FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Nov 11

When Will We Stop Young Men From Going To War?

by bcurry

Years ago, I read somewhere that old men begin wars and send young men to fight them.  This was certainly true of the multitude of wars fought during the Twentieth Century.  Today, it would appear that nothing has really changed.  Look around the world, and you cannot help to witness the continuing atrocities caused by wars and the loss of not only young soldiers, but also, and most importantly, the loss of civilian lives.  There is no need to once again recount the statistical losses of war, for what matters most is the real human suffering that one sees among the individuals and families affected by war.

I had family members who fought in both World Wars, and gratefully had survived to return.  Born shortly after WWII, I lived through the Cold War period and the West’s battles with the then Soviet Union.  I lived through the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent struggles of East European countries for independence.  I lived through the Vietnam conflict, which one must remember like the earlier Korean conflict, was never officially declared a war by Congress. Then came the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 toppling the long time dictator Saddam Hussein and leading to the subsequent decade occupation of Iraq.  Fortunately, the then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to send Canadian troops to fight in Iraq.  However, Canada did join the NATO mission in Afghanistan where in over ten years of fighting, Canadian combatants loss their lives and several were seriously injured.  With the war in Afghanistan going poorly and in light of the gains being made by the Taliban, the U.S. couldn’t wait to get out of that country, much in the same way the Vietnam conflict ended.  And for what?

Now, we have the Ukrainian-Russian war being initiated by 73 year old Vladimir Putin, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years and de facto dictator of Russia since 2000.  To date, while supplying Ukraine with weapons and financial support, no NATO country has boots on the ground in Ukraine.  However, there is little doubt that NATO’s European countries are deeply concerned about Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and potential future threat.  The result is that they have begun to build up their military forces and to expend a larger proportion of their budgets on defence.  Canada, as a NATO member, has also agreed to significantly increase its military spending to meet its continuing commitments to the alliance.

In the Middle East, Israel’s conflicts with Hamas in Gaza, its attacks on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, and its most recent attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar, represents a long period of wars and deaths and destruction on both sides.  Indeed, there have been multiple wars with Israel, including those in 2008-09, 2012, 2014, 2021 and an ongoing one since 2023, which began with the infamous October 7 attacks.  According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the U.S. spent almost $18 billion on military aid to Israel from October 2023 to October 2024.  While the U.S. continues to provide this massive support, do date President Trump has not indicated that American troops could become directly involved in Gaza.  Time will tell!

People in the Trump administration like to describe the president as a president for peace — this despite the recent change whereby his Secretary of Defense is now the Secretary of War.  In addition, the Trump administration is building up its military presence in the Caribbean, especially off the coast of Venezuela.  Drone attacks have been carried out on boats in international waters, with the administration declaring that these are drug smugglers originating out of Venezuela and supported by the country’s president Nicolás Maduro.  However, some current and former U.S. officials contend that the unspoken goal is the goal is to force Maduro from power.  In other words, regime change.  As of November 6th, the U.S. Senate has twice failed to pass resolutions that would limit Trump’s authority to continue military action against Venezuela or airstrikes against alleged drug vessels.  After long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the combination of the words America and regime change raises alarm bells, both inside and outside the U.S.  Let’s hope that this aging American president isn’t once again ready to sacrifice American young lives in another worthless war.

Afghanistan Canada Defence Defence Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Today Russia Trump Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Sep 25

Can Canada Return to a Former Foreign Policy Partly Based on Non-Alignment?

by bcurry

In the early 1970s while in college, I wrote a paper which concluded that Canada’s foreign policy in the post-colonial era was largely influenced by the non-alignment movement that had emerged globally at the time.  This position was particularly true given that the majority of Canada’s foreign aid was directed at newly established states such as Bangladesh and Cambodia, and several developing countries such as India and Mexico.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged as one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives of the 20th century, offering newly independent nations a third path during the height of the so-called Cold War.  Founded on principles of independence, peace, and solidarity, NAM represented an alternative to the rigid bipolar world order dominated by the U.S. and Soviet Union. This movement, which began with just 25 countries in 1961, grew to encompass over 120 nations, fundamentally reshaping global diplomatic dynamics and giving voice to the developing world’s aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.  Canada however was not a formal member of the movement.  The movement’s advocacy for the new international economic order in the 1970s, though ultimately unsuccessful, raised important questions about global economic inequality and the need for fairer trade arrangements.  In particular, the member countries used their collective strength to democratize United Nations (UN) procedures and decision-making, something that Canada strongly endorsed.

