Byers Column on Canadian Foreign Policy

A commenter back here tried to suggest that Michael Byers is being "even wingnuttier" than Jonas was on the human rights topic.

I've already explained why I think Jonas was dead wrong on the topic of human rights commissions, so I won't waste more bandwidth on the subject.

Byers' column is interesting in its own right. It opens with the following commentary:

"So, how does it feel to be the citizen of a rogue state?"

The British professor asking the question was serious.

We were in Cambridge, England, and yet the words "Kyoto," "Bali" and "Canada" were on many lips.

I'm not a fan of phrases like "rogue state" to start with - like other empty catch-phrases such as "family values", it tends to carry implications that are unstated and each listener will "read in" their own understanding of the phrase. However, I can certainly see where the British professor was coming from - there have certainly been those who have accused the United States of "going rogue" by invading Iraq, and other actions of the Bush administration.

Byers then proceeds to enumerate a list of topics that would lend the impression that Harper has acted as a puppet to the Bush Whitehouse.

1. For on the other side of the planet, Environment Minister John Baird was blocking an agreement that would have bound the world's wealthiest countries to specific targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 – when the Kyoto Protocol expires.
   ...
   Instead, the Canadian delegation embraced the stubbornly unilateral, anti-environmental stance of U.S. President George W. Bush. They mimicked his demand – always intended as a deal breaker – that any specific binding targets include developing states.
   
   The move caught some foreign experts by surprise. Canada had previously shown the good sense not to join in Bush's most egregious mistakes, including the Iraq War.

   
   
   Generally speaking, I found the Harper government's stance at Bali reprehensible.
   


2. 
   

   Harper's Bush-like views extend beyond climate change. In July 2006, he described the far-reaching destruction of Lebanese infrastructure as a "measured" response to the abduction of an Israeli soldier, souring our relations with Arab states and precluding a diplomatic role for Canada in the Middle East.

   
   
   Yep, Israel's destruction in Lebanon was another case of aping typical American foreign policy to any conflict involving Israel.
   



3. He has also picked unnecessary quarrels with China over human rights, Russia over the Arctic and Iran over ambassadors, rather than seizing opportunities to constructively engage these increasingly important states.

   
   
   Again, Harper's thuggish approach to relations with China is something I've criticized as well.
   



4. In Afghanistan, Harper has stubbornly opposed negotiations with dissident groups, shown a casual disregard for the rights of detainees, and seems to view the mission mostly as a way of currying favour with the United States.
   
   Why else would his defence minister, Peter MacKay, invite the U.S. ambassador along for a Christmas visit to Canada's troops in Kandahar?

   
   
   Oh yes, the visit where Mackay made unfounded accusations of Iran, which are causing officials to have to tap dance around. Not to mention the "spontaneous" propaganda visits that seem to happen every time Harper wants a boost in the polls.
   



5. Thanks to Harper, Canada has become the pliant instrument of a failed U.S. presidency. We are now, for all intents and purposes, a vassal state.

   
   
   In recent months, I've found it necessary to characterize Harper's foreign policy as making Canada a vassal state.
   

From there Byers goes on to comment on what he thinks Canada should be doing on various fronts, and makes one very key comment:

On all foreign policy issues, let's not be afraid to conduct our own analyses, to have our own national debates. In the end, we'll likely decide to work with the United States about 95 per cent of the time.

On the remaining 5 per cent, let's not be surprised when the U.S. government expresses displeasure or even makes threats. That's what good negotiators do, as they prepare for the next bargaining round.

This is important. Canada's real strength on the world stage is in its image as an "honest broker" with Washington. Namely that we have a certain independence of opinion and direction, but also understand where we share common cause with Washington. We need to be seen as willing and able to sidestep those places where an often intransigent government in Washington is radically out of step with the rest of the world. We do ourselves few favours if we simply follow Washington's whim blindly.

However, returning to my original topic, there's quite a difference between Jonas' column and Byers'. Where Jonas starts his argument from the incorrect assertion that:

Human rights laws and tribunals are based on the notion that being hired, promoted, serviced and esteemed is a human right. It isn’t

... and then proceeds to rant on repeating an utterly bogus conservative talking point about Human Rights Commissions that both Ezra Levant and Nigel Hannaford had spouted previously. (BTW, the human rights laws for Canada and most provinces (e.g. Alberta) are available online, and it would do many of the "pundits" some good to actually spend some time reading them before they go off making the kind of sweepingly stupid statements that Jonas, Levant and Hannaford have all done)

In comparison, Byers starts with a statement that someone else made, proceeds to substantiate it by giving examples that reinforce where that perception could come from, and then makes some concrete and tangible suggestions as to what Canada should do differently.

Does that make Byers a "wingnut" on the "left"? Not in this writer's opinion - he has actually substantiated his claims with evidence that can be discussed. You can argue that you disagree with his analysis of Harper's behaviour (if that is your stance), and proceed from that point, but he has provided the particulars upon which his position rests.