Cannon's Fizzle Leaves Room for New Minister

Stephen Harper has tough choice to make

In the 2011 federal election, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon turned out to be a dud.

Which is unfortunate. While by no means perfect, Cannon was pretty good as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Among the highlights of his tenure was scaring Libyan President Muammar al-Ghadafi away from setting foot in Canada, then committing six CF-18 Hornets to enforcing the no-fly zone that is preventing Ghadfi from continuing to massacre unarmed protesters with fighter jets, as well as making it possible for amred rebels to run him out of Libya for good.

But the citizens of Pontiac were left with the task of deciding who their Member of Parliament would be. The decision they reached was not Lawrence Cannon, but rather Mathieu Ravignat, a former communist and one of the many largely-anonymous NDP candidates to win in Quebec.

This, of course, leaves Prime Minister Stephen Harper with a tough decision to make: he needs a new Minister of Foreigh Affairs. With the world in the state it's currently in, he'll need to choose very wisely.

The first impulse of many would be to assume that Harper will appoint the new Ajax-Pickering MP Chris Alexander -- who knocked off Mark Holland last night -- to fill this role. While Alexander has no experience as a Parliamentarian and no experience as a Minister, he does have experience as Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan.

Even as a rookie, he's a real contender for the job.

But his lack of experience places a notable obstacle in his past. Being a Minister is often as much about whether the Minister can defend his actions in Question period as it is about what the Minister does.

If Harper decides to adopt discretion as the better part of valour and not appoint a rookie MP to such a crucial post, the question may wind up being not who will be Foreign Affairs Minister, but who will be Minister of National Defence.

Simply put, if Chris Alexander is not named Foreign Affairs Minister, it will almost certainly be Peter MacKay. Fortunately, Harper has two capable replacements to take MacKay's place.

Edmonton-Centre MP Laurie Hawn's defense of the F-35 deal has infuriated opponents of the purchase precisely because he soundly demonstrates the need for the jets, establishes the F-35 as the plane for Canada, and doesn't give undue attention to underqualified technical nay-sayers.

Vegreville-Wainright MP Leon Benoit is unquestionably a dark horse for the role. But he shouldn't be. As a Reform Party MP, Benoit served as National Defence Critic. At a time when the Chretien government was purchasing used and non-seaworthy submarines from Britain, Benoit was the man tasked with standing up for the Canadian Forces to a government determined to maintain them (or not) on the cheap.

In a perfect world, Lawrence Cannon would continue as Foreign Affairs Minister. But thanks to Mathiew Ravignat (in this instance), a perfect world it is not. Fortunately, Prime Minister Harper has some options to look to.

Regressive Separatists, Not "Resistance Fighters"

Bloc Quebecois has very little to "resist"

Many Canadians must remember 2008's infamous coalition crisis, when then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion hatched a plot that he insisted during an election that he wouldn't -- a plot that involved, essentially, a deal with the devil himself.

When Dion concluded a coalition agreement with Jack Layton and the NDP, they included the Bloc Quebecois as a silent partner -- they wouldn't receive any cabinet seats (granting plausible deniability to the affair), but would support the government.

Many supporters of the coalition even insisted that the Boc isn't actually a separatist party.

But BQ leader Gilles Duceppe has been more vocal on the matter of separatism recently, and it should be incredibly difficult to make that argument.

Speaking to a general council meeting over the weekend, Duceppe declared that the Bloc Quebecois is a "resistance movement".

"For now, we're members of a resistance movement," Duceppe announced. "But members of today's resistance movement are tomorrow's victors. Long live a sovereign Quebec!"

Considering how much Canada has given to Quebec -- la belle province has been a net recipient of transfer payments from the other provinces -- one may wonder precisely what it is that Quebec has been "resisting".

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon certainly seems to wonder.

"It happens to be the most ludicrous and ridiculous statement I've heard a sovereigntist make in 20 years," said Cannon. "I would hope he would indeed take the first opportunity to clarify his positions."

In some other recent comments that should make any ethnic minority in Quebec significantly uncomfortable, Duceppe made it fairly clear.

