bit?

I asked my twitter followers (who are hardly a random sample) and they spoke thusly:

Which is worse judgment in Canadian politics:

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) February 28, 2019

Many more found Scheer's speaking at the racist rally (Yellow Vest and the Convoy are chock full of far right xenophobes, racists, and other "deplorables", not to mention conspiracy theorists) to be worse than what Trudeau did.  I was expecting a bit more of an even tally, as Trudeau has greatly disappointed not just his base but also the left wing of the political spectrum who rallied to him nearly four years ago and have felt burned (electoral reform?) ever since.

How to make sense of this, other than, again, the selection bias of those answering my twitter poll?  I think fears of "populism"--the use of ethnic and other divisions to get ahead and Trump's example (as well as Brexit and others)--is more disturbing because Canadians (and those elsewhere who responded to my survey) are worried that what is going in the rest of the world could happen here.  That with a very heterogeneous society, mostly proud of its multicultural heritage, resorting to hate will be quite destructive.  Hate crimes don't just happen in the US--they happen here in Canada, too.  Having the major alternative party pander to these worse instincts is most alarming.  This is not a one-off event as the Conservative Party has been consorting with Rebel Media, which is kind of like the Breitbart of Canada.  And the Conservatives are being outflanked by the People's Party of Canada--an effort by a Conservative politician to develop his own party largely based on xenophobia.  So, the concern here is great.

Whereas the Liberal Party acting entitled and making dumb decisions that abuse their power--well, that is nothing new in Canada.  Canada has survived that dynamic more than a couple of times and done ok.  It is a known reality, so it is less alarming.  Also, the impact is less widespread--giving SNC-Lavalin a break is not going to lead to many additional firms acting corruptly.  Some might, but it is unlikely to lead to anything that endangers political stability or individuals, at least compared to the Conservatives playing up white supremacy.  Inciting hatred does indeed incite violence, and people do get hurt.

So, my followers may tend to be Liberal supporters since I am a middle of the road kind of person (middle in Canada, not so middle in the US), so maybe this is all about bias, but I can't help but think that, yes, I'd rather have a mildly corrupt party in power that appeals to all groups than one that is seeking white nationalist votes.  The good thing about the American situation is that you can have both--a corrupt administration that is quite racist.  Oh wait.  That sucks.

Anyhow, this all bears watching.  The strange thing is that I can identify three rules in Canadian politics, and two of the major parties violated two of them bigly:
1.  The Liberals should avoid any taint of corruption since that is what brings down the party again and again.
2.  The Conservatives have to avoid xenophobic and racist appeals since they need the votes of newer Canadians in Toronto and elsewhere.
3.  Avoid constitutional amendments and referendums.

Is the New NAFTA Treaty Half-Full or Half Empty?

I am not an expert on trade or trade agreements, but I have opinions and this is the Semi-Spew--where I can speculate or judge without much data or knowledge, so here we go.

NAFTA 2.0 (I hate calling it USMCA, just like I don't call the airport near the Pentagon Reagan but National--I am stubborn and, yes, conservative, that way) is a strange beast.

It does not radically revise NAFTA, but it is an excellent rorschach test. How one views it really depends on what one is expecting from such an agreement.  On the one hand, Canada did not get anything out of the agreement that wasn't already in NAFTA, from what it sounds like.  It did give in a bit on a few key things--a bit more dairy access, limits on cars sold into the US.  So, that sounds like a defeat--that Canada didn't get much or anything but gave up on stuff.

On the other hand, Canada averted major restrictions on cars and perhaps other sectors.  Note the expansion of the US trade war with China to cover lots of goods.  So, Canada gave up a smidge of access to the dairy market--something like access to 3.75% of the dairy market compared to 3.25% in the TPP that Trump walked away from--to keep the trade war limited.

Limited trade war?  Yes, because we still have the steel and aluminum tariffs.*  If Trump rolls that back, then, yes, this agreement is a significant victory.  If not, then it is like a mid-war agreement to keep the carnage limited.  Kind of like implicitly agreeing not to bomb China as long as China does not bomb Japan in 1951.  The trade war would still go on, but it is now less likely to escalate.

*  I talked to my colleague, a trade agreement expert, and she argued that this was a bridge too far because Trump's steel/aluminum tariffs aimed at multiple actors, not just Canada and Mexico.

