Home » Diplomacy
Category Archives: Diplomacy
As trade tensions rise between the United States of America and its traditional allies, Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland hits the right note in responding to U.S. President Donald Trump as she accepts the Diplomat of the Year Award from Foreign Policy magazine.
Below are both the full video and transcript of her speech courtesy of ForeignPolicy.com
“Tonight, I would like to speak about a challenge that affects us all: and I believe worries us all, and that is the weakening of the rules-based international order and the threat that resurgent authoritarianism poses to liberal democracy itself.
I’d like to start on a personal note. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, I studied and worked as a reporter in what was first the USSR and while I was living there [it] became independent Ukraine and Russia.
My experience of watching from the inside as this vast authoritarian regime crumbled, profoundly shaped my thinking. It was a euphoric moment, and one in which it was tempting to imagine that liberal democracy was both inevitable and invulnerable.
As Francis Fukuyama put it, we seemed to have reached the ‘end of history’.
Fukuyama wasn’t, of course, arguing that history had ground to a halt. Rather, he was saying that the half-century-long competition between liberalism and authoritarianism had been settled and that liberal democracy had won. What a seductive argument.
Now, we harbored no illusions then, that institutions such as the WTO, or the IMF, or the World Bank, or the U.N. were perfect. Or that that our own democracies at home with their sausage-making methods of legislating and governing were without flaw.
But there was a broad consensus that the Atlantic nations, plus Japan, led an international system of rules that had allowed our peoples’ to thrive and which would surely continue to do so. Crucially, this was built as a system that other nations, emerging powers could join, and join they have.
The past 25 years have seen the rapid rise of the global south and Asia, most prominently China, as major economic powers in their own right. We created the G20, with Canadian leadership I might add. Russia was invited into the G7 making it the G8 in 1998, and the WTO in 2012. China has been a WTO member since 2001.
In Latin America, in the Caribbean, in Africa, and in Asia, developing countries have joined these institutions and accepted their rules, and that has delivered ever-greater living standards to their people.
But although this was and remains a broadly positive evolution, with extraordinary gains, in reducing extreme poverty, lengthening lives and decreasing infant mortality, one assumption about this great global shift turned out to be wrong: that was the idea that as authoritarian countries joined the global economy and grew rich, they would inevitably adopt Western political freedoms too. That hasn’t always happened. Indeed, in recent years, even some democracies have gone in the other direction and slipped into authoritarianism, notably and tragically, Venezuela. And some countries that had embarked on the difficult journey from communism to democratic capitalism have moved backwards. The saddest personal example for me is Russia.
Even China, whose economic success in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is one of the great accomplishments of recent times, stands as a rebuke to our belief in the inevitability of liberal democracy.
And within the club of wealthy Western nations, we are seeing homegrown anti-democratic forces on the rise. Whether they are neo-Nazis, white supremacists, incels, nativists, or radical anti-globalists, such movements seek to undermine our democracies from within. Liberal democracy is also under assault from abroad. Authoritarian regimes are actively seeking to undermine us with sophisticated, well-financed propaganda and espionage programs. And they seek to suborn smaller countries, those wavering between democracy and authoritarianism.
Now, the idea that democracy could falter or be overturned in places where it had previously flourished may seem outlandish. But other great civilizations have risen and then fallen. It is hubris to think we will inevitably be different. Our Prime Minister likes to say about our country that Canada didn’t happen by accident and it won’t continue without effort.
The same can be said of liberal democracy itself.
Now let’s set aside the external malevolent actors for a moment. Why are liberal democracies vulnerable at home?
Here’s why: Angry populism thrives where the middle class is hollowed out, where people are losing ground and losing hope, even as those at the very top are doing better than ever. When people feel their economic future is in jeopardy — when they believe their children have fewer opportunities than they themselves had in their youth, that’s when people are vulnerable to the demagogue who scapegoats the outsider, the other, whether it’s immigrants at home or trading partners abroad.
