NationStates Jolt Archive

This (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/wilkins-051213.html) is an update of an article I'd read this afternoon after lunch. For those of you loathe to click things, I'll cut-n-paste it into this post instead:

Martin rejects U.S. ambassador's rebuke

Last Updated Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:41:59 EST
CBC News

Liberal Leader Paul Martin denied Tuesday he was making the U.S. a target in the federal election campaign after being rebuked by the U.S. ambassador to Canada for continually criticizing his southern neighbour.

Martin rejected criticisms by Ambassador David Wilkins, who suggested the Liberal leader had attacked some U.S. policies to score political points.


David Wilkins, U.S. ambassador to Canada at a Canadian Club luncheon speech in Ottawa, Tuesday, Dec 13. (CP Photo/Tom Hanson)
"I have not made the United States or any country a target in the campaign," Martin told reporters while campaigning in Surrey, B.C., for the Jan. 23 election.

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa on Tuesday, Wilkins said Martin risks damaging relations between the countries by dragging the United States into the election campaign.

Wilkins didn't name Martin directly but left no doubt that he was talking about the prime minister when he warned against scoring cheap political points against Washington.

"It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly," Wilkins said,

"But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship."

He said Canada and the United States have one of the best relations in the world, but warned that he often wouldn't know it by comments made in the election campaign or stories in Canadian media.

"It's easy to criticize the United States; we're an easy target at times," Wilkins said. "...But the last time I looked, the United States was not on the ballot."


Martin irked Washington with Kyoto comments

During the fall, Martin has angered Washington by criticizing a number of U.S. policies, including its position on softwood lumber duties.

A few days earlier, the White House officially complained about comments the prime minister made at the UN climate change conference in Montreal.


FROM DEC. 7, 2005: Martin urges nations to get tough on energy consumption (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/07/martinclimate_051207.html)

In a speech, Martin singled out the United States and, in particular, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse-gas reductions.

Martin also urged the United States – estimated to produce one-quarter of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions – to listen to the "global conscience" on climate-change issues.

On Dec. 9, Jim Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, chastised Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna over Martin's comments.

He told McKenna they were the worst slight against Bush since Germany's Gerhard Schroeder suggested Bush's stance against the Kyoto Protocol was responsible for hurricane Katrina.


FROM DEC. 9, 2005: Washington furious over Martin's climate change comments (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/09/katrina-global-warming-bush-martin.html)


U.S. better than Canada on greenhouse-gas emissions: Wilkins

Wilkins noted the United States has a better track record on cutting its greenhouse-gas emissions, as a percentage of its total, than Canada does.

Since Kyoto was signed, Canada's emissions have gone up 24 per cent over 1990 levels, while U.S. emissions have climbed 13.3 per cent from 1990 to 2003.

"I would respectfully submit to you that when it comes to a 'global conscience,' the United States is walking the walk," Wilkins said.


'I will defend Canada,' Martin says


Martin said it was his job as the leader of the country to tackle issues such as the softwood lumber dispute, which has been the main trade irritant between Canada and the United States for several years.

Martin noted that he had staked out Canada's stand on the lumber dispute and climate change long before an election was called.

"The position that I have taken on softwood lumber, that the Americans should honour their agreement, is a position I took long before any election was contemplated," Martin said.

Martin took the opportunity to slam Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, saying he would always give in to Washington.

"If the thesis of Mr. Harper is that the only way to have good relations with the United States is to concede everything to the United States, then I do not accept that at all.

"We do expect our partners to honour our agreements and I will defend Canada – period."
________________________________________________________________

I think Mr. Wilkins should go home to South Carolina for the Holidays and get stuffed.

Butt out of our elections, Mr. Wilkins. Yeah, guess wot? We live next door, and you've been right pricks these last five years - so don't be surprised to hear your names mentioned in an election campaign.

Cope with it. And as for not liking what you're hearing, well - tough-o. The only way to get us to shut up at this stage in the game is to invade and occupy us on some flimsy pretext. The last time you guys could've safely gotten away with the shit you've been putting us through, safely and quietly - as you seem to like it - was sometime during the Diefenbaker years.

Pffft. Why can't you Americans send us the kind of ambassadors you used to - the kind we liked? The sort that don't go 'round getting themselves on the six o'clock news for being dicks and getting involved in our elections.

Hot damn, I'll bloody BUMP it, then.

*bumps*

Why do American keep sending us whiny ambassors?