 One last thing: nothing that Trump says now means that he will follow through.  This is both because Congress may not go along AND Trump has no credibility, his word is not good, and he changes his mind a lot.

This was probably the best Canada could do, which is sad to say, but reflects both the asymmetric power relationship and how messed up the Trump Administration is.  I doubt any other politicians in Canada could have done this better.  I do hope this means that Chrystia Freeland can be the Foreign Minister again and not just the trade negotiator.

Brussels Summit, 2018: A Toddler Tantrum

Heaps of helos flew over--at least five of these squadrons
This picture also shows the big NATO building and
how not so close we are to it.

I spent today at the NATO Engages Expert Forum that was near but not at the summit.  We were in a building/tent beyond the parking lot, so they had to shuttle various leaders from NATO's big shiny new building that we were not allowed to besmirch.  Like the last time, we had a bunch of panels--many with politicians and officials, some with experts.

What was different this time?

• The room was not nearly as deep blue.
• The room was set up like theatre in the round, which meant I mostly saw people's backs.
• Instead of the "cool, let's see how much progress we make vibe," we had a "$Q@#$@$, do we have to focus only 2% and burden-sharing, as opposed to NATO doing stuff" vibe.  Oh, and a kind of exhausted parent of a toddler kind of feel.  
• The panels were different from the past (see below)

Because, yeah, Trump colored everything.  He started his day ranting about Germany and being mean to the super nice (and surprisingly humorous Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg).

So, how did it go?

The first panel was far more interesting than expected: German Minister of Defense von der Leyen was feisty and dynamic as she had to put up with a pretty hostile Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Cavusoglu with the Polish MFA Czaputowicz being pretty meh.  Things got hot when the Turkish MFA explained that Turkey bought Russian missiles since Germany abandoned Turkey and said that Italy was a real ally, indicating Germany was not so much of one.  So, not the political niceties and superblandness I was expected.

Closest I have ever been to PMJT

The second panel was super-Canadian: PM Justin Trudeau, enthusiastic head-nodder MFA Freeland and dry MinDef  Saijan came out and were wildly popular.  Why?  Because here were folks who loved NATO in a crowd of NATO lovers.  Trudeau announced a "new" Canadian mission--leading a NATO training mission in Iraq with 250 or so troops and helos.  It was "new" and not new as Canada already had that number of folks there doing training.  The difference? Training the Iraqi trainers of the next generation of Iraqi army rather than training Kurds to fight.  So, probably less Special Ops types.  Oh, and to lead the NATO effort.  Canada has much experience in training the trainers from Afghanistan.  So, a contribution but not a radically new one.  The three of them were mostly boringly nice for the first 25 minutes, particularly as they got softball questions from grateful Latvians (for the Canadian persistent presence there, that was part of the Warsaw Summit agreements).  Then the Macedonian Foreign (might have been Defense) Minister asked if Macedonia could be a member, and the Canadians were enthused.  It finished with Trudeau doing a very enthusiastic and dynamic call for countries to focus more on the doing (which Canada does) than the spending (which Canada doesn't do as much) and making a difference.  The Germans loved this since they have a similar "enough with the 2% crap" message.  The crowd loved JT.  He is, like Obama often was, more popular outside his country than in.  I felt kind of proud to be Canadian, but probably not as strongly felt as my embarrassment for being an American with Trump tantrum-ing nearby.

The third panel had the surprisingly humorous Jens Stoltenberg, NATO SG, getting grilled by CNN reporter Barbara Starr.  He joked that Trump paid for breakfast (the one where Trump yelled at him).  It was not that informative, but still pretty interesting.

The final panel before lunch was on Inclusive Security.  This mostly referred to women in a variety of ways, and had three speakers---one American LTG Shepro, Isabelle Arradon of the International Crisis Group and Lima Ahmad, an Afghan from NATO Defence College.  It was pretty good, but was light on specific policy recommendations--that my pal Stefanie Von Hlatky pointed out the initiatives regarding women in the NATO communique were thinner than she had seen in previous drafts.  Still, it was well done and interesting.

The spotlight panel on technology was, well, when I was hungry so I didn't pay much attention.  Hangry Steve!