"Canada can continue to impose its multicultural ideology, the old Trudeau ideology, on Quebec," Duceppe recently told the House of Commons. "Canadian federalism has nothing to offer Quebec."

There's been no question that there's a regressive racial ideology underlying the Bloc Quebecois -- Duceppe is merely the most recent to let that cat out of the bag.

Only when the Bloc was providing the Liberal Party with an easy path to party would they dare ignore Duceppe frantically trying to stuff the feline back in again -- and the next time the Bloc may help the Liberals get back to the government, they'll very likely ignore it again.

As for the rest of Canada, the racial radicalism of the Quebec separatist movement can never be ignored again.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Luke Savage - "A Possible Turning Point"

Chrystal Ocean - "Dmitri Soudas: Non-Critical Thinker"

What the Fuck!? Files Vol. 8: Who Wants to Vacation in Libya Anyway?

And Moammar Gadhafi wonders why he rides the international short bus

After Moammar Gadhafi almost got sat in the corner on his way back from humiliating himself at the United Nations, Gadhafi has decided that, doggone it, Canadians just aren't welcome in Libya.

So there.

It wasn't enough that Gadhafi ran away from a well-deserved dressing-down over the hero's welcome he organized for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, one of the men responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, apparently he's now telling Canadians that they aren't welcome in his sandbox.

"We are aware of the difficulties experienced by a few Canadian citizens interested in visiting Libya," said a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. "Minister Cannon was in Libya last week where the issue was discussed. We are working towards a positive resolution of the matter."

Of course, any proper-thinking Canadian is wondering to themselves right now: precisely what is the fucking problem?

If we really want a positive resolution to this particular matter, it's as simple as this: tell Moammar Gadhafi to go kill himself and die slow.

Jesus Christ. This is a guy who wasn't welcome in New Jersey, of all fucking places.

Calling All Internationalists

NATO chief wants Canada to stay in Afghanistan

With the 2011 date for withdrawal of Canada's forces in Afghanistan approaching, the newly-elected Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has called on Canada to continue its mission in the war-torn country.

"Of course I'm not going to interfere with domestic politics in individual allied nations, but seen from an alliance point of view, I would strongly regret if that became the final outcome of the Canadian considerations," said Rasmussen. "At the end of the day it is a question of our own security -- we cannot allow Afghanistan once again to become a safe haven for terrorists -- and I also think it is in Canada's interest to ensure a peaceful and stable Afghanistan."

As has become the general policy when Canadian forces are called upon to remain in Afghanistan beyond 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has already rebuked Rasmussen's appeal.

"However, our government is abiding by the motion passed in Parliament in 2008. That is: our combat forces will leave by 2011. We're staying the course," Cannon announced.

Defense Minister Peter MacKay has previously responded to suggestions that US President Barack Obama would like Canadian forces to remain in Afghanistan past 2011 as his own country prepares to commit additional troops to the crucial mission.

While it is true that Parliament decided in 2008 to end the Afghanistan mission in 2011, the persistent call from international leaders for Canada to stay committed to the combat mission very much does present a dilemma for Canadian foreign policy -- particularly in the minds of those who favour multi-lateralism.

The Afghanistan mission has long posed a challenge to NATO in regards to its ability to function effectively as an internationalist institution -- wherein various countries pool their political, economic, strategic and military capabilities in order to act constructively in regards to global challenges.

While Canada has long carried a disproportionate burden in Afghanistan. While other NATO countries have loafed by refusing to commit their troops to the combat mission against the Taliban, Canada has paid in blood and treasure for its commitment to international security.

But by the same token, Canada retreating from the field of battle at a time at which its troops may be needed most doesn't solve this particular problem. If anything, it likely makes it worse.

If the rest of NATO is prepared to match Canada's commitment to Afghanistan moving forward, the right thing to do may be to stay.

Parliament should, at the very least, reexamine its commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011 based on the international appeals for our forces to stay. Not even taking the time to reexamine our commitment to the mission could represent a fatal blow to internationalism as a central tenet of Canadian foreign policy.

We Know How to Crack the Sri Lankan Nut

Time for Canada to support Sri Lankan High Commissioner

In the wake of Sri Lanka's move to deport Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae, some Canadians may be unsure as to how to proceed with the matter.

