Monday, January 2, 2017

Will António Guterres be the UN's best ever secretary general?

 
Will António Guterres be the UN's best ever secretary general?
Cultured and consensual, the Portuguese politician has had the perfect preparation for the United Nations’ top job

Antonio Guterres

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/01/will-antonio-guterres-be-the-uns-best-ever-secretary-general?CMP=share_btn_fb#img-5
 
When António Guterres resigned halfway through his second term as Portuguese prime minister in 2002 because his minority government was floundering, he did something unusual for a man who had seen the highest reaches of power.
Several times a week, he went to slum neighbourhoods on the edge of Lisbon to give free maths tuition to children.

“He never allowed a journalist to go with him or let himself be filmed or photographed, and he never let journalists talk to any of his students,” said Ricardo Costa, editor-in-chief of the Portuguese SIC News, who covered Guterres’s political career. The former prime minister told his surprised students that what he was doing was personal and not for show.

The Portuguese socialist, who becomes the next UN secretary general on Sunday, is an intellectual who grew up under Portugal’s dictatorship and came of age with the 1974 revolution that ended 48 years of authoritarian rule.

Crucial to understanding Guterres, 67, is his Christian faith: his progressive Catholicism always informed his brand of social democratic politics.

In the heady days of Portugal’s revolution, it was rare to be a practising Catholic in a new Socialist party where many members had Marxist backgrounds. But Guterres, a star engineering student who grew a moustache in honour of the Chilean left’s Salvador Allende, would eventually become a modernising leader, arguing that his mission was social justice and equality.


On the Portuguese left, faith was a delicate issue that required discretion. Under Guterres, the country held a referendum in 1998 on a proposal to liberalise the strict abortion laws. Socialist MPs had a free vote and, as prime minister, Guterres chose not to officially campaign. But it was publicly known that he opposed changing the law, which irked many in his party.

The no vote against liberalising the abortion law narrowly won, but turnout was so low that the result was not binding. Abortion laws were finally relaxed in 2007 after a second referendum.

Born in Lisbon, Guterres spent stretches of his childhood with relatives in the countryside, where he saw the poverty of rural life under the dictatorship, and later volunteered with Catholic student groups on social projects in the capital.

In 1976, the young engineering lecturer was elected a Socialist MP in Portugal’s first democratic vote since the revolution. In parliament, he was a fearsome orator. Such was his talent for verbally destroying political opponents, he became known as “the talking pickaxe”.

 
Guterres became prime minister in 1995. His campaign slogan was “heart and reason”, a cry for more humanism and social politics. Three years earlier he had taken over the Socialist party and modernised it, although he remained to the left of contemporaries such as Tony Blair. For years he led the Socialist International international grouping of leftwing parties.


With Portugal’s rapid economic growth and nearly full employment, Guterres was able to set up a guaranteed minimum income and nursery schooling for all. But he had failed to win an absolute majority and was condemned to preside over a tricky minority government.

He had to rely on his skill for consensus, always having to negotiate with the opposition parties if he wanted to get anything passed – something he later argued was perfect training for running the UN.


“He was a skilful person – very smart, very quick to understand the other point of view and very focused on having solutions – that’s why it worked,” said António Vitorino, Guterres’s deputy prime minister and defence minister.


Guterres was furiously hardworking. But behind this was a backdrop of family tragedy. His wife, Luísa Guimarães e Melo, a psychiatrist with whom he had two children, had been critically ill for most of his time in government and was undergoing treatment at a London hospital.


“It was one of the hardest moments of his political life,” Vitorino said. “Every Friday morning, he took a plane to London, spent the weekend there in a very desperate situation and then on Monday morning he was back at work. I was his deputy prime minister, I was amazed. I could never have done what he was doing.”
In 1998, Guterres’s wife died.

The following year, he threw himself into the general elections. He had hoped to win an outright majority but the Socialists ended up one MP short and began a second minority government. This time, a slowdown in the economy made things harder.


Guterres, privately growing disillusioned with internal party politics, turned increasingly to his interest in international diplomacy.

He had already won praise for his role in resolving the crisis in Timor-Leste, a former Portuguese colony, which had erupted into violence in 1999 after a referendum vote in favour of independence from Indonesia. Guterres led diplomatic efforts to convince the UN to intervene to restore peace.


In 2000, when Portugal took the rotating presidency of the European Union, its success was attributed to Guterres’s ability to get big leaders to agree and smaller leaders to be heard.


 António Guterres accepts roses from a supporter  in Lisbon
 
  
“He did something very original: he looked at what every country wanted and set up an agenda that could be interesting for everyone,” said Francisco Seixas da Costa, a Portuguese diplomat who served as Guterres’s European affairs secretary. “Small countries disappear in the decision-making process so we tried to listen to their interests.”