SVH did not say anything that to be bleeped

I missed the first panel of the afternoon, which was a bummer since I wanted to see Julia Ioffe in person (a very good journalist to follow on twitter) because I was scrumming!  I had to reject a bunch of media invites in Canada because I was at the event, but a bunch of media folks were at the event looking to talk to me and Stefanie.  So, it was fun, especially when I said something about "Trump talking out of his ass." I doubt they will use that on TV.

The rest of the afternoon was a blur as jet lag and conference fatigue hit me pretty hard.  The one panel that made an impact was with the Prime Minister of Macedonia (Republic of North Macedonia), which, fresh off of making an agreement with Greece about the name thing, is now in line to become NATO's next new member.   We then saw a movie dedicated to the retiring Jamie Shea, an institution at NATO.  It was roast-ish and funny.  And then he talked and was funny.

the dinner-less reception

Dinner was a lie.... that is, the reception was supposed to include a buffet which didn't happen.







So, what are my big reactions to the news of the day and how did I answer the various questions hurled in the scrum:

• Despite the efforts of Trudeau to brand Canadian efforts as big and super special, they are mostly branding and not much that is new AND Trump doesn't care anyway.
• the 2% thing was just Trump's way to rant at NATO and try to flip tables, which was underlined by his brainstorm to suggest spending 4%
• that in our room and probably the big room, Trudeau won more fans than Trump, but the relative power meant that Trump was still more influential.  Still, Trudeau did do a good job of carrying the banner of the rules based
  
  
  international order, something folks were desperate to see.
• the NATO communique identifying the areas of agreement came out late in the day (a day earlier than the last summit) and was about half the size of the last summit.  Not a lot of super initiatives, but notable stuff--Macedonia being officially in line for membership, heaps of hostile text towards Russia, the new NATO training mission in Iraq, and some other stuff.  Nothing as important as the enhanced forward presence in the Baltics like last time.

Canada Should Look East? Um, Maybe Not

Jeez, what a bad week for Justin Trudeau in India--he looks silly wearing traditional Indian garb, his wife posed with a convicted terrorist who also had a dinner invite, he gets snubbed for much of the time, and Canadian-Indian relations don't look good.  He also tried to use the Quebec example to analogize with Punjab, but since the only violence Quebec saw was nearly fifty years ago and was limited to one death and a bunch of mailboxes, perhaps not?

I am not going to overreact and say this happened because getting pics is more important than anything else.  I will say that Trudeau needs to leave the home game at home (pandering to the Sikh voters in Canada) and focus on the national interest when abroad. Oh, and he needs to shake up his team since this is the third flubbed Asia trip in a row--Japan, China and now India.  I would like to blame it on how much effort the government has put in the "manage and mitigate Trump" effort, but I do believe there are enough officials in the Canadian government to do two things at once.

It all makes me think that the pressure for Canada to be not just an Atlantic country but a Pacific one may be wrong--maybe Canada should do what it does best and not do what it is bad at as European and North American visits tend to be far less problematic.  I have no idea why.  Maybe the next government should go east, but this one should not venture beyond Hawaii?  Ok, that's a bit much too.  Still, there is a pattern here, and it is disturbing.

After spending an hour listening to the demographic trends the other day, where the biggest sources
of immigrants to Canada are the Philippines at #1, India and then China, Canada must pay attention to Asia.  Also, we can't ignore these markets.  I have been arguing that Canada should focus more on India than China if one wants more market access since the former requires far less compromising of Canada's values.  That may have to wait now, thanks, but the larger point remains.  Likewise, Asia matters since the most likely threat of a major war that disrupts the international economy and gets millions of people killed happens to be in Asia.  So, we can't ignore it.

So, how does Canada do Asia better?

1. Find out who was responsible for organizing the past three trips and fire them or move them to the most irrelevant desk.
2. Focus on sealing the deals that are there rather than risking them for marginal gains.  Don't travel to a summit where deals are supposed to be signed if you don't expect to sign a deal.
3. Do not use these visits to play to specific audiences back home.  Pretend to be head of state and not just the head of the government (snarky, pedant Canadian institutions point).
4. Build on Japan--that is the country that has the most common interests and also least implicated by Canadian politics.  It may not pay off for particular voting groups, but not everything does.
5. Canada has a fair amount of academic expertise on Asia so maybe consult those folks and share your plans so that they can serve as a common sense filter.  Because eight days* mostly in Indian garb?  What is Hindi for oy vey?