They shouldn't. It's time to pack Sri Lankan High Commissioner Daya Perera on a plane and send him back where he came from.

Rae has been accused of supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers. While Bob Rae had given speeches questioning Canada's lack of involvement in the humanitarian crisis that accompanied the escalation of hostilities between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, to suggest that Rae supports the Tamil Tigers is precisely how he describes it:

Absurd.

"Basically, I was told when I got to the airport I was a security risk," Rae says. "To describe me as 'an LTTE supporter,' as an army spokesman has done today, is a lie, pure and simple. I have been a steady critic of the abuses of human rights that were part of the LTTE's tactics."

In fact, Bob Rae has always been a steadfast opponent of terrorism while favouring programs of reconciliation. Whether it was opposing Hezbollah terrorism while calling for a substantive peace process between Israel and the Palestinian government (as well as its neighbours), or opposing the extremist groups that perpetrated the Air India bombing -- an act that Rae speculates may have adversely affected his 2008 Liberal leadership bid -- Rae's bonafides vis a vis terrorism are as sound as anyone's.

Rae did write a blog post criticizing the Sri Lankan government's alleged lack of attempts to reconcile with the Tigers, writing:

"'The war is over,' the crowds will shout.

But there is a difference between a war ended by agreement and a war ended by death and destruction.

If there is no magnanimity in victory there is no victory. I think of the possibilities of peace in the years after 2000 and I weep at the lost opportunity, the lost lives. So many dead now that were once alive, debating the possibilities of peace."

That is a far cry from supporting the LTTE. The Sri Lankan government's slandering of any Canadian Parliamentarian cannot be tolerated.

Beyond Rae's treatment, the diplomatic impacts of the Sri Lankan government's behaviour are deep and profound. Rae isn't even the only Canadian Parliamentarian to be denied entry into Sri Lanka. Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai was told that the Sri Lankan government allegedly couldn't accommodate his visit.

Making matters infinitely worse is the recent attack on the Canadian High Commission in Colombo.

It's evident that the country of Sri Lanka has no intentions of continuing diplomatic relations with Canada in good faith. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't oblige them.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dan Shields - "Go Away, Bob Rae"

Vijay Sappani - "Sri Lanka Deports Bob Rae. Did the Conservatives Plot It?

Russ Campbell - "Rae banned in Sri Lanka"

World Shouldn't Hold Its Breath Over Tiananmen Square

Lawrence Cannon calls for "public accounting"

In a statement on the eve of today's 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon joined the chorus of voices calling for a public accounting of the massacre.

"The 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square tragedy provides an opportunity for China to remember those who lost their lives at that time while calling for political and economic reforms in China," Cannon said. "Twenty years later, we hope that they will be able to examine these events in an open and transparent fashion -- including the public accounting of those killed, detained or missing."

Cannon shouldn't hold his breath -- nor should anyone else in the world.

The Communist Party regime in China will certainly not hold any kind of public accounting into Tiananmen Square unless they need to do so in order to hold on to power. As sad as it may be to realize this, they simply don't.

In Mediapolitik, Lee Edwards outlined how the Chinese government micro-managed coverage of the massacre. In 1989 China was a very different country than it is today. While today the amount of coverage that the massacre received in the international media -- partially through the efforts of Canada's own Jan Wong, who witnessed the massacre from the relative safety of her nearby hotel room -- would almost assure that Tiananmen Square would be common knowledge throughout China, the average Chinese citizen didn't have satellite television or the internet in 1989.

Instead, the Chinese government repressed coverage of Tiananmen Square within China's borders. Even today when many Chinese citizens learn about the massacre it's in the history books published in other countries.

Even when the Chinese government acknowledged -- on a very limited basis -- the occurrence of the massacre, they played it off as necessary to contain "violent militant anti-revolutionaries".

Yet Wong's own reflection of the event, as told in Red China Blues, tells a different story. Rather, much of the Chinese student movement's fervour was staged for international cameras. Wong recounts witnessing one student in particular furiously waving a pro-democracy banner when television cameras were on him, then slumping over and smoking a cigarette when they had moved on.