The fact is, middle-class working families aren’t wrong to feel left behind. Median wages have been stagnating. Jobs are becoming more precarious, pensions uncertain, housing, childcare, and education harder to afford. These are the wrenching human consequences, the growing pains, if you will, of the great transformative forces of the past 40 years — the technology revolution and globalization.
Now, of the two, technology is having the greatest impact. But even free traders like me need to recognize that globalization has contributed as well. So, what’s the answer?
I think we are agreed that it is not, as the Luddites unsuccessfully proposed at the start of the Industrial Revolution, to stop the march of technology. We all love our smartphones too much.
When it comes to trade though, we do need to introduce labor standards with real teeth as Canada and the EU have done in our free trade agreement, and as we are discussing as part of our ongoing NAFTA modernization negotiations. It is long past time to bring the WTO up to date with the realities of 2018 and beyond. We need to seriously address non-tariff barriers to trade and force technology transfers.
However, and overwhelmingly, the chief answer to the legitimate grievances of the middle class lies in domestic policies.
The middle class and people working hard to join it need the security that comes from educationing your youth, health care for your family, good jobs for your children, and dignity in your retirement.
We need to think about what the jobs of the future for our citizens will be, and ensure that those jobs will pay a living wage and that our people have the skills to do them. Perhaps most importantly, and this is work that would benefit from international cooperation, in a 21st century in which capital is global but social welfare is national, we need to ensure that each of our countries has the durable tax base necessary to support the 99 percent.
But setting our own house in order is just one part of the struggle. The truth is that authoritarianism is on the march and it’s time for liberal democracy to fight back. To do that, we need to raise our game.
One device strongmen use to justify their rule is the Soviet trick of whataboutism. The strategy of false moral equivalency which holds that because democracies are inevitably imperfect, they lack the moral authority to criticize authoritarian regimes.
We heard this species of cynical rhetoric for example, from the Venezuelan foreign minister at the Organization of American States meeting in Washington just last week. We must be smart enough to see through it. It’s possible, indeed necessary, for us to acknowledge that our own democracies aren’t perfect.
The record of my own country’s relationship with indigenous peoples, for example, is one of tragic failure.
But admitting our mistakes doesn’t discredit us. On the contrary, it is one of the things that makes us who we are. Authoritarianism is also often justified as a more efficient way of getting things done. No messy contested elections, no wrenching shift from one short-termist governing party to another, no troublesome judicial oversight, no time-consuming public consultation. How much more effective the apologists argue for a paramount leader with a long-term vision, unlimited power and permanent tenure, to rule.
We need to resist this corrosive nonsense. We need to summon Yeats’ oft-cited passionate intensity in the fight for liberal democracy and the international rules-based order that supports it.
Remember those great words at Gettysburg. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth. Preserving Lincoln’s vision means striking back. It means resisting foreign efforts to hijack our democracies through cyber-meddling and propaganda. It means outshining the other models and encouraging those who are on the fence. And it means governing with integrity.
Facts matter. (applause) Truth matters. (applause) Competence and honesty among elected leaders and in our public service matter. (applause)
Now, I’d like to speak directly to Canada’s American friends and to my own many American friends who are here in this room.
Let me begin by simply saying: Thank you.
For the past 70 years and more, America has been the leader of the free world. We Canadians have been proud to stand at your side and to have your back. As your closest friend, ally, and neighbor, we also understand that many Americans today are no longer certain that the rules-based international order of which you were the principal architect and for which you did write the biggest cheques, still benefits America.
We see this most plainly in the U.S. administration’s tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imposed under the 232 national security provision. We share the world’s longest undefended border. Our soldiers have fought and died alongside yours in the First World War, in the Second World War, in Korea, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq.
The idea that we could pose a national security threat to you is more than absurd, it’s hurtful.