*  I, for one, don't mind him bringing his family, but eight days in one country? Any country?  Nope, no.  way too much.

Canada's Pursuit of Security Council Seat: Going, Going, Gone

I have long been skeptical of the chances that Canada would get the coveted United Nations Security Council seat that the Trudeau government has been seeking.  Canada entered the fray way too late and is competing against countries (Norway, Ireland) who not only have better bona fides as contributors to UN stuff, but have ruffled fewer feathers.  Perhaps making a big play at doing heaps more might have helped Canada some.  Clearly, setting up high expectations and then going way under them will not help.

And that is where we are.  Canada's promise to do more peacekeeping is now a promise to do more training of peacekeepers and providing some key logistical support.  This makes a great deal of sense in that this is all stuff Canada can provide, that the UN needs, and exposes Canadian troops to less risk.  But there is the rub: less risk means less commitment, impressing the UN voters less.

I long argued that doing more in Afghanistan meant more influence, even if that became a hard thing to measure or prove.  I am pretty sure that doing less will mean less influence, although losing the UNSC vote will be overdetermined, so I will again lack good evidence for my claim (good thing the editor and peer reviewers of my blog posts are pretty forgiving). 

I think that realizing that modern peacekeeping is really hard is fine, that perhaps none of the missions that were proposed made sense or were too dangerous or were too unlikely to succeed.  The government may be making a good decision, but it will probably message it poorly.  Yes, Canada will be contributing, but not nearly as much as those are putting their own people at significant risk.  So, let's not get too high falutin about this new PKO effort.

Of the campaign promises Trudeau made, this was perhaps the most pie crusty of the promises--easily made, easily broken.  I doubt that voters will care much in 2019 that this promise was broken.  Others will matter more, such as electoral reform.  So, yeah, perhaps a good decision with poor messaging and few real lasting consequences domestically.  Woot?

G20: Worse Than Expected?

Was the G20 Worse than Expected?  Well, that really depends on what one expected.  Did we expect a Climate Change agreement that all but the US supported?  Probably.  Could we have expected the US to produce a document that wrongly labels China as the Republic of China (that is, Taiwan)? Sure, the Trump Administration is both understaffed and full of amateurs.  Could we have expected that Trump would get along best with Putin? Absolutely.  That his meeting with Putin would go on so long that they would send in Melania hoping to end the meeting?  No.  That this meeting would only include Putin, Trump, Lavrov, Tillerson and the translators?  Um, no.  The debate ahead of time was Fiona Hill or no Fiona Hill (the expert on NSC and not a fan of Putin) not that McMaster and others would not be in the room.  Could we have expected Ivanka to sit in for Donald at a G20 meeting because he is a child who can't stand long, boring meetings?  Yes.

While the NATO meeting and G7 last month were shocking to many, this G20 just did something that everyone kind of expected: Trump handed over leadership of the international order to pretty much anyone who would take it.  Any other Republican President would have probably tried to develop a G20 statement on North Korea, but that would have required work and a view that international cooperation is a good thing.  There are few constants when it comes to Trump: he is always lazy, incurious, paranoid (no staff for the meeting with Putin because of leak paranoia), hostile to cooperation, and racist. 

America First does indeed mean America alone (sorry, McMaster but your spin doth suck).  When talking to my IR colleagues, we have a hard time figuring out if this has happened before: that the leader of the international order surrenders their role voluntarily.  The closest example would be the British after World War I, and that was largely driven by their inability, not a matter of disinterest or hostility.  Instead, the Trump Administration is giving up US influence (Make American Less Great) and getting nothing in exchange.  Opposing TPP meant the effort to contain China economically fails without getting anything for it. Wandering around the G20 with everybody looking to other partnerships means the US will now be at a trade advantage.  The EU-Japan deal combined with finally enacting CETA (Canada-EU) means that goods of those involved will face lower barriers than American goods, which means American companies are now disadvantaged.  Again, not good.