However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the global scene rapidly changed.  The NAM countries initially supported the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which in turn Canada greatly supported.  However, member states such as India and Pakistan, went on to develop nuclear capabilities, greatly angering Canada who had earlier provided nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to each country.  In addition, Canada’s ties to American foreign policy had increased during the Cold War and after.  As a result, Canada has unfortunately failed to secure a seat on the UN’s Security Council by not receiving sufficient votes from NAM countries.  It is worth noting that over the years Canada played a major role in UN peacekeeping initiatives along with other nations directed at resolving several conflicts among NAM countries themselves.

In the aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as a military alliance between 32 member states, including Canada, the U.S. and 30 European states.  Canada’s contribution to NATO forces has increased over time, making it almost impossible to have a non-aligned defence or security policy.  Canada’s defence spending is expected to increase even more in the coming years.

Moreover, the NAM movement’s effectiveness in the post-Cold War era soon became limited. The rise of a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. created new challenges, while economic globalization exposed the limitations of traditional non-alignment approaches.  Many NAM countries found themselves forced to choose between economic integration and political independence.  In addition, China and India emerged as the second and third respective economic powers, challenging the U.S.   While Canada still supports the dominance of global trading mechanisms, the recent American move to greater bilateral trading arrangements and the use of tariffs has forced Canada to seek out and strengthen trading relationships in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.  U.S. isolationist policies have forced Canada to further diversity its domestic economy and its offshore trading partners. 

In today’s world, Canada is more or less portrayed as a middle power seeking to maximize its autonomy while engaging with competing global powers.  This approach is no longer in line with that of the pre-Cold War era and any move to non-alignment as a foreign policy.  However, this does not mean that Canada cannot take an independent stance when it comes to formulating and implementing its foreign policy.  There is certainly a need to be not too closely aligned with the current American administration’s isolationist approach to foreign matters.

Canada China's Influence Foreign Policy Foreign Policy India NATO Protectionism Trade with EU Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Apr 8

Today, Something Unprecedented Is Happening Among Canadians

by bcurry

In reaction to Donald Trump’s statements about Canada as a 51st state and the imposition of tariffs on Canadian products exported to the U.S., a number of things are happening in the country.  Canadian nationalism is rising to heights not seen since the Second World War, stressing the need for a concerted and unified national reaction to the Trump administration.  There is an evident “Buy Canadian” movement that has grown quickly among Canadian consumers.  In the midst of a federal election, all the parties are in one way or another vowing to stand up to American economic aggression and push for expanding Canadian trade to other countries.  Canadians are also cancelling vacations to the U.S. and looking to vacation either in Canada or other countries.  Cross-border travel to the U.S. by Canadians has tumbled by more than half.  Canadian politicians are carrying their message about the harm to American consumers through visits to the U.S. and via digital billboards, broadcasts, media sources and social media targeting Americans themselves.  In recent basketball and hockey games in Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Montreal, fans booed the American national anthem, something unheard of before.  So-called “polite” Canadians are openly expressing their national pride in increasingly angry ways and through outbursts of disappointment.

It is remarkable that the current interim Canadian Prime Minister, Marc Carney, has flatly stated that the trust between the two countries has been broken, and that the relationship will never be the same.  As a result, his parliamentary website states that he leads a government that will take action to unite Canadians, defend Canada’s sovereignty, and build the strongest economy in the G7.  Do not be fooled, the candidates for P.M. all recognize that the damage of tariffs to the Canadian economy will be significant, possibly causing a recession and high rates of inflation and unemployment in the not-so-near future.  Trump’s economic policy and political statements have created an environment of uncertainty and distrust.  Canada will and has already reacted with the imposition of its own tariffs on selective American goods while waiting to see what Trump’s next moves will be.

Whoever becomes the next P.M. on April 28th knows that he will have to present a strong defence of Canada’s economic and political concerns vis-à-vis the U.S. The election has turned into primarily a one issue campaign, that being about how Canada will deal with Trump.  This situation is unprecedented in itself, and is a major reason why many Canadians believe that Marc Carney, a former Governor of the Bank of Canada, head of the Bank of England and businessman, would be a good match to confront Trump.  Since becoming leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in March of this year, he has turned around support for his party following a previous major lead of the Conservative Party of Canada in polls.  His main opponent, Conservative Pierre Poilievre, is a full-time politician with little international or business experience.  As P.M., Carney has said he’ll keep Canada’s counter-tariffs in place until “the Americans show us respect and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade.”  Being P.M. at this time also gives Carney a clear advantage as he can make prime-ministerial like statements which naturally are covered daily by the mainstream media.  This contributes directly in his positive polling results.

