The (Not-So) Great Flag Debate

Coalition partners at odds over EU flag

In 1964, Canadian politicians struggled with what would turn out to be a pivotal question: should Canada adopt its own flag? And, if so, what should it be?

Then-Prime Minister Lester Pearson and the Liberal Party captured the imaginations of many Canadians -- particularly the country's youth -- by standing in favour of a uniquely Canadian flag. Then-Leader of the Opposition John Diefenbaker and the Conservative Party stood in favour of continuing to use the Red Ensign -- featuring the iconic Union Jack.

History does not look particularly fondly on Diefenbaker's position on the great flag debate. The Liberals would go on to govern uninterrupted for another 15 years. The brief Tory interegnum, led by Joe Clark, would last a mere nine months before the Liberals would govern for another four.

The debate being waged within Britain's governing coalition of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party may not seem nearly as definitive as Canada's 1964 debate. Yet it will have political consequences nonetheless.

In Europe, May 9 is known as Europe Day. It specifically celebrates the creation of the European Union.

The European Union may be one of the most divisive issues within Britain's coalition government. The Conservatives tend to favour a stand-offish approach to the EU, while the Lib Dems prefer to embrace it.

Within the government, this division can be seen in the differing approaches to whether or not the flag of the European Union is being flown on Europe Day. Department for Business Minister Vince Cable will be flying the EU flag over his ministerial offices.

Foreign Affairs Minister William Hague will not.

The Tories haven't always been stridently opposed to the European Union. Britain's membership in the European Union was the doing of Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, who led Britain into the European Economic Community in 1973.

It was Heath's intention that Britain would enjoy economic benefits from its membership, but few Conservatives could have predicted that the EEC would steadily grow in scope, expand the political authority it intended to exercise over member states.

During its time in office, the Cameron government has made it clear that it would not allow any laws passed by the European Parliament to take effect in Britain without strict ratification by the British Parliament.

This eye on Britain's sovereignty has characterized British public opinion on the European Union. Britons have been tremendously skeptical about the EU. That the Tony Blair government declined to replace Pounds Sterling with the Euro as the currency of the UK was largely a function of public opinion on the issue.

As William Hague and the Tories refuse to fly the flag of the European Union on Europe Day, they're likely well in line with public opinion on the matter.

Vince Cable flying the EU flag is hardly on outrage, but it seems to demonstrate a disconnect from British public opinion on this issue; one that could further trouble his already-troubled party.

It was a similiar disconnect from public sentiment that likely finalized John Diefenbaker's departure from the Prime Minister's office, and that allowed the Liberal Party to eventually transition to Pierre Trudeau's leadership without initially breaking a sweat (although there would be some tense moments in 1972).

The Liberal Democrats could hardly be accused of repeating Diefenbaker's mistake in its fullest scope. But they may come to regret their repudiation of public sentiment on the European Union. Gordon Brown arguably did.

If Not Lecture, Then Mentor

William Hague's "hands off" policy on India/Pakistan relations a bad idea

Speaking recently about bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, British Foreign Secretary has announced his intention to adopt a "hands-off" policy on the matter.

“It will not be our approach to lecture other countries on how they should conduct their bilateral relations and we won’t tell India and Pakistan how to conduct their bilateral relations,” Hague announced. “We have noted the recent improvement in bilateral relations between Pakistan and India which is good for the future peace in the world but cannot lecture the two countries on finding a way out to resolve the outstanding issues.”

Understandably, matters related to India and Pakistan -- or any of the Commonwealth countries -- are fairly sensitive in Britain. Britain cannot be seen to be unduly meddling in the affairs of its colonies. To do so would be interpreted by many as a form of imperialism.

Lecturing India and Pakistan about their diplomatic relations would be precisely that.

So naturally the British government shouldn't want to lecture the two countries. Mentoring them would be another matter entirely.

India and Pakistan are both sovereign states. But as far as sovereign states go, they are both young states. When one considers the amount of time it took Britain to settle its historical animosities with France, and when one considers how deeply-engrained the Indo-Pakistani region is within British and global interests, it becomes clear that no one can afford to wait for a centuries-long reproachment process leading to a stable peace between the two countries.

Mentoring India and Pakistan through a successful peace process isn't a burden Britain should have to carry alone. Britain has allies within the Commonwealth of Nations that share British heritage with India and Pakistan, and are well-poised to help Britain mentor India and Pakistan through such a peace process.

Considering the spiral effect tensions between India and Pakistan have on neighbouring states -- particularly Afghanistan -- India/Pakistan relations are simply too important to be left alone.

There's no shame in two young states like India and Pakistan needing a little help to get through a peace process. There's no reason in the world why Britain shouldn't poise itself to help.

Help With That Heavy Lifting

Britain to maintain ambitious policy toward India

As Prime Minister David Cameron and his Tory/Lib Dem coalition government continue preparing to assume office, many of Britain's allies continue to wonder what this transition will mean for them.

At least as it pertains to India, the answer seems as if it will be "not much".

Previous Labour governments had adopted ambitious policies in relation to India, and incoming Foreign Secretary William Hague will continue the same.

On many levels, there's good reason for this. India's ongoing conflict with Pakistan is one of the dominant dynamics within the Indo-Pakistani region, and thus is extremely important to the war in Afghanistan.

Hague has indicated that his government will continue to work with India and Pakistan to moderate tensions surrounding Kashmir, allowing Pakistan to secure its border with Afghanistan, and secure the bordering regions of Pakistan itself.