Guterres managed to talk down powerful leaders at loggerheads. “At the European council, I remember a conflict between Jacques Chirac and Helmut Kohl over one issue,” Seixas da Costa said. “Guterres asked for the floor. I was sitting next to him, I was afraid it might be naive.

But he took the floor and made a proposal that covered both their interests, and it was a success. It worked. He had a fantastic capacity to moderate and create links and bridges.”


In 2002, halfway through his second term as prime minister, Guterres abruptly resigned after the Socialists suffered a drubbing in local elections. He famously said he wanted to avoid the country falling into a “political swamp” and that he had discovered “politics has its limits”.
At the time he was unpopular, criticised for too much compromise and too much dialogue. But over the years since his departure, polls showed he was increasingly liked and seen as fair, serious and honest – a possible contender for Portuguese president, although he never wanted to return to national politics, preferring, he said, to make a difference on the world stage.


His decade serving as UN high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) from 2005 to 2015 was seen in Portugal as an obvious fit for his personality: socially engaged but seeking common ground.


Guterres – who speaks Portuguese, English, French and Spanish and is now remarried to Catarina Vaz Pinto, who works at Lisbon city hall – was known in political circles for enthusiastic, cultured conversations on everything from ancient Greece to Middle Eastern culture, opera to geography.


Whenever he had free time during visits to Washington as UNHCR chief, he would get the organisation’s regional representative, Michel Gabaudan, to take him to Politics & Prose or another of the city’s bookshops.

“He’s an avid reader of history, and his pleasure was, if we had an hour, to go to a bookshop, so we would have access to books in English that weren’t easy to get in Geneva,” said Gabaudan, now president of Refugees International. “I’m sure this immense knowledge of past and ancient history did inform his political judgment.”

Guterres also took a broad approach to the UNHCR’s responsibilities. The organisation grew dramatically under his management, and not just because the number of the world’s refugees soared in the 21st century.

He broadened the categories of people the UNHCR would seek to protect, including internally displaced people and migrants forced from their homes by natural disasters and climate change. He preferred the all-encompassing phrase “people on the move”.

He managed to persuade donors to fund the expansion by retaining their confidence that the money was well spent, and to do that he cut overheads.
 
 
Guterres, then UN high commissioner for refugees, visits Ikafe camp for Sudanese refugees in northern Uganda.
 
  
“Like all UN organisations, as the organisation had grown up, it had become a little bit top-heavy and one of his first actions was really to slim down headquarters fairly substantially. He sent people back to the field and he put some of the services in much cheaper places than Geneva,” Gabaudan said.


“He never thought the details of finance were just for the technicians. I saw him looking at spreadsheets faster than his financial officer, spotting the line or column where we had a problem. So he was really as much hands-on about how the organisation worked as he was the top political figure and spokesman for refugees.”


When Justin Forsyth was chief executive of Save the Children UK, he travelled with Guterres to refugee camps in Lebanon, and recalled Guterres meeting a group of children.

“The thing that struck me was him cross-legged on the floor of a tent talking to children. He really listens and he asks questions and he’s very moved by what he hears.

He gets his hands dirty,” said Forsyth, the new deputy executive director of Unicef, the UN children’s charity.


Guterres’s tenure as high commissioner has attracted some criticism. Some former officials said he should have spoken out more strongly in defence of refugee rights enshrined in the 1951 refugee convention.

“His record is very mixed, particularly on protection. His tenure was a rough time for the protection of refugees,” a former senior UN official said. He pointed to Thailand forcibly repatriating ethnic Uighurs to China despite the risk they would face persecution.


He argued that a tripartite agreement the UNHCR made with Kenya and Somalia on the voluntary return of Somali refugees had paved the way for the reported forced repatriations now under way in Kenya aimed at emptying its biggest camp, at Dadaab.


The former official said the EU’s deal with Turkey to repatriate refugees, also widely seen as a violation of basic principles of refugee protection, was largely negotiated while Guterres was at the helm, even if it was only signed in March this year, three months after he left.


“His style is to make general statements on the issue but not to directly challenge governments on their actions,” the former official said. “It raises concerns on what he would be like as secretary general.”


Jeff Crisp, who was head of UNHCR policy development and evaluation under Guterres and is now a research associate at the University of Oxford’s Refugee Studies Centre, said not all the criticisms could be pointed at the secretary general designate.


He said the UNHCR did push back against infringements of refugee rights by European states and had been strongly critical of the EU-Turkey deal. And he argued the tendency to address abuses by authoritarian states by behind-the-scenes persuasion had historically been the “institutional approach” taken by the UNHCR, before and after Guterres.


“I think you have to understand that UNHCR’s public criticism of states is very carefully calibrated and in general the more liberal a state is, the more publicly the UNHCR will criticise it,” Crisp said.
 