No matter who wins the election, average Canadians will look to a strong leadership when it comes to defending Canadian interests against Trump’s attacks.  Canadians do not blame Americans for the current situation, instead focusing on the economic and political attacks by the Trump administration.  However, there is little doubt that a future Canadian administration will have to focus on reducing Canada’s dependence on U.S. trade relations and defence policies.  Having lived together for decades within an integrated North American market and coordinated defence and security regime, this will not be an easy transition for both countries.  Let’s hope that the damage that’s been done can be mitigated down the road.  Like Americans, Canadians are a proud people and have a shared history of cooperation and trust, thus hopefully leaving the door open to re-establishing our mutual relationships.

Canada Federal Government Foreign Policy Foreign Policy National Security Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
Mar 8

As a Canadian, How Are We Supposed to React to Donald Trump?

by bcurry

The border treaty Donald Trump recently referred to was established in 1908 and finalized the international boundary between Canada, then a British dominion, and the U.S.  Trump also mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations, which is regulated by a number of treaties.  For years, both Canada and the U.S. have shared responsibility and resources in managing border security and environmental concerns surrounding the Great Lakes in particular.  For example, the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1991 to address transboundary air pollution leading to acid rain.  Both countries agreed to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the primary precursors to acid rain, and to work together on acid rain-related scientific and technical cooperation.  The Ozone Annex was added to the Agreement in 2000 to address transboundary air pollution leading to high ambient levels of ground-level ozone, a major component of smog.  One result was that, as of 2020, emissions of sulphur dioxide in Canada and the U.S. decreased by 78% and 92%, respectively, from 1990 emission levels.  This preserved our water quality and in turn the health of our fish stocks in shared waters and in general.

As far as border security is concerned, this is a red herring put out there by Donald Trump.  As it stands, for sometime now, only less than one percent of the fentanyl comes across the border from Canada, as per the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Under the other hand, the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) estimates that over 80% of all guns used in violent crimes in Canada originate in the U.S.

According to the New York Times (March 7, 2025), Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that Trump wants to abandon our treaties and he wants to:

  • eject Canada out of an intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand,
  • tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario, and
  • review and reconsider military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

We already know that Trump is interested in having access to Canada’s abundance of critical mineral rights as noted in my previous blog of February 17, 2005: Trump’s Trade Policy Appears to be Directed at Securing Critical Mineral Rights | FROLITICKS. 

With his recent flip flopping on the proposed 25 percent tariffs against all Canadian exports to the U.S., it’s hard to get a reading on where Trump’s next move will go.  All that his administration is doing is creating a hell of a lot of global and economic uncertainty.  His expectation that Canadians would be cow towing to his wishes is way off.  If anything, he has generated an immense amount of Canadian pride across this country.  Canadians see these attacks on our sovereignty as an insult, especially from a nation that was a trusted friend and ally.  All in all, it’s difficult to know exactly what Trump’s expectations are!  Just how are Canadians supposed to react differently?  Your guess is as good as mine!

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations War on Drugs

Leave a comment »
Dec 19

Impact of Social Media on How We Perceive Foreign Wars

by bcurry

A very recent poll by the New York Times indicated that American youth are more inclined to oppose President Biden’s handling of the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza.  For example, the poll noted that voters between 18 and 29 years old, traditionally a heavily Democratic demographic, jump out.  Nearly three quarters of them disapprove of the way Mr. Biden is handling the conflict in Gaza.  On the other hand, older voters were far more sympathetic to Biden’s efforts.  Fifty-two percent of registered voters 65 years and older approve of Biden’s actions on Israel, 12 percentage points more than those who disapprove.  Biden’s administration has refused to officially call for a cease fire, while pushing Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

In Canada, the governing Liberal Party under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has take a more moderate stance, now calling for a cease fire to allow more aid for Palestinians into the devastated region along with the release of the hostages held by Hamas.  In either case, there is no win-win scenario for President Biden or Prime Minister Trudeau.  Pro-Palestinian protests in both countries are continuing, with a good deal of growing support on university and college campuses.  One of the main factors influencing the youth in both countries is the daily rapid access to scenes in the war zone, especially violent imagery of civilian casualties and hospital bombings, often through social media such as TikTok and Instagram.  Young people who use social media primarily to get their news find such images as being horrific and merciless. 

