Serious applicants only
The world is at a critical crossroads. Too bad we're stuck with such an uncritical foreign minister
David Warren - March 27, 2006
Western Stanard
Tell you a secret. When Stephen Harper was forming his government, I pinned my expectations on one judgment call. Would he have the guts to appoint Stockwell Day as foreign minister? Or would he "do a Mulroney," and assign to that prestigious position some mental lightweight like Peter MacKay (the equivalent of Joe Clark in the Mulroney era). Someone who would think in clichés, speak in mealy-mouth, and act by rote. Who would accept the job as a payoff for past favours, chiefly delivering what was left of the Progressive Conservative party into the merger with former Reform.
I was a little disgusted with the buy-off of David Emerson, though prepared to wink at that. And I thought most of the rest of the cabinet was picked astutely. But putting MacKay where he did declared that Harper did not take foreign affairs seriously. And when MacKay, on his second morning in office, delivered himself of a perfectly fatuous remark about the Danish cartoons, complete with standard multicultural grovelling about "respect for cultural diversity" and "promoting a better understanding of Islam"--it was time to tune him out. He is not a man, and he does not look the sort who will be made into one by events.
Stock Day I have admired because he is a man, has principles and a spine, and as foreign critic on the Opposition front bench consistently said intelligent, well-informed and gutsy things about the world as we find it. His principles are admirably libertarian and Christian, and he is no barking madman. He had got the hang of speaking to people without being distracted by the lies and malice of the "gliberal" media. And since those media have been out to "gotcha" the Harper government since the morning after the vote, Harper's ministers might as well cultivate the skill of bypassing them.
Day had been particularly impressive garnering support from Canada's ethnic Chinese towards a policy that favoured democratic Taiwan against the Communist thugs in Beijing--at least to the extent of refusing gratuitous sellouts. He grasped and could articulate why Canada must unambiguously support Israel against Hamas. He could cogently explain who our other allies are, and aren't, in the world at large, and why we must take risks with them, pulling our weight in international commitments.
My hope was that a Harper government with Day looking "abroad" might be able to raise Canada to the dignity level that Australia has maintained under John Howard--which makes necessary statements, then puts its money where its mouth is. And I should say my hope is not yet extinguished, for I'm sure Harper's heart is in the right place. There's just more jelly in his frame than I expected.
To be fair, the Liberals have left him little to focus upon besides cleaning up their huge pile of whatever--unavoidable, strictly domestic priorities. And given those, I am pleased to see real action projected, to rebuild our military, along fairly thoughtful lines. Our deployment in Afghanistan is probably all we can handle in the next few years, and Harper's government seems wisely determined to make the best of that.
But the world at this moment in history is an exceptionally dangerous place, and I doubt it will stop revolving while we catch up. We have, through our own history, an important role to play. We ought to be a second set of North American eyes on world developments-- looking at events directly, rather than posturing in response to every move by Washington. We ought to be able to command the same kind of attention Britain and Australia get, by taking a stake, and holding it under pressure. Our word should be worth something.
Here is the situation: President Bush has committed everything to the project of seeding democracy in the Arab/Muslim world, with test beds in Iraq and Afghanistan. But despite the best allied efforts, fanatical Islam continues to gain ground across that world. We need a foreign ministry capable of entertaining "What if?" questions. We need a foreign policy animated by some sort of brain
The world is at a critical crossroads. Too bad we're stuck with such an uncritical foreign minister
David Warren - March 27, 2006
Western Stanard
Tell you a secret. When Stephen Harper was forming his government, I pinned my expectations on one judgment call. Would he have the guts to appoint Stockwell Day as foreign minister? Or would he "do a Mulroney," and assign to that prestigious position some mental lightweight like Peter MacKay (the equivalent of Joe Clark in the Mulroney era). Someone who would think in clichés, speak in mealy-mouth, and act by rote. Who would accept the job as a payoff for past favours, chiefly delivering what was left of the Progressive Conservative party into the merger with former Reform.
I was a little disgusted with the buy-off of David Emerson, though prepared to wink at that. And I thought most of the rest of the cabinet was picked astutely. But putting MacKay where he did declared that Harper did not take foreign affairs seriously. And when MacKay, on his second morning in office, delivered himself of a perfectly fatuous remark about the Danish cartoons, complete with standard multicultural grovelling about "respect for cultural diversity" and "promoting a better understanding of Islam"--it was time to tune him out. He is not a man, and he does not look the sort who will be made into one by events.
Stock Day I have admired because he is a man, has principles and a spine, and as foreign critic on the Opposition front bench consistently said intelligent, well-informed and gutsy things about the world as we find it. His principles are admirably libertarian and Christian, and he is no barking madman. He had got the hang of speaking to people without being distracted by the lies and malice of the "gliberal" media. And since those media have been out to "gotcha" the Harper government since the morning after the vote, Harper's ministers might as well cultivate the skill of bypassing them.
Day had been particularly impressive garnering support from Canada's ethnic Chinese towards a policy that favoured democratic Taiwan against the Communist thugs in Beijing--at least to the extent of refusing gratuitous sellouts. He grasped and could articulate why Canada must unambiguously support Israel against Hamas. He could cogently explain who our other allies are, and aren't, in the world at large, and why we must take risks with them, pulling our weight in international commitments.
My hope was that a Harper government with Day looking "abroad" might be able to raise Canada to the dignity level that Australia has maintained under John Howard--which makes necessary statements, then puts its money where its mouth is. And I should say my hope is not yet extinguished, for I'm sure Harper's heart is in the right place. There's just more jelly in his frame than I expected.
To be fair, the Liberals have left him little to focus upon besides cleaning up their huge pile of whatever--unavoidable, strictly domestic priorities. And given those, I am pleased to see real action projected, to rebuild our military, along fairly thoughtful lines. Our deployment in Afghanistan is probably all we can handle in the next few years, and Harper's government seems wisely determined to make the best of that.
But the world at this moment in history is an exceptionally dangerous place, and I doubt it will stop revolving while we catch up. We have, through our own history, an important role to play. We ought to be a second set of North American eyes on world developments-- looking at events directly, rather than posturing in response to every move by Washington. We ought to be able to command the same kind of attention Britain and Australia get, by taking a stake, and holding it under pressure. Our word should be worth something.
Here is the situation: President Bush has committed everything to the project of seeding democracy in the Arab/Muslim world, with test beds in Iraq and Afghanistan. But despite the best allied efforts, fanatical Islam continues to gain ground across that world. We need a foreign ministry capable of entertaining "What if?" questions. We need a foreign policy animated by some sort of brain
Comment