Why do American keep sending us whiny ambassors?
They never used to, not 'til the Bush administration. Even Reagan-era ambassadors knew better than to go wading into Canadian politics like these dufii.

I think Mr. Wilkins should go home to South Carolina for the Holidays and get stuffed.
I'm sure Mr. Wilkins would enjoy going home for the holidays and get stuffed from having such a big meal. :rolleyes:

Butt out of our elections, Mr. Wilkins. Yeah, guess wot? We live next door, and you've been right pricks these last five years - so don't be surprised to hear your names mentioned in an election campaign.
So your allowed to talk about us be we aren't allowed to talk about you? That seems mighty unfair of you neighbor. What happened to that northern hospitality?

Cope with it. And as for not liking what you're hearing, well - tough-o. The only way to get us to shut up at this stage in the game is to invade and occupy us on some flimsy pretext. The last time you guys could've safely gotten away with the shit you've been putting us through, safely and quietly - as you seem to like it - was sometime during the Diefenbaker years.
So basically you tell us that we have to stomach what you guys say but when one of our ambassadors makes a comment we have to shut up? Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?

Pffft. Why can't you Americans send us the kind of ambassadors you used to - the kind we liked? The sort that don't go 'round getting themselves on the six o'clock news for being dicks and getting involved in our elections.
I think it is the new attitude in the administration that tends to run through the foreign service staff. Generally I think your supposed to stay in line with the administrations views though I'm not entirely sure of it. So basically if you don't like the diplomats to quote you "Cope with it."

Martin rejected criticisms by Ambassador David Wilkins, who suggested the Liberal leader had attacked some U.S. policies to score political points.
Shock! Horror! A politician attacking someone else's policies to score political points! How low can you get? A US politician would never stoop to such petty and offensive tactics.

Wilkins noted the United States has a better track record on cutting its greenhouse-gas emissions, as a percentage of its total, than Canada does.
Since Kyoto was signed, Canada's emissions have gone up 24 per cent over 1990 levels, while U.S. emissions have climbed 13.3 per cent from 1990 to 2003.
"I would respectfully submit to you that when it comes to a 'global conscience,' the United States is walking the walk," Wilkins said.
How the hell does he equate a rise in greenhouse gases to cutting emissions? Just because they're not going up as fast as another country, doesn't mean they haven't gone up!
It'd be like me saying I've started saving, because even though I'm still spending more than I'm earning, my spending's gone up less than what it could have.

Then your moronic, ex-Prime Minister, needs to stop bashin America.

You don't see Bush bashing Canada.

basicly the canadians are allowed to say things about america because they are true.......

Then your moronic, ex-Prime Minister, needs to stop bashin America.

You don't see Bush bashing Canada.
No, though we do see him lying, cheating, and stealing Canadian moneys. Nothing at all new there. Maybe if your government honoured its' bargains in good faith, our current (and former) PM wouldn't give him the tongue-lashing he so bloody rightfully deserves.

basicly the canadians are allowed to say things about america because they are true.......

Canada is so boring. It has to get entertainment from another country's ambassador. How pathetic.

Canada's like a loft apartment over a really great party.

No, though we do see him lying, cheating, and stealing Canadian moneys. Nothing at all new there. Maybe if your government honoured its' bargains in good faith, our current (and former) PM wouldn't give him the tongue-lashing he so bloody rightfully deserves.

It does honor its bargains in good faith. It's killing terrorists. Always remember, the United States of America can live on without trade from Canada.

The USA isn't so impotent that it can only give a tongue lashing. We'll just give you an economic lashing...

And we can just wait for the economic collapse...

Always remember, the United States of America can live on without trade from Canada.Anybody got a pair of scissors, a pair of rubber gloves, maybe some screwdrivers and a get-away car I can borrow... *hint hint* :D

It does honor its bargains in good faith. It's killing terrorists.
...And this would be some hitherto-unmentioned erm... what would you call it, now - "Free Killing Treaty"? I mean, come on your answer makes no sense. At least we have a signed treaty that you can either choose to abide by, like it says in black and white, or you can tear it up and show all the rest of the world, all the rest of the trading partners in the world, just what a bunch of slippery eels, fair-weather friends and out-and-out lying thieving scoundrels you really are. We got our bargained agreement. Just who did Bush bargain with to create his War on Terror, anyway?