The same result can be seen in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.  Besides mainstream media, social media is also being used by both sides to influence our opinions of the war.  In some cases, recorded events are most likely going to be used to support allegations of war crimes against the Russian forces.  News media tends to slip between both conflicts, reporting mainly on the most significant and often horrendous events involving loss of life and mass destruction.  Everyday, terrible scenes of innocent civilians fleeing the war zone are propelled across our television screens and onto our tablets and cellphones.  At no other time in history has so much instant coverage occurred, influencing viewers and policy makers alike.  The most affected of course are young people who did not live through 9/11 or the Iraq war.

As more time goes on, the initial causes behind conflicts are often forgotten and become less important than the most recent revelations of atrocities and humanitarian crisis.  The longer the conflicts continue, support for current foreign policy positions will take a hit.  We see this among European Union countries, most notably Hungary, where support for Ukraine may be waning and opposition growing.  The same can be said for the Israeli-Hamas conflict which increasingly is turning into a broader conflict with the Palestinian population, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank.  Israel still retains healthy allegiances in the U.S.  However, as the above noted poll indicated, the future of such sentiments is unclear.  Among young voters, 46 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians, against 27 percent who favour Israel.

There is little doubt that the opposing parties will continue to use social media in order to win over support their causes.  Especially by young people, it’s 24/7 and it’s readily accessible and most often not authenticate or corroborated.  Whether or not you think that it’s a form of propaganda, the use of social media will continue to play a very important role.

Foreign Policy Israel Justin Trudeau Media Social Media The Middle East The News Media US

Leave a comment »
Sep 23

Dispute Between Canada and India Greatly Affects U.S. As Well

by bcurry

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada said on Monday that “agents of the government of India” had carried out the assassination of a Sikh community leader, Hardeep Singh Nijjar (a Canadian citizen), in British Columbia earlier this June.  This of course was an explosive allegation that has further soured relations between the two nations.  India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the accusation “absurd.” The two leaders met briefly at the Group of 20 summit meeting in India earlier this month..  Trudeau stated last week in Parliament that Canada had credible information that “agents of the government of India” had carried out the assassination of Nijjar.  A formal investigation is on-going.  At the summit meeting, Trudeau met briefly with Modi and raised the matter with him.  Mr. Modi “completely rejected” the allegations.

Since then, Canada was forced to cancel a scheduled trade mission to India and postponed a possible trade agreement between the two countries which had been negotiated for over a year. 

In turn, the Indian government temporarily blocked the issuance of visas to Canadians wishing to visit India.  This will affect Canadians of Indian descent, Indian students studying in Canada and family members visiting in Canada.  Both countries expelled diplomats from their respective embassies.  India for some time has also accused Canada of providing shelter to “Khalistani terrorists and extremists” who threaten India’s security.  Khalistan is what Sikh separatists call the independent state they seek to create in India.

The situation regarding the Sikh community is an important one given that Canada is now home to the largest Sikh population outside India, with about 770,000 people who reported Sikhism as their religion in a 2021 census.  Sikhs hold a prominent place in Canadian society and politics.  In the federal government, the head of the New Democratic Party, Jagmeet Singh, is Sikh.

The current diplomatic dispute places President Biden in a tough and very sensitive place.  On the one hand, he has to recognize Canada’s right to defend its sovereignty.  After all, the U.S. would do the same under similar circumstances where American citizens are attacked in their country by foreign agents.  However, Biden is being forced to maintain a delicate balance between the interests of two democratic allies.  The White House has declared that it is waiting for the formal investigation to conclude before weighing in, but it pushed back on criticism that the U.S. is trying to avoid antagonizing India because of its important strategic role.  As reported by the Washington Post, India is among the world’s most populous countries, occupies a strategic location in the Asian subcontinent — notably opposite to China — and is home to a growing technology sector. The U.S. and India recently established a high-level initiative on defence and emerging technologies that will, among other things, promote joint production of defence equipment, including military jet engines, long-range artillery and armoured infantry vehicles.  However, the relationship is complicated by India’s poor record on domestic human rights, its reliance on discounted Russian oil and its neutral position vis-à-vis the Russian-Ukraine war.  Biden has raised the issue of Modi’s crackdown on dissent and his persecution of religious minorities in India.  Biden is asking both Canada and India to cooperate in the incident’s formal investigation in order to end the dispute as soon as possible. 

