Part 2 of 2
Jeffrey Simpson: Would any of you agree with what I have written in the papers? Most of you don't but on this I'll give it a try. That in effect we have no internal coherence on climate change and we're waiting for the Americans to impose upon us a coherence that we can't find ourselves?
John Manley: Well, I think this, if I might just say from a provincial point of view, is of course one of the problems or challenge or opportunities, you can see it as good or bad in Canada, is that we have very strong provincial governments. This may be something that may be helpful for the Canadians to try to help educate Mr. Obama about, and that is that in Canada provinces play such a leading role with respect to these kinds of issues and that there is going to have to be a sense in which the Canadians fit into a larger international system and that North American leadership may be helpful in organizing responses from Canada. And that's not necessarily a negative factor. It's just a reality of Canada.
Jodi White: Oh, I think it's a reality in the United States too though because the States I believe ... I mean in both countries the sub-national government if you want to call them that, have led on environmental issues in terms of I mean you look at California but there's a lot of other States out there too. And so I think they have the same reality. But I think that that doesn't move away from the need for some coherence of a national policy which is what you were talking about Jeff.
Jeffrey Simpson: We learn from public opinion surveys and they're only snapshots, that Barack Obama is a good deal more popular in this country at the moment, than Stephen Harper. Does that have an impact on our relations with the United States and our ability to deal with them?
John Manley: First of all, I wouldn't worry about it if I was Stephen Harper unless Mr. Obama proposes to run against him. So that's not in the cards. But you know, one of the challenges for Canadian governments has always been what I call the two rules of Canadian politics. The first being - you must not get too close to the Unite States. And the second being - you must not get too far from the United States because of the importance that the relationship has. This gives a little leeway on the first of those rules and makes it somewhat easier I think for our government to pursue relationships that, you know, if it were still George W. Bush, Canadians would be less comfortable.
Doug McArthur: If I might just comment. I think that it will be a factor in making Harper feel a little bit more tentative. I mean I think one of the things that goes along with this factor, Obama has such a high popularity rating - he is of course a unique kind of politician who really lets people not only in the United States, or provides an opportunity for people not in the United States, from all kinds of backgrounds but also from Canada, to project their hopes and aspirations through. But I think that one of the things it will cause Harper to be a little bit uncomfortable with this is that it points to a difference in Canadian's attitudes to the policy positioning. I mean there's no question that Obama is popular at the same as projecting a relatively progressive I think in what probably would be the terms of the Bush and Harper people - a liberal view of things. This is not where Harper is comfortable. This is not where he wants to work. And the fact that Canadians have such a positive view of what Obama is not only projecting but saying, can't help but provide Mr. Harper with a bit of discomfort.
Jeffrey Simpson: Do you agree with that Jodie White? That the Opposition parties, the newspapers and others in this country will now throw in the face of Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty what's going on in the United States as a yardstick by which they should be judged?
Jodi White: Well there certainly may be some of that. But you know, with this economic crisis, everybody's moving from where they were. I think if you'd asked Stephen Harper before he became Prime Minister about the Canada\U.S. relationship he would have been thinking in terms of building a relationship with George Bush. Which, as we all noticed after about their first meeting, he really didn't bother trying to pursue any further. And I think he knew how Canadians felt about the President etc. And now I don't think he would ... it would have been his first choice to build a relationship with what one might call a progressive democrat. But he's going to and he needs to. But you know, also I mean we're about to launch into a budget which is not the kind of budget Stephen Harper actually ever thought he was going to bring in. So everything is changing, the ground is changing underneath him. And he's pretty I guess stubborn about his own views. So I don't think he'll feel pressed when he believes he's right on a number of these issues. But you know, some of the lens will start to be the lens coming out of Washington. But again, I think there's many people who believe that Obama is going to have to move a little more to the centre from the left of where he's been because you know, you can run for your nomination etc., in that way but once you start governing you start to move towards the centre. So I think we'll see but the lens may be there. There's no doubt about it.
Jeffrey Simpson: John?
John Manley: Yeah, I think I agree with Jodi on that. You know I think going forward you know we have to remember all the basic rules. The President is important. No doubt about it, the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President is important. However, usually on the bilateral level the things that cause us problems originate not with the President, not with the administration but with Congress. And the United States has elected a Democratic controlled Senate and House of Representatives. They tend to be more protectionist, that there are a lot of new people, many of them inexperienced. And you know, I think we have a lot less to worry about from President Obama's inexperience with Canada than we do from with congressmen and senators who have either little experience of Canada or quite frankly couldn't care less about Canada.
Jeffrey Simpson: John, also Cabinet Secretaries with their big departmental responsibilities from homeland security to commerce to agriculture and so on. As you look at the Cabinet, the team of advisers and Secretaries of the Cabinet that he's put together - is there in your mind source for confidence on bilateral relations? Or some elements of concern?
John Manley: Well, I'm encouraged to start off with, with two things. First of all the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, knows Canada well. She wasn't necessarily a friend of ours as a senator from New York. But did in her address to the Senate in her confirmation hearings, acknowledge the necessity of working with Canada as well as Mexico. I think that's a good sign. And also she knows Canada well and she has, you know, within her circle many people who are very much friends of Canada. Secondly, the Secretary for Homeland Security which maybe is the most important job for Canadians to worry about, is by all accounts a very practically oriented Governor.
Jeffrey Simpson: Janet Napolitano of Arizona, excuse me.
John Manley: That's right, not a border State as we had with Tom Ridge from Pennsylvania. But also not a law enforcement officer as we've had with Michael Chertoff, and quite frankly I think many of the difficulties on a bilateral issue level between Canada and the United States for the last few years have emanated from the Secretary of Homeland Securities office where he'd, you know he just has not been able to find a balance between security and the economy. Something that was instinctive for Tom Ridge and which I hope will be instinctive for the new Secretary.