*Could it be... Satan??*

I find it out that the poster who is in my opinion liberal slanted want's someone to shut up. Now what happened to freedom of speech. Since it is something that you don't agree with then it's not alright?

Hypocracy at it's best.

I find it out that the poster who is in my opinion liberal slanted want's someone to shut up. Now what happened to freedom of speech. Since it is something that you don't agree with then it's not alright?

Hypocracy at it's best.
So you'd be all hunky-dory if ambassador Frank McKenna took media potshots at the candidates in an American election? Especially if his comments made the six o'clock news on all national media?

Thought so.

So you'd be all hunky-dory if ambassador Frank McKenna took media potshots at the candidates in an American election? Especially if his comments made the six o'clock news on all national media?

Thought so.well said...

Why not both? Can't he shut up and get a raise?

Why not both? Can't he shut up and get a raise?
Hmm. I suppose he could. I guess I should've at least put in 'other'.

But I was pretty ticked off at the time. Oh well.

So you'd be all hunky-dory if ambassador Frank McKenna took media potshots at the candidates in an American election? Especially if his comments made the six o'clock news on all national media?

Thought so.

Quite frankly the man has the right to voice his opinion so if he wanted to he could. See here is the thing in most progressive countries they have this little freedom called freedom of speech meaning the gov can't stop them from speaking their mind. Now this of course does not prohibit you from turning off the tv, changing the channel, or just not listening to the guy. So don't like it don't read or watch it.

Quite frankly the man has the right to voice his opinion so if he wanted to he could. See here is the thing in most progressive countries they have this little freedom called freedom of speech meaning the gov can't stop them from speaking their mind. Now this of course does not prohibit you from turning off the tv, changing the channel, or just not listening to the guy. So don't like it don't read or watch it.
Yeah? Well this isn't your country, so don't go expecting to be necessarily be able to exhibit what you dismiss as 'freedom of speech' while you're there as a frickin' nation's guest, man. That is intensely frickin' rude - almost as rude as mucking in on another democracy's election. If Wilkins'd been ever-so-slightly less than circumspect in his speech, someone could've legitimately had him up on charges for deliberately attempting to influence the outcome of a Federal election, like a young Conservative tried having done to Michael Moore during the last Federal campaign in '04.

This is not America. Leave your preconceptions at the door.

So you'd be all hunky-dory if ambassador Frank McKenna took media potshots at the candidates in an American election? Especially if his comments made the six o'clock news on all national media?

Thought so.

He can say what he likes. I doubt it would be on the six o'clock news however, short of a declaration of war. Hell even the Mexican immigration thing barely caused a ripple.

As a larger point, no. The US ambassador should not interpose himself in the Canadian elections. But I think it is fair for him to respond to public statements made by Canadian leaders about US policy. It's sort of part of his job.

Yeah? Well this isn't your country, so don't go expecting to be necessarily be able to exhibit what you dismiss as 'freedom of speech' while you're there as a frickin' nation's guest, man. That is intensely frickin' rude - almost as rude as mucking in on another democracy's election. If Wilkins'd been ever-so-slightly less than circumspect in his speech, someone could've legitimately had him up on charges for deliberately attempting to influence the outcome of a Federal election, like a young Conservative tried having done to Michael Moore during the last Federal campaign in '04.

This is not America. Leave your preconceptions at the door.

Its called diplomatic immunity man. He's not subject to any lawsuits or prosectution so that free speech doesn't get left at the door. Listen dobbs its understandable that your not happy about what the guy said. But you don't have to go around being an ass on here just because he said it. Shit like this happens all the time between countries so its normal really. So just tune it out.

Its called diplomatic immunity man. He's not subject to any lawsuits or prosectution so that free speech doesn't get left at the door. Listen dobbs its understandable that your not happy about what the guy said. But you don't have to go around being an ass on here just because he said it. Shit like this happens all the time between countries so its normal really. So just tune it out.

Well said. Both kept the fight going. They're both to blame.

This is not America. Leave your preconceptions at the door.
Like the preconception that Martin is a stupid crook who may very well have been involved in Oil for Food as well as his other endeavors? Especially since he's freaking inept at it. You'd think he'd watch and learn from the example Daley sets.

Butt out of our elections, Mr. Wilkins. Yeah, guess wot? We live next door, and you've been right pricks these last five years - so don't be surprised to hear your names mentioned in an election campaign.