Those perceptions of peaceful Sikh advocacy for independence in India faced a jolt in 1985, when a bomb went off on an Air India flight from Canada to India via Britain.  The explosion off the coast of Ireland killed the 329 people, including several Canadians, on board.  An extremist, a Sikh immigrant, was convicted in connection with the bombing, which came at a time of heightened tensions between the Sikh community and the Indian government.  As in the U.S., Canada will always condemn any extremist activity that results in violence in Canada or elsewhere.  However, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are deeply entrenched in the constitutions of both countries and are fiercely protected.

Hopefully, both Canada and India, with their many other mutual interests, can resolve their differences through the promotion of cooperation in investigating the above incident.

Canada Extremism Extremist Groups Foreign Policy Foreign Policy India India US

Leave a comment »
Mar 28

What both Canada and the U.S. have in common when it comes to the Artic and Russia

by bcurry

Back in 2016, a report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Defense appeared to call for American ships to challenge Canadian claims in the Arctic.  The U.S. has had three active marine disputes with Canada in the Arctic, including over 21,000 square kilometres in the Beaufort Sea and two smaller areas of the Dixon Passage, between British Columbia and Alaska.  In addition, in the past the U.S. Coast Guard has sent ice breakers through the Northwest Passage without seeking Canadian permission.  Then came issues surrounding access to minerals and fossil fuels located on the Arctic sea floor, especially as climate change and melting sea ice were helping to open up these waters to year round navigation and maritime shipping.  In 2017, this in turn led to President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jointly signing a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing in Arctic waters.

However, now enters Russia who we all know are very active in opening up their Arctic waters.  In the past, Russia has made it clear it intends to control the so-called Northern Sea Route off its northern shore, a route that significantly shortens the shipping distance between China and Northern Europe.  U.S. officials have complained that Russia is illegally demanding that other nations seek permission to pass and threatening to use military force to sink vessels that do not comply.  Two years ago, Moscow brought its own war games barrelling through the Bering Sea, with Russian commanders testing weapons and demanding that American fishing boats operating in U.S. fishing waters get out of the way — an order the U.S. Coast Guard advised them to comply with at the time.  In addition, Russia has repeatedly sent military aircraft to the edge of U.S. and Canadian airspace, leading U.S. and Canadian jets to scramble to intercept them and warn them away.

Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers.  Their nuclear propulsion systems allow them to smash through much thicker ice than conventionally powered vessels giving them a full winter capacity to push through the up to three-metre ice encountered at that certain times of the year. In 2019, the American government began pondering the construction of three heavy icebreakers and three medium-sized vessels.  The Trump Administration ordered an overview of the nation’s icebreaker fleet, with an eye toward fielding a new, rejuvenated fleet by 2029.  The current fleet of Canadian Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, now under construction, will still have limited icebreaking capacity, and to date little progress has been made toward the actual construction of a planned heavy polar icebreaker.  Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, concerns over Russia’s military capability and intentions in our Arctic waters have grown.  All signs indicate that Russia is reinvesting in its military capabilities and presence in the region.

Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand is pledging to modernize the alliance protecting Canada’s North particularly in terms of our Arctic sovereignty.  Hopefully, the Russian threat may actually now lead to Canada and the U.S. to finally reaching agreement on the status of the critical Northwest Passage between the North Atlantic and the Beaufort Sea.  However, some observers will argue that the European Artic waters — comprised of Norway, Denmark and Iceland — are more vulnerable to Russian shipping and military initiatives in the North.  One has to remember that these countries are part of NATO, and we are then, of course, obligated to go to their defence in the event of any military incursion.  Since the Russian threat is also an aerospace one, there is an urgent need to strengthen the current capabilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).  First created during the Cold War to protect against a Soviet attack, NORAD is a joint military command between Canada and the U.S. that provides airspace surveillance.  America’s strategic air command’s bombers fly over Canadian aerospace on a daily basis.  However, the technology of NORAD’s north warning system was only last modernized in 1985, and requires an immediate modernization designed to counter imminent dangers of the day — long range bomber threats from the Soviet Union.

What all this means is that Canada and the U.S. had better get their acts together to protect their Arctic maritime and aerospace regions.  The sooner the better!

