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.

It's Called "Tough Love", Pakistan. Get Used To It

Emotional blackmail is bad diplomacy -- Pakistan has a problem

British Prime Minister David Cameron has been under diplomatic fire from Pakistan of late over some "frank" comments about Pakistan's relationship with terrorism.

"We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world," Cameron asserted. "Democratic states that want to be part of the developed world cannot do that. The message to Pakistan from the US and the UK is very clear on that point."

Pakistan has not responded well.

Pakistani President Asif Zardani has declared that coalition forces are losing the war against the Taliban.

Unfortunately for Zardani, if coalition forces are losing the war against the Taliban it's largely because of the support elements within his country's military provide to both the Taliban specifically, and to Islamic militancy in general.

The anti-India agenda pursued by many of those within Pakistan's military is particularly problematic.

Former Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan Chris Alexander stated that General Ashaq Kayani had prepared a plan to destroy Indian consolates and their embassy in Kabul.

According to OneIndia, Kayani has, in the past, told President Karzai that he could negotiate peace with the Taliban if only he would expel Pakistan's diplomats from the country and close their embassy and consolates.

General Kayani is said to be dedicated to fighting Islamic militancy. But his evident obsession with India only takes much-needed focus away from that problem.

David Cameron needs to remind Asif Zardani that he has two options: the first is to address the problems within his country that contribute aid and comfort to the Taliban, or he can decide to not do so.

Should he decide not to do so, he has no place complaining about any criticisms he may face for that decision.

David Cameron, on the other hand, needs to continue to focus international pressure on Pakistan to address these problems. If this means confronting Pakistan with the prospects of diplomatic and economic isolation, this is what simply has to be done.

It's called "tough love". Until it starts living up to its international responsibilities, Pakistan needs to get used to it.

Tories Get Ignatieff's Man

Chris Alexander spurns Liberals to join Conservatives

Michael Ignatieff wanted him. Michael Ignatieff didn't get him.

In what comes as close to a blockbuster announcement in Canadian politics as any, Chris Alexander, Canada's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, has rejected an offer to run for the Liberal party in favour of joining the Conservative party and contesting the Tory nomination in Ajax-Pickering.

Should he successfully secure that riding's nomination he will face off against Liberal MP Mark Holland -- an individual who, for a time, seemed to aspire to claim the long-dormant mantle of Jack Pickersgill.

When Holland fought the 2008 federal election against Conservative candidate Rick Johnson in that riding, he won with 44.3% of the votes in that riding. Johnson claimed 37.8%.

In other words, that riding is within striking distance for the Conservative party -- particularly for a dynamic young man who, at age 34, was named Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan (by a Liberal government nonetheless, which must be adding some sting to Alexander's rebuff) where he reputedly decided Canadian policy while touring in an open Jeep.

If that sounds disimilar from Stephen Harper bunkering down in the Afghan hills with Canadian special forces during his visit to Afghanistan, it shouldn't.

Considering that policy on Afghanistan seemed to be the sticking point between Alexander and Ignatieff -- Ignatieff is said to have concluded his meeting with Alexander by declaring that the Liberal party would end Canada's combat mission in 2011 -- one may think that Alexander's decision is a little odd, considering that the Conservatives are also committed to ending Canada's combat mission in that year.

But Kelly McParland may have the missing link, so to speak. He notes a recent policy speech given by Ignatieff.

"Our Canada will play a role in Afghanistan after 2011," Ignatieff told the Canadian Club. "A different role focusing on a humanitarian commitment to help rebuild the country and strengthen hard-won gains."

McParland notes that perhaps Ignatieff's seeming insistence that Canadian humanitarian workers would remain in Afghanistan without Canadian military protection worried Alexander -- as well it should.

Then again, Peter MacKay has also made some comments that suggest Canada may remain active in Afghanistan after 2011. Like Michael Ignatieff, he isn't tipping his hand any more than he seems to think he needs to.

Which leads one to wonder if Alexander knows something about the Conservative party's plans for Afghanistan than the Canadian public does.

Either way, Alexander's decision is great news for the Conservative party. Foreign policy is sorely lacking in the Conservative party, and with Dr Eric Hoskins settling into a new role in Ontario's Queen's Park, the foreign policy-star candidate field in the next election has just made some room for him.