 
Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister, and Guterres speak during a meeting at La Moncloa palace in Madrid.
 
 
 
Adaptable, consensual, affable, intellectual, Guterres is perhaps better qualified than any of his nine predecessors for the world’s most demanding job. But one of his deftest skills he learned not from the hurly burly of Portuguese politics, nor from the harrowing years at the UNHCR, but from his first wife.


At a Guardian event last June in which he debated with rivals for the secretary general job, he said her psychoanalytical insights were highly valuable. “She taught me something that was extremely useful for all my political activities.

When two people are together, they are not two but six. What each one is, what each one thinks he or she is and what each one thinks the other is,” he said.


“And what is true for people is also true for countries and organisations. One of the roles of the secretary general when dealing with the different key actors in each scenario is to bring these six into two. That the misunderstandings disappear and the false perceptions disappear. Perceptions are essential in politics.”

Saturday, December 17, 2016

UN Internet Summit Run by Beijing Pushes “Global Governance”


UN Internet Summit Run by Beijing Pushes “Global Governance” Written by 

 
   http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/24831-un-internet-summit-run-by-beijing-pushes-global-governance


 

Under the leadership of various Communist Chinese agents within the United Nations, the UN's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) met in Mexico last week and concluded with calls for greater international controls and more “global governance” of the World Wide Web. Another key item on the agenda was exploiting the Internet to promote the UN's deeply controversial “Agenda 2030” Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), essentially a UN road-map toward global totalitarianism that Beijing played a “crucial role” in developing.

The controversial UN IGF gathering was the first annual summit of governments, dictators, tax-funded “civil society” outfits, academics, and tech companies since Obama surrendered U.S. oversight over crucial components of the Internet's architecture such as ICANN. It was also the first IGF summit since the mass-murdering dictatorship in China, which censors the Web and savagely persecutes dissidents, boldly announced last month its intent to subordinate the free and open Internet to its draconian vision of “global governance.”

Experts have warned for years that blatant censorship and global Internet taxes will not be far behind if Americans do not step up the pressure to protect Internet freedom. With Obama having attempted to hand over U.S. oversight of the Internet's architecture to a “global multi-stakeholder” regime in recent months, the effort to re-take control of the Internet Americans helped create and pay for must accelerate if First Amendment protections for speech and journalism online are to survive.

Indeed, among other troubling topics, speakers and panelists at the UN's Internet governance confab explored topics such as “dealing with radicalized expression,” according to an official summary document of the confab. By “radicalized expression,” globalists and the UN are referring to conservative viewpoints, anti-UN sentiment, support for traditional values, nationalist or anti-globalist expression, and more. Another subject discussed at the IGF was “the importance of addressing online abuse,” an increasingly transparent ploy intended to justify online censorship.
Officially, the UN summit focused on “Internet and sustainable development; access and diversity; youth and gender challenges pertaining to the Internet; the protection and promotion of human rights online; cybersecurity; the need to enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation; critical Internet resources; Internet governance capacity building; and other emerging issues that may affect the future of the open Internet.” All the PR-friendly rhetoric sounded innocent enough — at first glance.


Translating the UN's misleading terminology, though, reveals a deeply controversial agenda to assault online and offline freedom worldwide. Consider, for example, that by “sustainable development,” the UN is referring to massive government controls over the economy, reducing the human population, assaulting private property ownership, redistributing wealth from what remains of the Western middle class to Third World dictators, and more. This has been made clear even by top UN officials.

When the UN speaks of protecting “human rights,” meanwhile, consider that the UN has a very different definition than the God-given rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Under the guise “human rights,” for example, the UN has called for criminalizing free speech, destroying gun rights, regulating private schools to promote UN dogma, ignoring due-process protections, and many other totalitarian schemes. The UN's pseudo-“human rights” Council is literally dominated by mass-murdering dictators and unfree regimes that are among the worst abusers of real rights on the planet.

And in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN explicitly claims in Article 29 that none of those “rights” may be “used contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” 
On at least one point, though, the UN used almost honest verbiage. By “capacity-building” for “Internet governance,” the UN means exactly what this sounds like it means: enhancing the ability of governments, dictators, and the array of international outfits they create, such as the UN, to impose rules, regulations, restrictions, censorship, and taxes on the Internet. That has been the direction and the goal for many years now.  

Among the totalitarian dictatorships that were allowed to organize “open forums” at the IGF summit were the mass-murdering regimes enslaving China and Cuba, both of which operate Orwellian censorship regimes to prevent their victims from accessing information. Other such sessions for governments and globalist bureaucracies were organized by the unelected, technocratic European Union Commission and the African Union. The latter is a dictator-dominated, EU-style transnational regime being imposed on Africans, with virtually all funding coming from the EU, the U.S. government, and the Communist Chinese dictatorship. Various scandal-plagued UN outfits such as UNESCO, WIPO, and more also organized events.