We saw two domestic dynamics become international ones:

• the donut theory of working around Trump.  Just as Trudeau has been working every angle in US politics to protect American interests, most of the G20 put their efforts towards working around Trump rather than the US leading.
• manipulate Trump as best you can.  His aides do it, so why shouldn't foreign leaders?  My only concern is that the successful Canadian campaign will eventually get noticed (they aren't shy about taking credit) and then lead to Trump acting out. 

Could the G20 have gone worse?  Sure.  Trump didn't punch anyone.  But we don't know what was said in the meeting with Putin, other than the different views about how much Trump pushed Putin on Russia's interventions in the US election. 

On the bright side for the Canadians, Trudeau did very well.  While Conservatives in Canada don't like the selfies and photo ops at home, having a Canadian leader who is very popular around the world is a good thing for the country.  Especially in the age of Trump but even before that, Canada was getting more notice and attention at this fora because Trudeau is well liked (I hate the Canada is back lingo because Harper engaged in much cooperation even if he was not as enthused about multilateralism).  This means that Canada is at the big table most of the time these days rather than left at the kid's table or on the outside looking in. And it becomes easier for countries to make, ratify and implement agreements with Canada since their leaders don't have to worry about seeing standing next to Trudeau--very much the opposite.  Indeed, we shall see over the next couple of years, politicians avoiding Trump and attacking him for domestic political purposes (see Macron, Merkel), but the opposite for Trudeau.  Being next to Trudeau is good for domestic politics in many countries.  This means, yes, Trudeau is a Canadian asset.  What this government does with this increase in "soft power" remains to be seen and the opposition can surely oppose, but the increased heft is a good thing if you think that Canada should make a difference in the world.

So, a good G20 for Canada and an awful one for the US.  Make Canada Great and make America less relevant.  Woot?

Silly Backlashes and Enduring Realities

Much discussion in Canada today of the Trudeau visit to DC.  There is some grumbling about the flash and style of the Obama-Trudeau lovefest.  And this could be the silliest backlash ever.  Trudeau and Obama apparently get along.  Um, isn't that good news for Canada?

Yes, as a political scientist, I am required to argue that structures, institutions, and organizations matter and personality does not.  But the reality is that personality does matter, as I learned working in Rumsfeld's Pentagon.  That Harper and Obama had a lousy relationship was visible to everyone made a difference in the two countries' getting stuff done.

To be sure, interests matter, lobbies matter, and all that, so no matter the pairing of President and PM, US-Canada relations are never going to be either perfect or horrid.  Even when Harper and Obama did not get along much, the border was open, business was conducted, and the two countries fought alongside each other and supported each other in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.

But personal relationships do matter in international relations.  Positive ones lubricate the gears of the interactions, and lousy ones put sand into the bilateral machinery.  There was quite a list of stuff, mostly medium level and below, that came out of the various meetings.  Summits are like academic conferences: they create artificial deadlines that force the relevant actors to make progress.  And it seems like some progress was made.

Of course, the Canadian Conservatives will pooh-pooh the outpouring of love for JT because it is their job and because they don't remember what it is like to have a leader who is, um, likeable and well liked.  There is more to US-Canadian relations than Trudeau's good looks and charisma, but it does not hurt to have someone who is likable to be the primary representative of Canada in the world.

The bigger tests are ahead--will Trudeau stay in message and not faux pas along the way?  Even the most experienced can mess up (see Hillary Clinton and her comments on Nancy Reagan).  And the substance will eventually outweigh the style stuff, as it always does.  But the style and message--that diversity is good, that we don't have much to fear--is pretty damned positive and what is wrong with that?

Well played, with lousy camera work.

Trudeau's New Anti-ISIS Policy

The new policy is entirely unsurprising even if it is, um, not entirely coherent.
Taking the CF-18s out meets the campaign promise, but is poorly explained.
Keeping the Auroras (recon) and Polaris (refueling) planes means Canada is doing stuff that is valued by the allies and is helpful ... by facilitating the bombing done by others.
Training the Iraqis and Kurds more than they have been doing so thus far?  Sure. 

The key problem in all of this is that we still don't have a good explanation for this stance.  Saying that bombing is good in the short term but not long term does not really explain why Trudeau opposed the bombing when it started.  It worked in the short term by containing and reversing ISIS's gains.  Ooops.  And if it does not make sense in the long term, why support the allied effort to bomb?  As others have argued, Canada is now doing everything in the bombing campaign except for dropping bombs. 