Whatever the Chinese student movement had planned to accomplish at Tiananmen Square, taking up arms against the communist government wasn't one of their goals.

To make matters worse, comparatively few foreign leaders are willing to hold the Chinese government responsible for what occurred at Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989. When former Prime Minister Jean Chretien toured China in the 1990s he refused to so much as utter the words "human rights" and instead referred to "good governance and the rule of law".

When the rule of law allows the government to run over its citizens with tanks, there's little question that whatever governance exists in that country is not "good".

Yet even Cannon is willing to to echo similar statements when he refers to China's economic development -- achieved at the direct expense of more than 100 million Chinese citizens who were dislocated from their homes in order to serve as a mobile labour force -- as an advance for human rights.

Anyone expecting the Chinese government to suddenly be forthcoming about the events of June 5, 1989 shouldn't hold their breath.

Sure, Buddy, We Take You Seriously

Iranian Vice-President says Afghanistan makes Canada look bad

Ever since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that there are no homosexuals in Iran many people have had a hard time taking Iranian politicians seriously.

So when Iran's Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie recently suggested that Canada's role in Afghanistan is hurting its international reputation, one could be forgiven for not taking him seriously.

Ironically, Mashaie offered the sentiment during an unofficial visit to Ottawa meant to improve relations between the two countries.

Indeed, Canada is in Afghanistan refusing to allow the Taliban to return to power so it can oppress women, ethnically cleanse and harbour terrorists. And that hurts our international reputation.

Right.

"It's good news that Canada is leaving in 2011 and we welcome that," Mashaie noted.

Given the amount of material support Iran has provided the Taliban with, there's little question that Iran would prefer that Canada leave the country. Little more question that they would rather have an Islamic fundamentalist government in power in Afghanistan than a democratic regime friendly (or at the very least not hostile) to the west.

For his own part, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon notes the internationalism of the mission, and how it reflects on Canada's positive role in that country. "Our engagement has earned the praise of international partners, most recently from [U.S.] President [Barack] Obama," Cannon notes. "The people of Iran stand to benefit greatly from a secure and stable Afghanistan. We will continue to encourage the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to play a constructive role in the affairs of neighbouring countries. Canada has urged the government of Iran to take appropriate measures to ensure that no support is provided to any insurgent group in Afghanistan."

Mashaie also complained about some comments that Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently made about Iran.

"It concerns me that we have a regime ]in Tehran] with an ideology that is obviously evil," Harper mused. "My government is a very strong supporter of the state of Israel and considers the Iranian threats to be absolutely unacceptable and beyond the pale."

"Anti-Semitism is a pernicious evil that must be exposed, that must be confronted, that must be repudiated, whenever and wherever it appears," Harper continued. "Under our government, Canada will remain an unyielding defender of Jewish religious freedom, a forceful opponent of anti-Semitism in all of its forms and a staunch supporter of a secure and democratic state of Israel."

Mashaie complained that Harper's suggestion that Iran's government is "evil" were evidence of "weakness".

While Harper's comments certainly exaggerate the Iranian state's comparative malevolence, who could possibly think a country that beats and rapes the citizens of a foreign country to death, brutally whips homosexuals (then denies their very existence), and sends police to brutalize womens' rights protesters could possibly be evil?

One can only wonder if the Iranian administration actually wonders why no one takes them seriously.

Pakistan: Obama's Biggest Challenge

Pakistan poses a dilemma for Barack Obama's Afghanistan focus

As Barack Obama prepares to take office tomorrow, he must be aware that there is a great deal of work ahead of him.

A significant portion of that work will be related to his new focus on Afghanistan and, by extension, matters pertaining to Pakistan.

Taliban fighters and other insurgents have used a largely-uncontrolled border between the two countries to operate out of bases in Pakistan. Obama has already announced that he would allow American forces to pursue insurgent fighters into Pakistan. But there are far more important matters related to Pakistan to be dealt with.

Clearly, part of Obama's approach to Pakistan will have to deal with nuclear weapons.