Despite attempting to conceal the true agenda in slick phraseology calculated to sound harmless or even desirable, the globalist establishment vowed openly to keep pursuing stronger global “governance” for the Internet in fairly transparent terms. For example, delegates plotted the imposition of new “cybersecurity measures” to be “implemented in cooperation with” so-called “international expert bodies” such as the Beijing-dominated UN organs hoping to oversee Internet regulation. And that is just the start.


The plot to exploit the Internet to advance the UN's totalitarian Agenda 2030 was made explicit throughout, too. “Indeed, the Internet and information and communication technologies (ICTs) can play an important, enabling role in our efforts to fulfill the great promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” boasted UN Assistant Secretary-General Lenni Montiel, who comes from one of the many nations in the world, Venezuela, destroyed by Agenda 2030-style Big Government policies. Montiel received his Master of Science in economics from a communist indoctrination center in Belarus, another nation destroyed and enslaved by a socialist dictatorship dedicated to Agenda 2030-style schemes.

Other speakers, such as Miguel Ruiz Cabañas, Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, boasted that the global policies governing the use of the Internet would be used to fight alleged man-made global warming. Seriously. While details were sketchy, one of the many schemes pushed throughout the summit was the notion that governments “bear a crucial responsibility” in terms of creating “content” for the Internet — presumably a reference to pushing propaganda supporting the UN, the man-made global-warming theory, and more.


Another key agenda item was discussion of how globalists can exploit the emerging so-called “Internet of Things,” or IoT, to better oppress humanity. “The challenge is to foster this continuous development and to enable the IoT to further grow into the Internet and Internet governance processes,” the IGF summary document explained, citing issues and challenges such as “standardization, interoperability, and security.” Indeed, according to the document, these issues offer “substantial opportunities” for “multi-stakeholder cooperation,” with the stakeholders being the UN, governments, dictators, Big Business, and “civil society” groups funded by governments and the establishment.


As Technocracy Rising author Patrick Wood explained in a recent column, though, the UN's agenda in seeking to bring the Internet under its control goes far beyond just censorship. “The real prize is completely overlooked: The Internet of Things (IoT),” Wood explained, adding that within a decade IoT is expected to generate upwards of $3 trillion. “If the UN can figure out a way to tax this market, and they will, it will provide a windfall of income and perhaps enough to make it self-perpetuating.”   


That is just the start of it. “But, what is the IoT and who cares? IoT are the connections between inanimate objects and the humans that depend upon them,” Wood continued, pointing to Smart Meters on homes that communicate remotely with home appliances, which can be controlled by external sources, and with the utility company. “Whoever has control over and access to this data will literally be able to control the entire world, down to the last minutiae  – and that is the United Nations’ exact mission: inventory, monitor and control.”


The IGF summit was organized through the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, or UN DESA, a powerful UN bureaucracy that is literally dominated by Communist Chinese operatives dedicated to the Communist Party of China and its totalitarian global agenda. UN DESA's chief, Wu Hongbo, was the “Assistant Foreign Minister” for the brutal Chinese regime before taking his UN post. He succeeded another Chinese Communist, Sha Zukang, who openly proclaimed his hatred of America and even gave an award to the Communist Chinese butcher responsible for slaughtering peaceful protesters at Tiananmen Square.


One of Wu's underlings, also a Chinese Communist agent, boasted after the IGF of the growing role that Third World dictatorships would play in governing the Internet. “Leading up to the twelfth IGF next year, innovations in programming and intersessional activities will continue to be implemented in a bottom-up manner, based on feedback from the multistakeholder community and in line with our new mandate which calls for greater participation from stakeholders from developing countries,” said Juwang Zhu, director of the Division for Sustainable Development in UN DESA, with developing countries being the term used by UN bureaucrats to refer to Third World dictatorships that have impoverished their victims for generations.

Of course, the Communist Chinese celebrations of “sustainable development” are not new, or surprising, as Beijing takes a growing role in what it and Western globalists call the “New World Order.” UN DESA's former Communist Chinese boss, Sha, was the chair of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 attended by this reporter. And more recently, the regime in Beijing bragged publicly of its “crucial role” in developing the UN Agenda 2030 for “Sustainable Development,” which a Socialist ex-NATO boss ominously referred to as the next “Great Leap Forward.”

Another key UN bureaucracy seeking to control the Internet, the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), is also led by a Communist Chinese agent — Houlin Zhao, who told the press that censorship is really in the eye of the beholder and not everyone agrees on what censorship is. Essentially, then, the Chinese dictatorship and many of its key allies — from Moscow and Brasilia to Tehran and Havana — hope to empower the little-known UN outfit Zhao leads with awesome powers over the Internet. They have made this perfectly clear for years in official declarations.