My problem is not with the actual policies but with the explanations.  If Trudeau is just trying to keep a campaign promise, he still needs a better explanation.  And there are abundant ones out there:

• that any military effort is costly, so it makes to develop the mix that provides the best effects for the dollars and that to train more means we need to bomb less--due to budget constraints.
• that the CF-18s are already at the end of their lives so we need to be careful about overusing them (given the need to do more flying over the Baltics thanks to Russia).  Flying less over Syria/Iraq now means that they can keep flying while we figure out how to replace them. 
• that much of the bombing in the near future will be in the cities of Iraq, and we do not want to have our pilots responsible for civilian casualties.  We would rather train the local forces to be more discriminating.  Not a great answer, but not an awful one either.

None of these explanations are super happy, but they do make sense in the larger scheme of things.  A pacifist answer will not, ahem, fly with Canadians (see recent surveys favoring Canadian participation in bombing) especially after the attacks in Ottawa in October of 2014.  The short run vs. long argument is problematic because every day we live in the short run....

But to be clear, the Conservatives are going to say a lot of stuff about this, and they will benefit from having a short memory.   How so?  They will forget that they, the Conservatives, ran Canada out of Kandahar while the allies were still fighting and taking casualties in Afghanistan.  That was far more problematic than this--a battlegroup and the rest of the stuff was far more valuable than 6 CF-18s.

So, expect much histronics.  I wish either party or both would take a mature stance on this issue, but as my new book depicts, expecting such is unrealistic.  

Trudeau's Foreign Policy: A Syndicated Assessment

I spent early this morning talking to radio hosts across Canada from Cape Breton to Kamloops to Yellowknife and places in between about the new Prime Minister and his foreign policy.  Did I blast him and his international relations adviser?  Only a wee bit.

The nine or so hosts had a script that they worked from, developed from a conversation I had with the folks at CBC Syndicated Radio.  Some went through the script pretty much verbatim, others riffed and asked some related questions.  But here's what I remember (having woken up mighty early, my memory ain't great):

As Trudeau was quoted at Davos as being committed to pulling the CF-18s out of the anti-ISIS mission, what did I think of that?

That he would stick to it.  That this seems to be a campaign promise that he is wedded to.

Why?

Not rightly sure, as the Liberals have bombed in the past.  The argument that we should do x (humanitarian aid or training of the Iraqi forces) and not bombing does not explain why not bombing as Canada can do two or three things at once.

Is Trudeau a pacifist?

Coast to Coast to Coast

Tomorrow morning, I will be talking about the new government's foreign policy from coast to coast to coast on CBC Radio.  I am posting the details below so that I can tweet the schedule.  I haven't done this in a while but always enjoy it.  I will post later tomorrow (perhaps after my nap) what I talked about.

6:10

Ottawa - Ottawa Morning Robyn Bresnahan - Host Twitter (show): @OttawaMorning

6:20

Sudbury - Morning North Markus Schwabe - Host Twitter (show): @MorningNorth Twitter (host): @cbcmarkus

6:40

Cape Breton (Sydney) - Information Morning Steve Sutherland - Host Twitter: @InfoMorningCB

6:50

Kitchener-Waterloo Host: Craig Norris Twitter: @cbckw891

7:10

Iqaluit Kevin Kablutsiak - Host, Andrew Morrison - Producer

7:20

Winnipeg - Information Radio **IP** Marcy Markusa - Host Twitter: @CBCInfoRad

7:30

Yellowknife - The Trailbreaker **IP** Loren McGinnis- Host Twitter: @TheTrailBreaker @lorenmcginnis

7:40

Saskatoon -- Saskatoon Morning Leisha Grebinski - Host Twitter: @cbcsaskatoon

8:10

Calgary--The Eyeopener David Gray - Host Twitter (host David Gray): @graydio1 Show: @cbceyeopener

8:20

Kamloops - Daybreak Kamloops Shelley Joyce (Host) Twitter: @cbckamloops

CF-18s and Recent Attack on Kurdish Bases

I have long argued that the Liberal stance to pull out the CF-18s was a campaign promise to appeal to pacifist (NDP) voters, more than a substantial commitment based on Liberal ideology or an evaluation of effectiveness.  This stance has gotten much pressure, which is likely to increase with the news that the Canadian Special Operations Forces (CANSOF) were under fire as ISIS attacked the Kurdish base where training is being conducted.   I just want to clarify a few things before I run off to pick up my daughter and see the new Star Wars movie.