Canada Climate Change Defence Defence Foreign Policy US

Leave a comment »
May 3

There is a Catch-22 in Pipeline Issues Between Canada and the U.S.

by bcurry

Following Joe Biden’s inauguration as U.S. president, he took the widely expected step through an executive order of cancelling the cross-border permit for the US$14.4-billion Alberta-to-Texas heavy oil pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline. The decision marks the third time a U.S. president has blocked the construction of this pipeline.  Next occurred the decision by Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer last November which ordered Calgary-based Enbridge to shut down its nearly 70-year-old Line 5 pipeline by May 12, 2021.  Line 5 carries each day up to 540,000 barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids across Michigan and under the Great Lakes.  Line 5 is part of Enbridge’s mainland system carrying fuel from Alberta’s oil sands to the Midwestern U.S. and Eastern Canada, especially to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario.  Not surprisingly, President Biden’s and Governor Whitmer’s decisions were applauded by environmentalists and Indigenous groups on both sides of the border.

The difficulty is that Canada is the world’s fourth-largest producer of crude oil, and the U.S. is its top customer.  While past incidents have occurred where crude oil leakages in pipelines, including those which are part of Enbridge’s mainland system, the alternative means of transportation via rail and trucking also represents serious safety issues.  This potential danger was clearly demonstrated in the fiery derailment in July 2013 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people and wiped out part of the town.  From an economic point of view, the transport of crude oil and natural gas liquids by pipeline is the most efficient and least costly option.  Realistically, any transition within the U.S. or Canada away from fossil fuels will take time.  While the elimination of fossil fuels makes good environmental sense in light of climate change, there continues to be a dependence on fossil fuels for servicing our industries, running our transportation hubs, producing electricity and heating our homes.  Both countries have to cooperatively work together towards achieving environmental goals without creating bad relations between our governments and citizens.

Back in January, Alberta’s Premier Jason Kenney asked the Canadian government to push the U.S. government to reimburse the $1.5 billion it stands to lose from the cancellation of Keystone XL and to reimburse TC Energy, the project proponent, for the money it has sunk into the project.  Alberta took an ownership stake in 2020, representing more than $1 billion in taxpayer money to fund the construction of the pipeline.  The Biden administration’s decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline has put Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a very difficult situation, one which he has raised with the President.  On the one hand he has to support Alberta’s oil and gas industry.  On the other hand the Prime Minister has agreed reduce in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent within the next decade.  This brings Canada in line with the Biden administration recent pledge to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Critics of the decision to shut down the Line 5 pipeline note that 6,500 good-paying jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, are on the line.  A further 23,500 indirect jobs in that same region could also be impacted, and thousands more across Ontario and Quebec.  Line 5 also feeds into Line 9, which carries oil to refineries in Montreal and Lévis for Quebec’s supply needs.  According to Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan, Line 5 delivers 66 percent of the crude oil consumed in Quebec.  This means that besides Alberta, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec are extremely unhappy with the Michigan Governor’s position.  Any decision to move crude oil and natural gas liquids by alternate means is considered less safe, more costly and realistically not viable given the vast quantities that have to be transported.  This is your Catch-22.  For this reason, both Canada and the U.S. need to work much more closely to resolve all relevant issues pertinent to their respective constituents.  Our continuing good trade and political relationships are in the balance.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Economy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Keystone XL Oil and Gas Transport of Oil US

Leave a comment »
Oct 13

Heading Towards Another Nuclear Arms Race?

by bcurry

During the so-called Cold War in the early sixties, the U.S. and former Soviet Union (USSR) had enough nuclear warheads to devastate every major city in both countries and more.  In the late 1960s, it was estimated that the U.S. had more than 30,000 nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union by some accounts had at least 40,000.  Fortunately, a Cold War-era pact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, occurred whereby nuclear nations pledged to reduce their arsenals in exchange for non-nuclear nations not pursuing nuclear weapons.  As a result, the U.S. and Russia today each have more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, according to the Federation of American Scientists — more than enough to still do plenty of death and destruction.  Unfortunately, there is no follow-on agreement between the U.S. and Russia to limit strategic arms.  Instead, one has both countries proceeding to increase their arsenals — this time with even more deadly and sophisticated weapons.