Jeffrey Simpson: I should just add that Ms. Napolitano has helpfully already said that she understands the difference between the Mexican and Canadian borders of the United States. Which, coming from Arizona is an encouraging thing to say. If I may just also add I saw her speak a year ago in Ottawa, she was here leading a trade mission. So she's been in Canada several times. She's extremely articulate. Very pragmatic and very bright. Jodi?
Jodi White: No, I had noticed also her reference to the fact that these borders are not similar borders. There are marked differences and that's good news for us.
John Manley: I think we have to be careful and not underestimate these people. I mean I don't think it's so much a question of whether they're friends of Canada or they're not friends of Canada. This is a very talented Cabinet and head of agencies. There are people who have been working in politics but in government and in their fields for a very, very long time. They have a tremendous amount of expertise. I think we underestimate these people if we think that they don't and won't have briefings that give them lots of information, lots of understanding of Canada. I think it's going to be much more a question of what kind of issues come down on this government, the new U.S. government. What kind of pressures come on them around issues that might affect Canada. And how they'll position themselves on those things. But those will be influenced by domestic politics. Those will be influenced by policy considerations. Friend of Canada or not. There's cases where they'll face Canada and deal with Canada but they have ... these people are knowledgeable people.
Jeffrey Simpson: Let me end our discussion by asking this question and it picks up Jodi White's second briefing point. She said: We need to talk to the President about our views on other things than bilateral issues. And I think (brackets) Afghanistan. Fine to say in theory but in practice do we have anything to say to the new administration that's going to be very preoccupied with international and world issues on such matters as Iran, Jihadi terrorism, how to deal with China, foreign aid, Cuba, nuclear proliferation, Pakistan. Do we have anything to say and would it be worthwhile trying to say anything to the new administration about these issues?
Doug McArthur: If I might say something? I think we've certainly earned and will be understood to have something to say about Afghanistan. I think what we're going to say ...
Jeffrey Simpson: Correct. What about the rest?
Doug McArthur: Well, on Afghanistan I think we have to be very careful to re-emphasize that our mission, our military missions ends there in 2011 and that we are committed to aid and development in Afghanistan and participating on that side of things and make that clear so that doesn't stay as an outstanding kind of question. On other questions I think Canada can speak about the importance of something that Obama speaks about and that is international co-operation and multi-lateralism towards international problems. I think that Canada can also be a fairly forceful proponent of peacekeeping and peace making missions given its experience and I think Obama might very well listen to Canada about ... about both the positive side of those things and where he might deploy them.
Jeffrey Simpson: Jodi? You raised the point.
Jodi White: Yeah, well I'm concerned about it probably that's why I raised it and I do think the government should be doing a lot of work on this. I mean we do have a lot of fine people on foreign policy issues in Ottawa who can provide assistance and things. But some of the signals have not been great in terms of for instance what the government did in its early ... in its first mandate on China was confusing and was not ... so I mean it is going to be ... we cannot only have a relationship with the United States that is a sort (unclear) because we're the smaller guy constantly there with our issues. If we can't broaden it to show that we are also citizens of the world and have views and perhaps you know, angles or relationships that they don't have, I think we will fail ourselves probably. And it's going to be a bit of a challenge. The government, I mean we have an awful lot of international aid and development around the world. We've got relationships through organizations like the Commonwealth that they don't have. And it's a matter of looking for those kinds of things where we think we can bring something to be table. You want to build a relationship where Harper and Obama may be on the phone from time to time and they won't be talking about Canada\U.S. at all, they'll be talking about something else. That's what you want in your relationship so that it's not always Canada\U.S.
Jeffrey Simpson: John Manley, last word to you.
John Manley: I think Jodi has summed it up quite well and I think on that list of issues, yeah, there are often things that we can offer that are different. We, you know, I think we should value our independence and the special role that we can play in the world. We should not underestimate it, nor should we overstate it. But whether it's relations with Pakistan who after all, which after all is a member of the Commonwealth and with which we have a different set of relationships than does the United States. Or whether it's the fact that we can go to Iran with a somewhat different approach than the Americans or a host of other issues. We can add value and when we add value to the relationship on things that are not bilateral we build credits that we can use on bilateral issues and we shouldn't underestimate its importance.
Jeffrey Simpson: John Manley, Jodi White, Doug McArthur - thank you very much. This ends our podcast. Thank you very much for listening and reading. This is Jeffrey Simpson ...
John Manley: Not bad for a supply teacher Mr. Simpson.
Jeffrey Simpson: Thank you John. See you later.
-------------------------
Those who follow my ramblings on Army.ca will not be surprised to inow that I am, broadly, in accord with John Manley:
• The economy is the big issue and it is important for Prime Minister Harper to remind President Obama that we are partners in NAFTA, not opponents;
• The nature of the (highly decentralized ≈ strong provinces) Canadian federation means that we will, as we likely must be, ‘united’ by American actions. There is no point in debating major environmental policies and climate change issues until Pres. Obama tells us where the whole continent is headed;
• The Arctic issue needs to be discussed by experts – which leaves Harper and Obama out of the loop. Obama needs to know that have differences with the USA on matters of our sovereignty and that we expect nothing less and will accept nothing less than good faith negotiations, amongst friends and allies, with the USA;
• Afghanistan may be something Obama ‘needs’ from us. If he asks we should promise to consider it carefully – no quid pro qou demanded or offered. Good will is the desired outcome; and
• We have no petroleum leverage unless and until we build a pipeline to and a major LNG plant in a deep water port on the Pacific coast.