First, this government is likely to cause itself some trouble, just as the last one did, by trying to define its effort as non-combat.  If Canada keeps trainers and actually increases the number of trainers as Trudeau has promised, these folks are training the Kurds and maybe other Iraqis to kill.  So, abetting combat.  If they keep the Auroras (recon planes) and Polaris (refueling plane), these planes will be supporting combat via the provision of targeting information and the refueling of combat aircraft.  There is nothing in Liberal ideology/history that says that combat is something to be avoided when necessary (from an alliance standpoint or a self-defense one), so I see this desire to avoid combat as strange and new.  Maybe Justin Trudeau is more of a pacifist than his father or the rest of his party's legacy, but it is a stance that is odd and one that will be hard to defend.

Second, having said that, those that argue that the CF-18s are necessary to protect the CANSOF on the ground are also ignoring history: the history of Canadian ground operations since the Boer War?  I am not sure.  But in Afghanistan, the most recent example of ground combat, the Canadians did not bring their CF-18s (probably because it would have made the mission even more costly), and relied on air support from the allies.  While I have heard murmurings lately that it would have been nice to have had Canadian fighter/bombers in theatre, I did not hear that over the course of the mission.  The Canadians never had the Dutch experience of asking for air support and then losing a pivotal battle because the allies did not show up.  If two CF-18's hadn't shown up when the Kurdish base was being attacked, American/British/French/Aussie/Danish/whatever planes would have.  The coalition has every incentive to make sure that Canadians don't take casualties--alliance politics, mil-to-mil relations (the Americans and others like and care about the Canadians with whom they have operated over the years) and so on--and would show up and do what it is necessary to protect the CANSOF on the ground.  Taking the CF-18s out of the mission and relying on other countries to provide air support would be make the mission quite like previous Canadian efforts.  There are good arguments to be had for keeping the CF-18s in the mission, but this is not really one of them.

Third, the one question I have is this: was ISIS deliberately targeting a base where Canadian soldiers were residing?  I cannot help but think probably so.  ISIS may seem strange to us (the beheadings, etc), but they have often been both strategically and tactically smart.  So, I would guess that this was no accident.  The Liberals plan to increase the number of trainers in the region, which may mean more bases to target.  And ISIS has shown that it will target such bases.  This should not serve as an impediment to the plan to send more trainers (whether training works and can be effective without fixing the politics of the folks who supervise them is a serious consideration), but should affect the planning--that the bases are carefully located and defense of them is adequately planned.

Inheriting a war is no fun for any new government.  Just ask President Obama, who inherited two plus wars.  The Liberals have smart people in key foreign policy and defence positions, but they are entangled by the choices made by the Harper government and the promises made by Justin Trudeau during a political campaign.  It will be interesting to see how they manage within such constraints, but I do not expect much change in Canada's stance in the Mideast.

More Than the Least We Can Do

Canada's new Prime Minister is facing a tough decision: a campaign promise to pull out of the air mission over Syria/Iraq after the attack in Paris.  Trudeau has discussed sending more trainers to Iraq to help train Iraqis (mostly Kurds) to add to those already doing that.

I have a modest suggestion: Canada has deployed not just CF-18s to engage in air strikes but also two Auroras (reconnaissance aircraft) and a Polaris (refueling and other stuff).  These two kinds of planes are far more "high demand/low density" (military jargon) or valuable and scarce.  Few countries have these capabilities, and fewer still have deployed them to this conflict.  While the US has planes that can do this, the Canadian Auroras and the Polaris have much value-added and are harder to replace than 6 CF-18s. 

So, Prime Minister Trudeau, as you redeploy the CF-18s back home, how about keeping the Auroras and the Polaris in the region, where they provide a particularly valuable Canadian contribution that the allies could use and would appreciate?

Figuring out Trudeau and the Liberals

I had a very interesting conversation this morning with scholars visiting Canada, and they were seeking to figure out the foreign policy stances of the new Trudeau government.  And they were asking me!?  Hell, I have no idea since I am not on the inside, and my friend on the inside is not giving me the inside dirt about the intentions of the new government.