Of all the (officially) democratic countries in the world right now, Pakistan may be most vulnerable to takeover by Islamic militants. Allowing such individuals to get their hands on nuclear weapons is by any account a nightmare scenario, especially considering reports that Al Qaeda has attempted to acquire submarines within the past six years.

Neil Joeck of Livermore Laboratories has suggested that Obama may institute a policy requiring the reduction of American nuclear weapons to 1,000 units. But in order to deal with the threat that Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpile, Obama would have to negotiate a peace treaty between Pakistan and India that deals decisively not only with mutual nuclear disarmament, but also building a sturdy and just peace between the two countries.

According to Joeck, Pakistan maintains their nuclear stockpiles as a deterrent not only against India mounting a nuclear attack against Pakistan, but also in order to deter a conventional attack.

Considering that Pakistan has moved troops out of its north western region in response to recent tensions between the two countries, the war in Afghanistan would reap an obvious dividend from peace between the two countries.

A clear obstacle to such a peace accord is the matter of Kashmir. Tariq Amin-Kahn notes that there are few means by which a just peace could be achieved between India and Pakistan without resolving that controversy to the satisfaction of both countries.

Pakistan could not accept Indian hegemony in Kashmir.

One obvious short-term solution is for India and Pakistan to negotiate an agreement of mutual demobilization from Kashmir.

Amin-Kahn and The Real News' Paul Jay seem to look to Obama to negotiate such an agreement between India and Pakistan. But as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, Canada is actually much better positioned to help barter such a deal.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and National Defence Minister Peter MacKay have ruminated about negotiating a deal involving the sharing of terrorism-related military intelligence between the two countries. Negotiating a mutual demobilization from Kashmir would be an ambitious but worthwhile project for Canada's diplomats to pursue.

The idea should not be for Canadian diplomats to replace an effort by American diplomats to negotiate such a settlement, but rather to work as a partner with Barack Obama in an initiative modelled after the mission diplomacy that has successfully negotiated agreements such as the landmine ban.

The work involved would be arduous, but in the end rewarding. That is more than enough reason for the Canadian government to be a leading partner in helping Barack Obama tackle his biggest challenge.

Shaking Hands With the Devil

Shake Hands With the Devil is a reminder of the importance of Canadian values

In 1994, the world witnessed one of the worst genocides in human history unfolding in Rwanda.

Sadly, Canadian Lieutenant Governor (now retired) Romeo Dallaire witnessed those events from a front-row seat as the world did next to nothing to stop the horrific massacres unfolding in that country.

Shake Hands With the Devil -- named after Dallaire's book of the same title -- is the story of those massacres.

In any year, it is a sombre reminder of the fragile nature of peace in many parts of the world, and of the responsibilities that come with undertaking an effort to try and keep it.

The film presents the story in a brilliant bilingual style reminiscent of The Rocket, with the characters frequently slipping back and forth between French and English. Although the subtities are extremely sloppy, to the extent that they often cannot even be read, this bilingual style lends authenticity to the film.

The film opens with Romeo Dallaire (Roy Dupuis) in his civilian clothes, seated in an office with an unnamed defence ministry bureaucrat. The environment in the room is tense -- to put it lightly -- as Dallaire doesn't speak. Instead, he keeps himself locked up with his thoughts. As he comments on the flashbacks he has been suffering of his time in Rwanda -- which Dallaire has often remarked seem less like memory and much more like he is literally re-living the events -- Dallaire speaks to many of the individuals he dealt with in Rwanda.

The film follows Dallaire very closely throughout his tour of duty in Rwanda, and offers very deep glimpses into his soul as he conducts the business of his peacekeeping mission in that country. Dupuis masterfully depicts the disgust the real Dallaire almost certainly felt when shaking hands with the leader of the Interahamwe -- and the heightened disgust Dallaire must have experienced when it seemed easier to do it again.

The moment that Dallaire made his tragic turn toward suicidal behaviour contrasts starkly with the Dallaire in the rest of the film. It's saddening to witness Dallaire, a very proud and honourable man, mutilating himself with a razor.