Unsurprisingly, just weeks before the IGF confab in Mexico, brutal Chinese dictator Xi Jinping called for stepped-up “global governance” of the Internet. Speaking by video at the Communist Chinese regime-run “World Internet Conference” in Wuzhen, China, Xi used standard globalist rhetoric to promote UN control of the post-American Internet. “The development of the Internet knows no international boundaries,” declared the tyrant, who leads the government and political party responsible for murdering more people than any other in human history. “The sound use, development and governance of the internet thus calls for closer cooperation.” He also said his regime would  “promote equitable global internet governance.”


Like the Communist regime enslaving mainland China, the UN and many of its totalitarian member regimes were pleased with Obama's surrender of oversight to globalist “stakeholders” and foreign governments. “The successful transition of the IANA functions to the multi stakeholder community in October of 2016, only a few months prior to the 11th IGF, marks an important milestone for the multi stakeholder Internet governance community,” reads an official summary of the confab by the IGF chair, boasting that new “community-based accountability mechanisms” would now replace the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and more. “At the IGF, various workshops and sessions endeavored to learn from the successes and challenges of this important multi stakeholder exercise.”

The UN IGF event took place in Jalisco, Mexico, between December 6 and December 9. Some 3,000 people — many of them representing mass-murdering dictatorships keen to censor the Internet — were reportedly in attendance. At the summit, pictures show the UN's blue flag flying high, alongside Mexico's green, white, and red flag, as armed officials stand at attention. The scene, reproduced in UN press releases, encapsulated well by outgoing UN boss Ban Ki Moon as he now regularly refers to the lawless dictators club he leads as the “Parliament of Humanity.”

For Americans concerned about keeping the Internet free and preventing its use by tyrants and globalists to oppress humanity, time is running out. Congress and the Trump administration should be encouraged to take urgent action aimed at stopping the UN and its member regimes from hijacking control of the Internet. As it stands, online freedom is waking people up by the millions around the world. It is also undermining establishment control of humanity and public opinion in an unprecedented way. But without urgent action by Americans to stop it, the UN, Beijing, and other nefarious anti-freedom forces intend to stamp out that freedom forever.  

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:
UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism
Chinese Tyrant Seeks Global Control After Obama Gave Up Internet
Who Will Control Your Internet?
China: Staking Claim in the New World Order
The United Nations Grabs for Internet Control (Video)
U.S. Lawmakers Aim to Block Obama's Internet Giveaway
UN October Summit Reopens Grab for Global Internet Control
Internet “Governance” Summit in Brazil Advances UN Control
To Battle “Trolls,” Establishment Wages War on Internet Freedom
UN Grabs for the Internet: CFR, Chatham House Lead Toward “Global Governance”
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
Obama Quiet as UN & Dictators Push to Control Internet
Memo Reveals Clinton White House Paranoia Over Free Internet
UN May Tax and Censor Post-U.S. Internet, Experts Warn
U.S. Tech Giants Join EU to Censor the Internet
Communist China Unveils Most Orwellian Scheme Ever

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Big Data A preview to the iPoliticsLive Big Data & Analytics Forum The current Liberal governmen....

A preview to the iPoliticsLive Big Data & Analytics Forum
The current Liberal government has made evidence based decision making a cornerstone in their mandate to not only create and implement public policy, but also to instill a culture of innovation. The federal government has also tied Big Data and the Innovation agenda together. Wading through the oceans of data and navigating through all that information to set a course with data driven insights is the challenge all departments and agencies continue to face. Understanding how to assess, analyze and where and when to source supplemental data that can support your objectives is a challenge government is faced with. Big data and analytics is a more progressive and modern way to conducting business, but also a vital and necessary agent to an enabling the Government’s innovation agenda.


For more information or to attend visit: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/big-data...