The 232 tariffs introduced by the United States are illegal under WTO and NAFTA rules. They are protectionism pure and simple. They are not a response to unfair actions by other countries that put American industry at a disadvantage. They are a naked example of the United States putting its thumb on the scale in violation of the very rules it helped to write. Canada has no choice but to retaliate with a measured, perfectly reciprocal, dollar for dollar response. And we will do so. We act in close collaboration with our like-minded partners in the EU and Mexico.
They too are your allies, and they share our astonishment and our resolve.
Chrystia continues her speech in Canada’s other official language (French) then reverts to English, as below…
No one will benefit from this beggar-thy-neighbour dispute. The price will be paid in part, by American consumers and American businesses and the price will also be paid by those who believe that a rules-based system is worth preserving.
Since the end of the Second World War, we have built a system that promoted prosperity and prevented smaller and regional conflicts from turning into total war. We’ve built a system that championed freedom and democracy over authoritarianism and oppression. Canada for one, is going to stand up in defense of that system. We will not escalate and we will not back down.
We remember a time when the United States believed great international projects like the Marshall Plan or the reconstruction of Japan were the path to lasting peace. When America believed its security and prosperity were bolstered by the security and prosperity of other nations. Indeed, that America could only be truly safe and prosperous when its allies were too. This vision, the greatest generation’s vision, was crucially dependent on the rules-based international order and the postwar institutions built to maintain it. It was based upon the willingness of all, especially the strongest, to play by the rules and be bound by them. It depended on the greatest countries of the world giving up, collectively, on the idea that ‘might made right’.
Now, the Second World War was over 70 years ago, it is reasonable to ask whether our grandparents’ hard-won wisdom still applies today. I am certain that it does and for some new reasons.
After the devastation of the Second World War, the United States was the unquestioned colossus, accounting alone for half the world’s economy. Today, the U.S. economy stands at just a quarter of the world’s. Together, the EU, Canada, and Japan, your allies in the G-7 and beyond, account for just a little bit more. China, meanwhile, produces nearly 20 percent of the world’s GDP. And in our lifetimes, its economy is set to become the world’s largest.
Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Americans, Canadians, and Europeans are much richer and healthier, and live longer than our grandparents did. The ‘rise of the rest’ has been a chapter in the story of our own increased prosperity. And it’s only natural that the 85 per cent of people who live outside the industrialized West should, over time, account for a greater and growing share of the world’s wealth.
But that shift leaves the Western liberal democracies with a dilemma. How shall we behave in a world we no longer dominate?
One answer is to give up on the rules-based international order, to give up on the Western alliance and to seek to survive in a Metternichian world defined, not by common values, mutually-agreed upon rules and shared prosperity, but rather by a ruthless struggle between the great powers governed solely by the narrow, short-term, and mercantalist pursuit of self-interest.
Canada could never thrive in such a world. But you, still the world’s largest economy, may be tempted. That, of course, is your sovereign right. But allow me, as your friend to make the case that America’s security amid the inexorable ‘rise of the rest’ lies in doubling-down on a renewed rules-based international order. It lies in working alongside traditional allies like Canada and alongside all of the younger democracies around the world.
From the Americas, to Africa, to Asia, to the former Soviet Union — who are so keen to join us and who yearn for leadership, you may feel today that your size allows you to go ‘mano a mano’ with your traditional adversaries and be guaranteed to win. But if history tells us one thing, it is that no one nation’s preeminence is eternal.
That is why the far wiser path and the more enduring one is to strengthen our existing alliance of liberal democracies. To hold the door open to new friends. To countries that have their own troubled past such as Tunisia, Senegal, Indonesia, Mexico, Botswana, or Ukraine.
To reform and renew the rules-based international order that we have built together. And in so doing, to require that all states, whether democratic or not, play by these common rules.
This is the difficult truth. As the West’s relative might inevitably declines, now is the time when, more than ever, we must set aside the idea that ‘might is right’. Now is the time for us to plant our flag on the rule of law so that the rising powers are induced to play by these rules too.