Paul Kagame (Akin Omotoso), meanwhile, is portrayed as a consumate realist. While he seems to abhor the fact that the Rwandan Patriotic Front's retaliation will only lead to more killing, he seems to understand that such things were necessary. Perhaps the greatest difference between Dallaire and Kagami is that Kagami was allowed the option of doing the things he knows to be right.

Romeo Dallaire was allowed no such option, and it seems that Roy Dupuis understood this. Dupuis grasps the full fury that Dallaire must have felt when he was denied permission to sieze illegal weapons caches in Kigali. The film makes it seem like mere days before the fighting broke out. In fact, this occurred in January 1994. The killings would not begin until April 7, 1994.

The film doesn't back down from any of the grisly details of the genocide. Anything that could be fit into the just-under-two hours of the film seemingly was. However, those looking for an absolutely faithful historical flic may be disappointed. Some key figures, such as Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh and Faustin Twagiramungu, are missing.

Films like Shake Hands With the Devil are important -- particularly for Canada, and our underexplored history. Right now, films such as this are especially important, as Canada pursues a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Certainly, a seat for Canada on the Security Council would be a very good thing. But Canadians need to understand precisely why Canada is seeking such a position. There must be a reason.

One such reason seems obivious: international prestige.

Another is international influence. This is the motive Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon recently alluded to while speaking on the subject.

"Today, Canada is contributing to peace and security and making sacrifices in places as diverse as Afghanistan, Haiti and Sudan. Each of these Canadian engagements flows from a UN mandate. For Canada, a seat on the Security Council is a further way of stepping up to our global responsibilities," Cannon said. "With your support on the Security Council, Canada will push for greater transparency in the Council work, which I believe would be beneficial to the whole international community."

Cannon also spoke of the pragmatic role that Canada has previously played in the Security Council.

"With a seat on the Council in 2011 and 2012 we would continue this tradition, pursuing an active agenda for the United Nations in such areas as peace building, conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Activities, as you know, that contribute to global stability and security are common goals that we all share," he announced.

But we as Canadians need to be mindful of the important responsibilities that come with Security Council membership. Romeo Dallaire and his haunted mental state stand as sombre reminders of what can happen -- both on an international basis and on an individual basis -- when the Security Council shirks its responsibilities.

The United Nations Security Council had a responsibility to stop the genccide in Rwanda. Wrapt up in petty politics, it shirked this responsibility. But it did not do so alone.

When it became obvious that the United Nations was not living up to its responsibilities in Rwanda, Canada -- having been committed to the mission -- should have done everything within its power -- both diplomatically and militarily -- to fill the breach.

Years of intransigence by Conservative and Liberal party governments in Canada sadly rendered the country unable to do enough. Canada's shirking of its responsibility to the Rwanda mission sadly began decades before the tragedy officially occurred.

If the Canadian government really wants a seat on the UN Security Council, it has to be prepared to live up to Canadian values and live up to its responsibilities as a member of that body.

If our government is only seeking a Security Council seat as part of quest for international prestige and influence, then we are truly shaking hands with the devil.

Welcome to the War on Terror

Mumbai attacks open new theatre in War on Terror

With the Mumbai terror attacks having reached their tragic conclusion, it finally seems safe to comment.

The Mumbai attacks are sobering in their implications. With up to 155 dead -- including at least two Canadians -- the War on Terror has clearly opened a new front in one of the world's most populated countries.

The attacks were carried out with frightening precision. In less than an hour, Mariman House, Leopold's Cafe, the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberon Trident Hotel, the Cama Hospital, and the Chatrapati Shivaji railway station were under attack. It would take three days to bring the attack to a halt.

If anything, the Mumbai attacks demonstrates the importance of dealing with domestic terrorism. The Deccan Mujahadeen and the Students Islamic Movement of India who have been accused of jointly planning and executing the attack were previously identified as responsible for bombings in Uttar Pradesh.

Even if the Deccan Mujahadeen were operating out of Pakistan, the Mumbai attacks were made possible by India's failure to deal with the organization within its own borders.

India and Pakistan clearly have common interests in tackling the Deccan Mujahadeen. Yet these attacks are far too likely to increase the tensions between the two countries -- tensions that are already perennially preoccupied with the contentious Kashmir region.