So, did I just shut up?  Of course not, as my readers know only too well.  I focused mostly on the promises the Liberals made.  Why?  Two reasons: first, yes, politicians can break promises but tend not to do so; and second, the Liberals put out a large number of policy papers to demonstrate that they were serious and that Justin was "ready."  So, consult those papers and promises and one can figure out maybe what the Liberals will do.

I could guess more easily at some stuff and not others:

• Yes, Canada's CF-18s are going to leave the ISIS mission, but the training effort will get bigger.
• Yes, Canada will keep its commitment to refugees.
• Trudeau will give the various folks a chance to discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership, but will sign off.  Why?  Well, the Liberal Party should buy into free trade as one of the defining aspects of Liberalism.  Also, it is unrealistic to expect that Canada could get anything better out of the deal by re-negotiating .... unless it was willing to sacrifice supply management (which I would love but ain't happening).
• Will Canada get friendly with Russia?  Maybe a smidge more.  This government will try to be more diplomatic than Harper (not that hard to do), but any re-set with Russia is going to founder on Ukraine and the various threats to the Baltics.  It is hard to have a good relationship on the Arctic or on ISIS while having a bad relationship on irredentism/aggression.
• Will Canada join Russia in siding with Assad against ISIS?  Hell no.  This party has too much invested in Responsibility to Protect and in other principals, not to mention the folks here get that Assad is a cause of ISIS success.

Anyhow, informed speculation I got.  But not much more than that.  I think we will have a good idea about the Liberals by June.  Lots of key decision points between now and then to reveal the character of the Prime Minister and whether he listens to the folks who are smart on Canada's role in the world.

UPDATE:  Also, check out the mandate letters that Trudeau issued to his ministers--no better source of future intentions that the marching orders given to the ministers.  H/T to Julian Dierkes for reminding me.

Overwrought About ISIS Mission

Ok, first step in post-terrorist punditry is to PANIC.  Second step is to jump on politicians for whatever it is they say.  Folks are upset that Trudeau quickly, in response to questions about his stance on the CF-18 part of the ISIS mission, said that his position was not changed.

They are citing how this will hurt the Canadian position in the alliance.  Meh.  Sure, the position is incoherent as Michael Den Tandt argued well (the headline is more panicky than need be).  But politicians understand other politicians, and they get that Trudeau cannot run away from a campaign promise less than a month after the election.  At least not easily.

Is this dishonourable as Lysiane Gagnon puts it?  Not really.  A far greater challenge to the alliance was Canada leaving Kandahar in mid-war.  In together, out together?  Not so much in Afghanistan, as Canada was one of only two countries to leave much earlier than the rest, and the Dutch had a fallen government to point towards.

So, please, excuse me if I find the concern trolling about the opinions of the allies at this moment to be just a bit overwrought.  If Canada kicks in the trainers that seem to be promised, then Trudeau gets to keep his promise and the allies will get that.  And if Trudeau keeps the Auroras and Polaris plane (reconnaissance and refueling, respectively) in the mission, the allies will appreciate that quite a bit since those are far more scarce than fighter-bombers like the CF-18.

There are good criticisms of Trudeau's stance, but dishonour and disrepute are not really among them.

Governing in the Twitter Age

Not sure if it is the internet, if it is specifically twitter, or if it is just after nine years of Conservative government, but, damn, people are impatient.  They seem to expect Justin Trudeau and his new team to do everything NOW.  Yes, he made a bunch of promises, and he may not need to have Parliament to formally approve many of the elements of the platform.  But it has been less than a week.

Probably not. Everybody is too damned impatient expecting insta-change. https://t.co/aSqroh783v

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) November 8, 2015

Yes, Trudeau will pull the Canadian fighter planes out of Iraq/Syria (well, based in Kuwait but you know).  But that decision, already discussed/announced via phone call with Obama, is not that simple. The question remains: which assets will stay in theatre, which ones will come home, and if the promise to do more training means something, then what the package of trainers will look like.

There may be some more strikes the past week or so as the planes are deployed in reaction to events on the ground and available targets can be identified.  Until the CF commander in the field, BG Lise Bourgon, gets new orders, she will keep on ordering strikes as long as the coalition asks her to contribute.


So, give it some damned time.