To explain my faith in you, in America, let me remind you of the ‘City on the Hill’ Ronald Reagan evoked in his farewell speech in 1989. It was a tall, proud city, built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. A city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get there.
This city, open to trade, open to immigrants, speaks to Canada’s values too. Indeed, these are the values of liberal democracy. These values are under attack from outside our walls. Most corrosively, even inside the shining city some have begun to doubt them. My country, Canada, believes in these values. We are ready to defend them and the rules-based international order that unites all of the world’s cities on the hill.
Our friends among the world’s democracies in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and here in the Americas are shoulder to shoulder with us. We all know we will be strongest with America in our ranks and indeed, in the lead. But whatever this great country’s choice will turn out to be, let me be clear that Canada knows where it stands, and we will rise to this challenge. Thank you.” — As read by Chrystia Freeland, Foreign Minister for Canada, June 14, 2018
Review: North Korea Invades South Korea in 1950
Let us never forget that it was North Korea, acting with the approval of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that attacked a peaceful South Korea on June 25th, 1950 — an invasion that was opposed by all UN member nations except China, which later provided significant support to the North Korean side.
In all, more than 2.5 million civilians and over 1 million military personnel were killed (some 32,975 military personnel are still listed as ‘missing’) for a likely total of 3.5 million deaths attributable to the Korean War.
However, a since reclassified report said that 4.4 million deaths occurred as a result of the Korean War (and that number includes those who died from lack of food, water, medicine, or proper sanitation as a direct result of the war) and the responsibility for those deaths lay squarely on the people who initially approved the unprovoked invasion of South Korea: Kim Il-sung of North Korea, Joseph Stalin of the USSR, and while providing only minimal support at the beginning of the war it was China’s Mao Zedong who provided a dramatic increase in men and matériel to fight the UN force defending South Korea.
Armistice Signed in 1953
Since July 27, 1953 an armistice has remained in place between North Korea, China and Russia on one side of the conflict, and the countries of the United Nations on the other.
NOTE: An armistice is regarded as a state of ‘ceasefire’ and is also called a ‘cessation of hostilities’ but it isn’t an actual long-term peace agreement.
Not at War, But Not at Peace
From June 1954 when the official negotiating teams representing both sides wrapped up their work because they were unable to forge a long-term peace agreement due to the intransigence of North Korea’s political leaders (although North Korea’s military agreed on the need for a durable peace agreement during negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland “the Geneva Conference (1954)” and in fact, covertly floated the idea of UN powers helping them to stage a coup in North Korea) the Korean War hasn’t officially ended, although it’s important to remember that there has been no actual combat between the two sides in all those years, but there have been many instances of irritation between the former combatants.
A Country on a Permanent War Footing
In North Korea, the war never ended. At least the war mindset never ended. It’s a country that still prepares for war and it’s a country that expects to be attacked on any given day of the year. The economy is a ‘war economy’ which means that aside from growing food to feed its citizens and building homes to shelter them, everything is geared towards preparing for war.
“Women must serve in the army for about seven years, and men for 10 years.” — Newsweek
‘No country in the world could successfully invade and occupy North Korea’ it has been said by many experts. Every adult in the country has served a minimum of seven years in the North Korean military, and some have served their whole lives. The standing army numbers 1.1 million with another 7.7 million army reservists that can be called-up instantly.
Every city, every village, every building, every street, every farm area has been designed to favour the defenders, including some bridges, buildings and roads prewired with explosives to destroy them and there are estimated to be as many as 20-million land mines installed in forested land and in (what appears to be) agricultural belts. When you add that to the fact that every adult has served in the army and knows where to access those controls and their associated explosives, it makes war in the north a virtual death trap for any invading army, no matter how large or powerful.