Description

The current Liberal government has made evidence based decision making a cornerstone in their mandate to not only create and implement public policy, but also to instill a culture of innovation. The federal government has also tied Big Data and the Innovation agenda together. Wading through the oceans of data and navigating through all that information to set a course with data driven insights is the challenge all departments and agencies continue to face. Understanding how to assess, analyze and where and when to source supplemental data that can support your objectives is a challenge government is faced with. Big data and analytics is a more progressive and modern way to conducting business, but also a vital and necessary agent to an enabling the Government’s innovation agenda.
7:30 - 8:30 AM Registration & Networking Breakfast
8:30 - 8:50 AM Opening Remarks
8:50 - 9:45 AM Opening Keynote & Fireside Chat
Anthony Scriffignano has assisted and supported a number of government departments around the world to transform their business practices with Big Data.
Anthony Scriffignano, EVP & chief data scientist, Dun & Bradstreet
9:45 - 10:15 AM Networking Break
10:15 - 11:05 AM Big Data - Where Will It Take Us?
This session examines the 30,000 foot view of what Big Data and Analytics is and where it can take us in the future. Government organizations recognize the importance but managing risks, understanding future implications and assessing existing data assets are all critical to the future of evidence based decision making. The assembled panel will give their practical perspectives and how they are leading the discussion within their organization.
John Knubley, deputy minister, Innovation, Science and Economic Development
Kevin Kolliniatis, partner audit, KPMG LLP
Mark Fisher, president and CEO, Council of the Great Lakes Regions
11:05 - 11:55 AM Moving the Needle - Practical Success Plans in Getting Started
Once the plan is laid out getting organizational buy-in is critical. Our panel examines the need to continuously assess and motivate cross functional teams to ensure the big data and analytics vision delivers real and ongoing insights to inform decisions.
Marc-André Roy, vice president marketing, Export Development Canada
Stéphan Tremblay, data analytics team leader, National Research Council Canada
Rob Dolan, industry marketing director public sector, Tableau
11:55 - 12:00 PM Closing Remarks


Presented by:
Supported by:

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

What Donald Trump means for Canadian foreign policy: Shuvaloy Majumdar in the Huffington Post


Shuvaloy Majumdar


MLI Munk Senior Fellow Shuvaloy Majumdar maps out six key foreign policy issues Canada will need to focus on after the election of Donald Trump as president.
By Shuvaloy Majumdar, Nov. 14, 2016

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/what-donald-trump-means-for-canadian-foreign-policy-shuvaloy-majumdar-in-the-huffington-post/

Across the world a cacophony of condescension on one side, and disaffected rage on the other, has precipitated a global political realignment. Upon the embers of the American presidential race, President-elect Donald J. Trump has emerged victorious.
On paper, Republicans control the Congress, Senate and White House, Republican governors command a majority of state capitals, and Republicans are strong at local levels. This should not be confused for a sense of coherence, as the American conservative movement is experiencing deep ideological fissures on fundamental questions of openness to the world versus isolation.

The pressures on Canadian interests abroad will be significant, so long as the United States remains the guarantor of Canadian national security and the major partner in economic prosperity. So what does the US election mean for Canada in the world?

The election in the United States represents a fundamental shift in how the world's most powerful nation will act towards major trade agreements, the world's security architecture and the American approach to the key challenges of our times.

Six major foreign policy issues following the inauguration of President Trump will shape this new relationship between two very different governments.

The Canada-US economic relationship

With the White House and Congress finding common ground on energy prosperity, it is likely the Keystone XL pipeline will be approved. North America is already densely interwoven with environmentally sound pipeline infrastructure, and a larger continental energy deal may finally be at hand. This will be of significant benefit to all aspects of the Canadian economy, and provide an opportunity for positive engagement with the new administration.

Beyond pipelines and continental energy security, key debates loom on threats to NAFTA made during the US campaign. The President-elect has been highly disciplined about discussing NAFTA only in the context of trade imbalance and illegal immigration pressures stemming from Mexico. It stands to reason his lament has little to do with Canadian trade, presumably an area the New York developer had experience with in his commercial undertakings. 

However, trade negotiations with the United States are never pro forma and Canada will need to be prepared for intense bargaining to protect our own economic interests. This will include a decision point on whether to fold in an agreement on softwood lumber, or continue to negotiate that issue outside of NAFTA.

Canada will also need to ascertain whether an update is needed to reclassify labour for work visas, reflecting the modern global economy. The current classifications better describe professions of the 1980s (lawyer, accountant) than today’s dynamic workforce. Modernizing and co-ordinating the system would be a major benefit for commercial partnerships on both sides of the border.

NATO and collective defence

The President-elect has made pointed comments about certain allies not sharing the military burden, both with regard to NATO and the Asian security architecture with Japan and South Korea. While less involved with hard security assets in the Pacific, Canada has had a significant stake in the transatlantic security architecture between Europe and North America. 

NATO has indeed had an imbalance in its members contributing the agreed to target of 2% of GDP in national defence spending. But measuring commitments to spending levels alone says little about a nation’s commitment to global security. Canadian contributions to the alliance have been appropriately focussed on dealing with threats rather than feeding the defence bureaucracy. 

With NATO, Canada has made a difference in the European east including Ukraine, taken on the hardest fighting in Afghanistan, and by contributing to NATO's essential Centres of Excellence on Cyber Security, Energy Security and Strategic Communications.