In recent decades, we also have had former non-nuclear nations joining the nuclear arms race.  It started covertly with India in the mid-seventies and Pakistan in the late seventies.  Now we have countries such as North Korea, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia moving to expand their missile capabilities and to develop nuclear weapons.  Then of course there is China which is pursuing a full nuclear triad that can launch nuclear warheads from air, land and sea.  As a recent article in the Washington Post noted, the threat from nuclear weapons and missiles has grown since Trump entered office.  Indeed, one must conclude that we are in a full-blown arms race.  As the article concluded: “… after nearly four years in office, he hasn’t signed any significant new treaties to regulate the world’s most devastating weapons and has populated his administration at times with arms-control skeptics, such as John Bolton, the former national security adviser.”

In addition, the Trump administration’s on-going verbal attacks on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is alienating allies in Europe, at a time when the U.S. needs the full support of NATO in dealing with Russia and Iran.  Trump’s three meetings with Kim Jong Un of North Korea did nothing to slow down that regime’s continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclearization.  Obsessed with media coverage, these meetings were all show and had no substance except to legitimize Kim’s regime in the eyes of the world.

The general stance of the Trump administration to stand alone and isolate the U.S. from the broader multilateral issues affecting global issues has done a great disservice to American leadership on the world scene.  With both Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin bragging about the modernization of their respective nuclear arsenals, one can only conclude that we are witnessing another nuclear arms race.  With numerous other nations now having nuclear capabilities, the threat of such weapons being used is increasing every day when no new non-proliferation treaties are in place.  The only way that the world can come to grips with this reality is through meaningful dialogue and multilateral negotiations involving all the affected countries.  No one country can tackle this issue on its own.

Foreign Policy Nuclear Arsenal US

Leave a comment »
Jun 11

Trump’s Strange Saga of U.S. and Denmark Over the Purchase of Greenland

by bcurry

With everything going on in the world today, maybe one needs a minor distraction like the battle of Donald Trump over the purchase of Greenland by the U.S.  About a year ago, Trump approached the Danish P.M., Mette Frederiksen, with an offer to buy Greenland which is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark. Thinking it was some kind of April Fool’s Day joke, the Danes refused. Unfortunately, like so many times before Trump took the refusal to even consider the idea a sign of disrespect and immediately cancelled his planned September 2019 trip to Denmark — one which had been at the formal invitation of Queen Margrethe, Denmark’s head of state. Needless-to-say, this did not go over well with the Danes who after all are an important NATO ally.

Greenland is the world’s largest island and has a population of less than 60,000 inhabitants. Denmark contributes two thirds of Greenland’s budget revenue, the rest coming mainly from fishing. Greenland is noted for its vast tundra and immense glaciers. While the country has a vast array of minerals, including rare-earth elements used for electronic, military and new energy technologies like wind turbines, these are very difficult to mine in its harsh environment.

As a strategic location, Greenland was important to the U.S. during the Cold War as evidenced by American military presence at the Thule Air Base under a U.S.-Danish treaty dating to 1951. However, in this day and age of new military capabilities, including those in space, Greenland would not be considered anymore as a strategic importance. Then there’s those rare earths, most of which currently come from China. Experts believe that the environmental impact of mining for rare earths is profound and extremely costly.  Even if it was to happen, the process to get new mining operations off the ground takes decades.

However, despite the Danish rejection to what Trump referred to as one “big real-estate” deal,   the Trump administration has opened a consulate in Greenland for the first time in nearly 70 years. In a further extension of U.S. influence, Greenland announced at the end of April that it had accepted an offer of US$12.1 million for mining, tourism and education. There is little doubt that Trump is keen to expand the U.S. presence in the entire Arctic region amid fears of growing Russian and Chinese militarization. The U.S. recently announced its intention to create a new fleet of ice-breaking ships for use in the Arctic.

As for Canada, Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert located on Ellesmere Island is the northernmost settlement in the world. With the end of the Cold War and the advent of new technologies allowing for remote interpretation of data, the over-wintering population has been reduced to 62 civilians and military personnel as of 2016. I guess that the location for an American base on Ellesmere Island is not as popular as one in Greenland, although the two islands are geographically at an identical latitude. The new consulate in Greenland has once again made for strange bedfellows.

Canada, as a near-Artic country and member of The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America.  For this reason, Canada has been wary of Chinese and Russian threats to expand in the region, and like the U.S. is also building a new fleet of ice-breaking ships for use in the Arctic.  Rather than worry about relations with Greenland, maybe Trump should be working more closely with Canada to safeguard our Artic waters.

 

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy NATO US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.