All of their serious military facilities are deep underground — so far down that only repeated direct hits with nuclear weapons will shake those underground buildings enough to kill everyone inside. And even then, some may still survive if they’re strapped in and not bouncing off the walls or ceilings hard enough to break their necks during the shaking. And if they’re alive, they can still push buttons. The kind of buttons we don’t like.
The North Korean air force is small and it has few 4th and 5th-generation aircraft, but it’s designed for, and their pilots are expert at, the close air support role, which is another important factor to consider for any country considering invasion of North Korea.
The North Korean Navy is tiny, but the ace up its sleeve is a large fleet of highly-modified Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines, some of which have been modified to accept ballistic missiles (although every attempted launch to date has failed) and the Kilo’s are generally noted for their stealth and are notorious for their ability to covertly deliver troops or supplies to any coast in the world. The USSR built hundreds of these small, but excellent submarines and conducted secret operations on every continent. Yes, every continent.
The Soviet Navy never installed ICBM missile tubes in Kilo-class subs, but the North Korean navy did. So, it’s just a matter of time before North Korea figures out the technical bits related to launching ballistic missiles from underwater.
NOTE: The Soviet Navy preferred to create a whole new class of submarine (the Akula-class) from which to launch ICBM’s and was an excellent decision from every conceivable safety standpoint.
The book on North Korea’s military is this: ARMY: The army is an extremely well-trained and capable army — one of the largest in the world — and it is well dug-in and the entire country has been set up to foil invasion. AIR FORCE: Small, but extremely well-trained for the close air support mission, and very capable in that role. NAVY: Small, almost non-existent surface fleet, but well trained for coastal reconnaissance — but their submarine fleet is large, with growing size and capability, and their capabilities are regularly underestimated by other countries.
Now North Korea has Nuclear Bombs and ICBM’s
Now that North Korea has admitted to having a small number of nuclear bombs and is testing advanced missiles, its leader has decided to use his nation’s war economy and military to get what he wants for his country.
That’s the basic psychology at work there, and we’ve seen this before. In fact, every war begins the same way.
Except, because negotiations between the UN nations and North Korea have been practically non-existent, nobody really knows what Kim Jong-un wants!
Obviously he wants something or he wouldn’t be firing nuclear-capable missiles across Japanese airspace or threatening the United States with nuclear missile attack.
And we don’t even know what the man wants…
At the Very Least, We Should Find Out What Kim Jong-un Wants
There’s no doubt that he will continue to improve the technology and capability of his submarine fleet. There’s no doubt his ICBM programme will continue to improve and there’s no chance of staging a coup in that country as the citizens and the military command are simply too loyal to the ‘Dear Leader’ as he’s known to his people.
So, as we’re stuck with him until he eventually passes away and North Korean politics becomes a lot more mainstream, we might as well engage in some high level diplomacy and find out what he wants. Perhaps he has some legitimate grievances and not-as-legitimate grievances, and some reasonable requests of the international community.
It costs nothing to talk. But not talking might result in nuclear war, especially if the present lack of communication continues past the time that Kim Jong-un’s ICBM’s become nuclear-capable and can travel thousands of miles.
Who Should Talk to North Korea?
In the war that was the Korean War, it was the UN member nations (with the exception of the USSR and China) that fought back against the North Korean invasion of South Korea — therefore, it was a war between the UN (minus two members) and North Korea — and therefore, any diplomatic initiatives which at this point are strongly advised, must be presented to North Korea by the United Nations.
At present, there’s nothing. Not even a weekly phone call.
Which is very distressing, if you’re a person who happens to know what the stakes are.
Time is On Our Side
In the long run, if the rhetoric is kept to a low level and if high level diplomatic engagement becomes a number one priority for the United Nations negotiating teams and communications staff, and if reasonable requests from Jong-un are approved, all of us, including those in North Korea, will get to live. Yes, nuclear war is like that.
Constant diplomacy works every time but only because diplomacy takes place between human beings on both sides of any issue or conflict — and not between opposing computers. The application of professional diplomacy to any problem can solve anything, given enough effort and time.