In dealing with the new administration, Canada can credibly and accurately define what sharing the burden actually involves, measuring sacrifice and impact alongside treasure and materiel.
More can and should be spent prudently on Canada's defence apparatus. But unlike other NATO partners, Canadian per capita contributions in blood and risk far exceed those of other Allies. In dealing with the new administration, Canada can credibly and accurately define what sharing the burden actually involves, measuring sacrifice and impact alongside treasure and materiel.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership and China's rise

The President-elect has decried the TPP as the worst conceivable deal for the American interest, offering scant specifics on what a successful deal could look like. The definitive positions he has taken on trade have already created a spirit for compromise by America's traditional partners, including Ottawa, which has proactively offered to renegotiate NAFTA. 

Trump's rhetoric has shifted the goalposts for negotiations closer to American interests, including at the TPP table. It is true to his style of negotiation to exaggerate his demands, secure enough compromise, then conclude a deal and claim victory for his domestic audiences.

Canadian negotiators should aim to pursue the paths of a renegotiated TPP and bilateral agreements concurrently and aggressively, as long as this uncertainty remains.

The US Congress has already postponed its TPP deliberations during this lame-duck session until after inauguration. Should, somehow, another round of TPP negotiations commence, Canada has vital interests at stake in accessing key high-growth markets in the Asia Pacific and the Americas. The rules which will define trade spanning three continents (and Australia) are essential in setting the standards for how a rising China would economically engage the vast opportunities of the Pacific.

 There is an opportunity to constrain its belligerent tendencies and its outlook on trade, which seeks advantage for its state-owned enterprises. These standards are also essential in providing an aspirational roadmap for potential partners to the TPP such as India and Taiwan, once domestic reforms make them viable partners.
Should the President-elect kill the deal, Canada will need to make a separate approach, using the TPP framework, to all of the markets involved in the TPP, to secure individual, bilateral deals.

 Canadian negotiators should aim to pursue the paths of a renegotiated TPP and bilateral agreements concurrently and aggressively, as long as this uncertainty remains.

Engaging Russia: Ukraine, Syria and beyond
Both Prime Minister Trudeau and President-elect Trump share a spirit for a changed engagement with Moscow. This comes amidst two of the defining geopolitical issues of our times in which Russia's hand has undermined American power: Ukraine and Syria.


The President-elect removed essential support for Ukraine from his presidential platform, even while Congressional Republicans ran on a promise to ensure Ukrainian sovereignty. Russian hacking and propaganda altered the American narrative in the President-elect's favour. The President-elect himself had a campaign manager for a time whose dubious ties to Russia through the Kremlin's proxies in Ukraine continue to cast a disturbing shadow over the imminent occupant of the White House.

In Syria, beyond a campaign that leveraged the ugliest impulses of American voters, the larger concern is over a basic, shared understanding of who the enemy is. Is it ISIS? Is it also Assad and his guarantors in Tehran and Moscow? The President-elect has been deafeningly silent on his plan, beyond "destroying ISIS," while offering platitudes regarding Vladimir Putin's exploitation of American weakness in the ongoing conflict.


In the larger geopolitical context, Canada will need to define the limits of its engagement with Moscow, with an understanding of the risks that come with the potential the government sees for commercial progress in relations with Russia.


In Ukraine, Canada must show resolve in expanding sanctions against Russian actors responsible for the crisis, fortifying Ukrainian defence forces and civil society, and continuing the political isolation of the Kremlin's cronies. This would include taking on the fighters Russia is sponsoring to create conflict in the Ukrainian Donbas by listing them as terror entities.
In Syria, Canada must not fall into the sectarian trap of solely targeting ISIS while ignoring Iran-supported Hezbollah and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which presumes a de facto preference on the ground for Iranian-backed Shia sectarian terror over Sunni sectarian terror.

As the President-elect gives form to the policy he intends to pursue with Moscow in the midst of these conflicts, Canada's stake in both conflicts must be informed by those who share our values, by the aspiration to restore international order, and by clear interests rather than taking a pose as “honest intermediator” that risks moral equivalence or even pandering to evil.
Iran
Iran has had sanctions lifted on assets worth approximately $150 billion, while parading new missiles and Syria-hardened IRGC soldiers in Tehran, and while continuing to call for the destruction of Israel. It sponsors terror across Iraq, Syria and beyond, with its clients murdering 10 to 12 times as many in Syria as ISIS has. Iran recently, for the second time this year, surpassed the agreed-to threshold for stockpiling heavy water, a material used as a moderator in nuclear reactors. It continues to pursue advanced missile technology - specifically designed to deliver a nuclear payload.

The president-elect has promised tougher consequences on Iran for failing to live up to its own commitments in the nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama, including throwing the deal to the wind, along with the UN Resolution that acknowledges it.
Iran's atrocious human rights record continues to outpace every other country in the region, while its rival Saudi Arabia is acknowledging the systemic challenges of its economic state and embarks upon a vast reform agenda.