But the terrifying events in Mumbai has also presented Canada with an opportunity. While difficult, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon now has the opportunity to crack open the Chretien-era handbook on Mission Diplomacy and help negotiate a tripartite security agreement between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The goals of this agreement should be to harmonize their efforts and strategies in approaching the security threat posed by the tumultuous regions of western Pakistan.

The second front of the Canadian response to the Mumbai attacks should be to push for the British Commonwealth to provide military aid to the three countries in pacifying the region.

As a prominent member of the Commonwealth, Canada has an opportunity to lead the Commonwealth in an area where it has nothing short of a responsibility to respond.

One can only hope that Lawrence Cannon is keeping an eye on this pivotal opportunity while naturally keeping the other eye on the survival of his government. Furthermore, one can only hope that Cannon is prepared to mix an aggressive, muscular foreign policy stance with the mission diplomacy approach favoured by the Chretien-era Liberals.

Obama Victory An Exciting Opportunity for Conservatives

No time like the present to shed the Bush millstone

If ideology were everything in politics, one wouldn't expect Canada's governing Conservative party to be very excited about the prospect of working with US President-elect Barack Obama.

Yet, John Ivison points out in a National Post Full Comment post, Canada's new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, is looking forward to working with Obama with a sense of cautious optimism.

Of the issues prompting caution upon Cannon is that of NAFTA, which Obama suggested he wanted to renegotiate in order to include labour and environmental standards. “I think at the outset we have to indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to all trading partners. Sure, we acknowledge there are some irritants - that’s quite normal - but, as we’ve done in the past on issues like softwood lumber, we’ll deal with them in a constructive manner,” he explained.

Cannon attributes some of Obama's NAFTA-themed musings to the election, but isn't ready to take anything for granted.

“I think what is said in the course of an election, is said in the course of an election. Afterwards, things cool down a bit,” he added. “I don’t presume what the new American president will want to do though. We take note of what has been said.”

While it certainly could be expected that the Conservatives would prefer to be adjusting to a John McCain Presidency, a change in the leadership of the United States was assured during this election -- something the Conservatives have been preparing for.

"We have been putting in place our program to be able to make sure that when this change occurs on November Fourth," Cannon previously said. "We'll be well-positioned to continue our relations, our privileged relations, with the Americans."

Like any other Canadian, Cannon understands the importance of the Canada/US relationship.

"You know, 40 per cent of our economy depends on exports and roughly 70 per cent of those go to the United States. So we are very, very tied in with the United States," Cannon mused. Cannon also wrote off any notion that Obama doesn't understand Canada despite having rarely spoke of it during the election. "That’s not an indication of lack of knowledge. He’s a senator from a border state, which to me demonstrates he’s very knowledgeable."

Of course, it takes more than being from a border state to understand Canada. Obama's previous mention of the "President of Canada" does lead one to wonder about Obama's level of expertise.

Then again, Obama is known to be a fast learner. His Presidency should do little to harm Canada/US relations.

Cannon seems to be looking forward to working with Obama on the economy. "I think the issue that confronts Canada, as well as the United States and the world, of course, is the instability, the volatility in the marketplace," he insisted.

Obama does, however, introduce one wild card into Canada/US relations. Ironically, it's one to which he himself is a bit of a wild card -- that of the war in Afghanistan.

Cannon has already insisted that Obama's election won't change Canada's plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. "We welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan on behalf of the president-elect," Cannon announced. "The U.S. interest won't change our opinion or intention to withdraw our forces in 2011."

Yet Obama remains very committed to the Afghanistan mission. While the ever-increasing unpopularity of the mission provided some election-time impetus for the Harper government's decision to set the withdrawal date, one has to wonder what effect the charismatic Obama's support of the mission may have.

If Obama calls on Canada to stay committed to the Afghan war, it may become a good deal more palatable to Canadians, who would vote for Obama in a pinch if they could.

But perhaps most important of all is that if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives can establish fruitful relations with the incoming Obama administration its opponents would no longer be able to profit politically by pushing it as close to the now-outgoing Bush administration as possible.

But a lot of work has to be done. Hopefully, Lawrence Cannon is up to that job.