Here’s the equation: Conflict between human beings + Diplomacy/Human Psychology = Positive Outcome
It’s just that it takes a high level of commitment to stick to it, and each and every action (not words, but actions) taken by the Jong-un regime will need to be carefully weighed and North Korea ‘punished’ or ‘rewarded’ as appropriate, using ‘soft power’ only, and we need to realize it’s going to take some amount of time.
The best way that human beings learn anything is via ‘carrot and stick’. Reward a person (even foreign dictators) every time they do something right (within reason) and punish them every time they do something wrong (within reason) and you are training that person to be your ally. Yes, with the right diplomacy, time is on our side.
by John Brian Shannon | July 31, 2016
China is growing and modernizing rapidly, of that there’s no doubt. With an economy second only to the United States, and home to 1.35 billion citizens, it’s the country that created the largest manufacturing sector in recorded history.
Due to globalization, events in China (whether positive or negative) can have profound and worldwide ramifications
Therefore, it makes sense that China is attempting to shore-up it’s marine security in the South China Sea through which $5 trillion worth of goods pass annually.
A good case could be made that China would be remiss if it didn’t take reasonable measures to ensure that all shipping in the region (whether it is en-route to China or not) is safe from at-sea piracy attempts and seaborne terrorist attack
It has been noted by sailors for hundreds of years that complex navigational hazards await those ships that navigate through the busy South China Sea.
The waterway is full of sandbars, shoals, partially submerged islets, and some islets are only visible at low tide, while others lurk only a few feet beneath the surface of the sea — safe enough for 5-person sailboats to pass over, but exceedingly dangerous for container ships to traverse. Running aground and getting stuck half-out of the water on top of the shoal or sandbar is incredibly dangerous.
Once a distress call goes out, pirate ships operating in the region are ‘magnetically attracted’ to those grounded ships. If you think that piracy-at-sea is a big problem with a ship capable of running at full speed and able to quickly change course, you’ll understand what happens to a ship and crew that is stuck on a sandbar for a few days. You don’t want to be that crew, ever. Just one more reason to have a strong anti-piracy component operating in the South China Sea.
Where such islets are located in North American waters, they were long ago deemed navigational hazards and were either destroyed via explosive charges or had lighthouses with foghorns installed on them to constantly warn ships of their location. A few have a runway installed so that patrol aircraft can refuel. Which is exactly what China has been working on in recent months.
Surprising to nobody is that some of China’s neighbours are concerned that the huge and powerful nation not all that far from them could become even more powerful than now, and it could decide to be not as nice to deal with as it has been in recent years.
In such case, those islets could be heavily militarized and used as jumping-off points for an attack on the much smaller South China Sea nations. (At least, that’s the fear)
Which gives more reason for all South China Sea nations to work together to craft a common strategy for China’s security and their own security.
It’s impossible to overstate the importance of China to the global economy which depends on it to drive demand for resources and agriculture
Building upon the uber-successful NATO model, an organization of Atlantic Ocean member nations and having conducted millions of operations in the Atlantic ocean since it’s creation on April 4, 1949, is the most logical way for China to gain the additional security it needs — while proving to regional neighbours that it poses no threat to them and is merely working towards a clearly demarcated, safe shipping zone for the South China Sea.
Even the leaders of the world’s most powerful nation the United States of America, know that nothing of lasting significance can be achieved by one country acting alone.
Therefore and in that context, I respectfully urge President Xi Jinping of China to work with all of the nations of the South China Sea in a spirit of mutual trust and goodwill in an effort to jointly address the opportunities of regional maritime security.
Mr. President, please make the South China Sea nations ‘part of the solution instead of part of the problem’
In this way, by taking the lead in the creation of a mutually beneficial organization, not only will maritime security in the region improve, but other upgrades to diplomatic relations around the world will surely follow.