Hence, the U.S. Embassy met regularly with senior Liberals who were willing, indeed eager, to offer their insights on forthcoming Liberal/Canadian foreign policy. And one emphasizes "eager" since the Liberals were conscious of the need to assure the government of George H. W. Bush that they could be as good an ally of the United States as were the Mulroney Conservatives. In contrast, senior Conservatives sought to emphasize that regardless of what the Liberals might say pre-election, the bilateral relationship would not be as good.
To be sure, there were points on which the Liberals in opposition had been ambivalent. Their exact position on NAFTA, which still required ratification by Ottawa, suggested a level of skepticism that might require fatal renegotiation. Liberal reaction to Saddam Hussein's 1991 seizure of Kuwait was initially lackadaisical; Jean Chrétien did not immediately support Canadian participation to eject Iraqi invaders. Subsequently, we were informed that after the Liberal election, the Canadian diplomatic establishment was directed to do a zero-based review of all commitments, including whether Canada should continue NATO membership.
Retrospectively, one might say that period between 1980-92, during which center-right governments in Ottawa and Washington coincided for much of the time, was as productive and bilaterally congenial as any era since the end of the Second World War. Indeed, the subsequent years through 2000, when the Liberals and U.S. Democrats coincided, were equally tranquil. If history had not ended, it had taken a long nap; areas on which we could cooperate (Haiti, the former Yugoslavia) were easily agreed. We could both urge and promote progress in the Middle East, building on the Oslo Accords, for Israeli-Palestinian agreement. We each appreciated the need to "keep Saddam in his box" with sanctions and arms inspections to prevent a renewed Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
http://www.embassymag.ca:80/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/april/11/jones/
Note: http://www.embassymag.c...
One Washington View Of A Future Dion Government
Posted on Thursday, April 12 at 11:04 by jensonjContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
“The essential problem for a Liberal foreign policy is that there is less and less with which to connect it with the United States. It is hard to imagine a U.S. foreign policy, whether directed by the bluest Democrat or the reddest Republican, that would be less supportive of Israel, affectionately embrace UN objectives and the International Criminal Court, ratify Kyoto, refuse the missile defence program, accept an Iranian nuclear program, or be less relentless in the effort to foil terrorism than the existing Administration. This leaves areas for cooperation decidedly limited.”
I am no fan of the Liberals but this is a good enough reason to reject Harper’s lot and at least consider Dion’s lot. I do not want cozy PRIVATE relationships between senior Canadian and U.S. officials.
“David Jones was a political counsellor in the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa” and clearly shows his bias in this piece!
---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
Now, this is really a new concept of future democracy in the
"globalized market economy", where countries and people are the biggest and most important "commodities".
Ed Deak.