Even as the gap between Iran’s words and deeds widen on its broader nuclear program, on its industrial-scale sponsorship of terrorism, and its worsening human rights record, Ottawa is preparing to normalize relations with Tehran, swept up in the spirit of last year’s nuclear negotiations. Iran has not behaved as if it desires to rejoin the international community as a constructive actor, rather the opposite. It has taken spirited advantage of a weakened international system.


So long as there are two very different understandings of the nature and aspirations of the Iranian regime, tensions will mount between Canadian and American diplomacy. If Ottawa intends to stand with Jerusalem, as it claims it will, normalizing a relationship with Iran at the expense of Israeli security will squarely place it against two close allies - Israel and the United States.
Climate change and energy poverty
While Canada may benefit substantially from the Trump administration’s energy policy, there is a wide gulf on climate change policy, and there is now a major challenge to the Trudeau government’s climate agenda. The global carbon regime promoted by Trudeau is anathema to the President-elect, who has prioritized meaningful economic benefits for the vastly diminished American middle class. 

These Trump voters are deeply disaffected and disappointed with grand global ventures that deliver little locally.
The debate about how the world addresses climate change is fundamentally about whether the solution can be centrally planned and enforced. Many among the environmental lobby are willing to risk subjugating energy impoverished countries, holding them to the unethical standard of industrializing through expensive and experimental green technologies. These nations would need to purchase this technology from the West, from those who polluted and industrialized at their expense, awakening old resentments of colonialization.


Those on the other side of the debate envision a path to resolving climate challenges that is local, and driven by innovators making bold investments, betting on technological innovation. 

The developing world has already leapfrogged telephone cables for cell phone towers. They stand to do the same in other parts of their industrial development, through more efficient distribution of power using artificial intelligence and meta data, through unlocking the vast potential of everything from power sources to recycling, and through the smarter planning of emerging cities in high growth regions of the world.

The global carbon regime promoted by Trudeau is anathema to the President-elect, who has prioritized meaningful economic benefits for the vastly diminished American middle class.
If Ottawa is to preserve and expand Canada's economic strength relative to the rest of the world, it will need to make the economic decisions around climate change, not the climate decisions around economic change.

Trudeau intends to lead the world by example on climate change. Punitive carbon taxes will put Canada at a serious disadvantage compared to the US under Trump and hit a vital yet hurting sector of the Canadian economy, oil and gas. And they put at risk a fragile Canadian middle class, which ranked as the strongest in the world in the post-2008 Great Recession. Undermining the middle class by engaging in global schemes will put at risk the great economic exception that Canada is in the world today.

Green schemes and wealth redistributionists in Europe have created an eco-elite and a growing gap between rich and poor. Inequality in the United States has seen the isolation of two sides, networked within their own worlds, speaking only among themselves rather than to each other.

National governments have failed to invest in economic adaptation for the most vulnerable to job losses as a result of technological innovation and globalization. The domestic and foreign policy decisions on climate change that Ottawa will need to make following the inauguration of President Trump are central to the wider conversation about the path to global prosperity, and Canada's role in it.
Moving forward
The election in the United States represents a fundamental shift in how the world's most powerful nation will act towards major trade agreements, the world's security architecture and the American approach to the key challenges of our times. The long term consequences of how all this unfolds are vast and cannot be understated.
Green schemes and wealth redistributionists in Europe have created an eco-elite and a growing gap between rich and poor.
Canada will need to be more agile than ever if it is to be a strategic partner that informs these choices, and will require statesmanship that has a clear vision of where our country will stand in the world once the limits of American power are finally defined.
Each of these six areas is about making decisions whose effects will be understood in a generation, not necessarily in the next few years. The question isn't about what the world will look like in 2020, it's about Canada actively defining the agenda that shapes the international order in 2050.
Shuvaloy Majumdar led democracy assistance initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2006 to 2010, and recently served as policy director to successive Canadian foreign ministers in the Harper Government. He is a Munk Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. @shuvmajumdar
November 14, 2016 at 8:19 pm
Related posts:
1.     Big policy changes ahead after election of Donald Trump: Philip Cross in the National Post Inequality, climate change and trade are just some of the files on which both Canadians...
2.     Why Donald Trump is wrong on trade deficits: Sean Speer in the Financial Post Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, has made political hay out...
3.     A perilous China Pivot in Asia: Shuvaloy Majumdar in Inside Policy By turning from established allies in Asia toward a teetering economy and authoritative regime, Canada...
4.     Fate of former ambassador to Canada portends Turkey’s future: Shuvaloy Majumdar in the Globe and Mail The chilling crackdown underway in Turkey has now claimed a Canadian connection: Dr. Tuncay Babali, the...
5.     Why Donald Trump is a crank – making a fetish of manufacturing misses the point that ideas and not things make the economy hum: Brian Lee Crowley in the Globe Don’t listen to the overheated rhetoric coming out of United States presidential hopeful Donald Trump,...