Then again, as Sue-Ann Levy's experience shows, being a star candidate isn't necessarily enough in urban Ontario.

In the meantime, Michael Ignatieff will have to contend with an influential new rival in regards to foreign policy and, in particular, Afghanistan.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

The Liberal Scarf - "Tory Secret Agenda on Afghanistan?"

Yaya Canada - "Whiz Kid Warrior"

From the archives:

November 26, 2008 - "Stop the Double Talk on Afghanistan"

September 17, 2008 - "Tory Eyes Blind to the World Outside?"

Canada Must Carefully Examine its Moral Obligations in Afghansitan

We have a moral duty to ourselves, as well

As is perhaps inevitable with any kind of war, the language of morality crept into the Afghanistan mission once again recently, as numerous Canadian envoys have described a potential Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan as a moral failure.

"If we were to withdraw tomorrow, our allies would feel betrayed," says Michel de Salaberry, Canada's current civilian coordinator in Khandahar. "We've said we'd stay until 2009. Morally, we have to live up to that pledge."

Chris Alexander, former Canadian ambassador to the UN, and current deputy ambassador, agrees. “To refuse fighting the Taliban would mean we are refusing and rejecting our responsibilities, our institutions, ourselves. It would be a worldwide failure and a failure of our souls," he says.

These men are precisely right. Canada does have both a moral and a diplomatic obligation to our allies to remain in Afghanistan. But there's more to be considered.

It’s very important that we not get so wrapped up in our moral obligations to others that we as Canadians forget the moral obligations that we hold to ourselves, and to our own troops.

We as Canadians have a moral obligation to our troops and to our country to ensure that the mission is on the right track. Right now the war in Afghanistan is at a pivotal point at which we can reevaluate the mission, and make sure that we aren’t falling into a number of pitfalls there.

First off, we need to ensure that we’ve conceptualized the mission properly. If we really are trying to foster the development of a sovereign state (let alone a democracy), we need to admit that we have very little direct say in how that state will develop. Transplanting western democratic institutions, policies and philosophies into Afghanistan represents an absolute recipe for failure.

We need to realize that imperialism and communism have both, in turn, failed to tame Afghanistan. Post-modern colonialism is practically guaranteed to meet the same fate.

We have a responsibility to our troops to not over-burden them in Afghanistan, as recent comments by Michael Scheuer contend. We also have a moral obligation to equip them properly, with the best equipment available. We have a moral obligation to do everything we can to bring them home safely.

We must also remember that, as we expend resources and risk Canadian lives in Afghanistan, that Afghanistan, and its government, must also accept that it has a moral responsibility to us -- to build its state (although we must accept that it will build under its own terms) and to work toward finding ways around the divisive tribalism that has rendered it no much a failed state as one that has never actually existed in any practical sense.

Afghans have a responsibility to build a military capable of defending itself against the Taliban insurgency.

We must also remember that, as surely as we have moral responsibilities to our allies, that they also have a moral responsibility to us. Not only do our NATO allies have the responsibility to ensure they provide enough troops to replace Canadians after what now appears to be an inevitable 2009 withdrawal from Khandahar, but they also have a moral responsibility to render more help now.

"We understand the caveats, we understand the constitutional limitations, we understand the political volatility, but NATO cannot fail. This is a no-fail mission," Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay recently announced.

He's right about that.

The war in Afghanistan is a mission that we cannot afford to lapse into failure. Failing to meet our obligations to Afghans, our allies and ourselves will only guarantee that failure, as assuredly as failure on behalf of our allies or Afghans to meet their oblications (to us, their allies and themselves).

"The key word here is long term. The commitment of the international community, NATO amongst it, for the long term is absolutely vital for the Afghanistan's future," Alexander reminds us. "It is not something that can be sorted out in a few months or even a few years."

Our obligations in Afghanistan are important because they are long term obligations. In this sense, we are in a much more convenient position than Afghans themselves -- their obligations are permanent, the ultimate long term.

To lapse in our long term obligations because of short term pain would be the ultimate moral failing. While we as a nation should be very careful about the pitfalls that unvaryingly accompany applying the language of moral capital to warfare, we must also recognize that this is one of those times when it is utterly appropriate.