Hague will seemingly need to practice more tact in regards to the Kashmir issue than did his predecessor, David Miliband, who stoked Indian anger when he suggested that Kashmir lent fire to the rhetoric used to recruit footsoldiers for terrorist attacks on India.

This is, of course, actually true. Hague will have to walk a very careful path in speaking straightly and realistically about the state of strategic affairs in the Indo-Pakistani region and maintaining diplomatic candor.

Nuclear proliferation between India and Pakistan will make such a task very difficult. In fact, it's very unlikely that Britain would be able to accomplish it alone.

It needs help from its natural allies: from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and whatever African members of the Commonwealth of Nations that are able to contribute to a peacekeeping mission in Kashmir, and to a mission diplomacy initiative between India and Pakistan to moderate a detente.

There are more reasons for Britain and Canada to invest such efforts in India than merely security. Both countries are prolific investors in India -- a peace dividend between India and Pakistan would also be very good for business.

In investing time and effort in its relations with India, Hague would merely be making good on the promise made by Prime Minister Cameron long prior to his election.

The sorry state of Pakistan -- which should be a priority for the Commonwealth, only barely ahead of the Sudan and Sri Lanka -- is one that cannot be solved without attention to India. Nor can it be solved without help from Britain's natural allies.

Britain will need help with its heavy lifting. It's time to start re-building the Commonwealth so it can provide it.

A Very Special Relationship, Very Special Relationships

William Hague promises "not slavish" adherence to special relationship with US

When British Conservative Party leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg combined to form the British government, many were concerned that it would pose new challenges to the "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.

Speaking at the US State Department, Foreign Secretary William Hague says he'll have none of that. While Britain will maintain an independent foreign policy, it will cooperate with the US where it sees fit.

"We're not going to seek differences for the sake of it, but it is an important part of the US-UK relationship that we should be free to say where we differ when the occasion demands it," Hague announced. "I've done that in the past and will do that in the future."

As it pertains to the United States' foreign policy, Hague has indicated that he will most likely support it.

"It's good for our relationship and for world affairs that the United Kingdom is in support so far of the major foreign policy initiatives of the Obama administration, not in any slavish way, but we are in support of them," Hague continued.

What Hague has yet to confront is the challenges of differing from the United States from foreign policy while so closely collaborating with them through organizations such as NATO.

Canada, who shares a closer-yet special relationship with the United States than Britain, can directly attest to these challenges, as we at least partially rely on the United States for our national security, through arrangements such as NORAD.

Britain and Canada alike could stand to enjoy global associations complementary to their association with the United States. This is all the more reason for the two countries to start working with Australia and New Zealand to develop the Commonwealth into a more robust global alliance -- one that could confront challenges in places like India, Pakistan and the Sudan that the United States currently cannot.

For Canada, such a leadership role could be complemented by joining with France in continuing to take a stronger leadership role within La Francophonie and accomplishing a similar task with that organization.

It's a bold, world-changing initiative of the kind Britain, France and Canada should be known for. What remains is to find the political will to make it happen.

David Cameron's New Approach to Afghanistan

Afghanistan policies trickling out of British Tory leader

As British Conservative party leader David Cameron navigates his party ever closer to what some are speculating is almost certain to be a majority government in the next British federal election, the hearkened next Prime Minister of Britain is slowly beginning to showcase his party's foreign policies.

Cameron has already promised foreign aid policy that would allow British citizens to vote on which projects would receive funding.

More recently, Cameron has speculated about how his government would approach the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

Cameron has suggested -- although has not yet committ -- that his government may deploy more troops to Afghanistan.

"If what the military are asking for is more troops in Afghanistan to speed up the training of the Afghan national army, it does seem to me there's a very strong case for saying yes to that," Cameron explained. "Because the faster we can build up the Afghan national army and the police, the faster we'll be able to 'Afghan-ise' the problem and the situation and the more rapidly we'll actually be able to end that mission and bring our troops back home."

Whether or not the British army would need more troops to successfully complete its mission would be up to General sir Richard Dannatt to decide.

In another policy plank, Cameron also announced that he would appoint a special Minister for Afghanistan to his cabinet, underscoring the mission's pivotal importance for his government.

This announcement came as the British people have become more restless over the insufficient equipment of British troops in Helmand province, and as sir Dannatt has insisted that the British government hasn't properly focused its efforts in Afghanistan.

William Hague, the Conservative party's critic of foreign affairs, called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to institute such a policy himself immediately.

"The Prime Minister must make clear which minister has primary responsibility for our policy in Afghanistan and the government should make quarterly reports to Parliament, covering Britain's objectives, the progress made in achieving them and the resources required. This is the only way to establish the clarity and sense of direction which the Committees report calls for," Hague announced. "We need to know that the right strategy is in place, that Whitehall is working properly to deliver it, and that British troops have all they need to do their part."

According to Cameron's plan the Minister in question wouldn't necessarily have to be a sitting Member of Parliament or a member of the House of Lords, but would rather be invited into cabinet whenever Afghanistan was being discussed as a "peer" of the cabinet.

As Canadian troops in Afghanistan continue to suffer casualties, there is little question that an increased commitment by British forces will yield dividends for the Canadian forces as they look ahead to leaving Afghanistan in 2011.

With the United States already committing additional troops to the fight against the Taliban, an increased British commitment to Afghanistan under a David Cameron Tory government would only be one of many factors conducive to future success in Afghanistan.

David Cameron's proposed approach to Afghanistan may even be one that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper may want to emulate.