Cope with it. And as for not liking what you're hearing, well - tough-o. The only way to get us to shut up at this stage in the game is to invade and occupy us on some flimsy pretext. The last time you guys could've safely gotten away with the shit you've been putting us through, safely and quietly - as you seem to like it - was sometime during the Diefenbaker years.

Pffft. Why can't you Americans send us the kind of ambassadors you used to - the kind we liked? The sort that don't go 'round getting themselves on the six o'clock news for being dicks and getting involved in our elections.
Hit a nerve, did he? Tsk!

That cuts both ways, you know. Canada has never been noted for its reticience about criticising the US, regardless of whether the reason was ligitimate or not. It's popular in Canada just now to kick the big guy next door's shins so your politicians, being politicians, are taking full advantage of it to get elected. I think Ambasador Wilkins' comments were appropriate.

And by the way ... I haven't noticed Canada being reluctant to jump in the middle of American politics ... as many on here do ... so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Live with it. :p

What I've got to say on a private political forum and what Wilkins said as a public figure is to compare apples and oranges, i.e., I, as a Canadian private citizen posting here, haven't got a hope in Hell of achieving what Mr. Wilkins and his political masters in Washington hope to achieve: directly influencing the outcome of another country's democracy.

If Michael Moore can be threatened with charges under the Canadian Criminal Code for declaring Canadians shouldn't vote for Harper in '04, then Wilkins runs the same perilous course this outing. He's lucky his speechwriters looked into the law before letting him loose at a press conference.

Wilkins should shut up, and stay shut up, 'til after our new government has been elected. This is not sauce for the gander. This is bullshit.

Mr. Wilkins accuses the Canadian government of attacking its neighbour's global policies for political gain...

Perhaps Mr. Wilkins would be better considering why attacking American global policies can lead to so much political gain...

Personally, I have never seen one country actively support or reject a candidate in another country's election. It's not illegal. It's taboo.

That said, I don't see why we're complaining. If anything, this is going to hurt the chances of the Canadian Conservative Party, which is the exact opposite of what Wilkins was hoping to accomplish, unless he wants the Liberals to win so the US can continue to screw Canada over and blame it on our disrespectful attitude.

I wonder if our disrespectful attitude created the atmosphere for the current American exploitation of Canada or if the current American exploitation of Canada created our disrespectful attitude. Chicken and egg, I guess.

Quite frankly the man has the right to voice his opinion so if he wanted to he could. See here is the thing in most progressive countries they have this little freedom called freedom of speech meaning the gov can't stop them from speaking their mind. Now this of course does not prohibit you from turning off the tv, changing the channel, or just not listening to the guy. So don't like it don't read or watch it.

Nice straw man. No-one wants him to be forced to be silent. We just wish he would shut the fuck up on his own accord as he attempts to influence our elections.

And you express your statements as if this man is just any other citizen. In point of fact, though, he is also the official representative of your country here. So when speaking his words are taken to be the position of you government. this is not then just a personal comment, but implied to be a directive of opinion from your government.

That directive being, in this case, a statement WARNING candidates in our election refrain from debating points relating to our largest trading partner during our election.

A response of "Fuck off", is more than appropriate in that regard, especially when the US government has also taken pot-shots in the past at our government for our refusal to join into the war in Iraq.

Whether the US likes it or not, our relationship with you in matters of ongoing trade disputes and foreign policy initiative are valid and important election issues. And how the candidates intend to work to deal with those issues is of inmportance to most Canadians.

So by attempting to impose limits on our national debate by way of implied threats, the Ambassador is, in fact, interfering in our affairs.

So yes, he has the right and immunity to say as he wishes.

And we have the right to tell him that his opinion is unwanted, unwarranted, and does a disservice to the national debate. If the US prefers a Conservative government up here - which the Bush administration certainly does , then it is also a pretty stupid move. You piss off Canadians at you it can backlash against the candidate perceived to tbe the biggest US booster, which in this election is the guy you want elected.

You piss off Canadians at you it can backlash against the candidate perceived to tbe the biggest US booster, which in this election is the guy you want elected.
Who also happens to be the guy most Canadians wouldn't trust to take out the trash without outsourcing it and throwing in a hefty tax cut for global corporations at the same time.

Thanks, Silliopolous.

An ambassador, as political representative of a country has no business whatsoever to go on the media and issue warnings like Mr. Wilkins does. His role is to issues those warnings behind closed doors to political appointees. Mr. Wilkins should be reminded that an ambassador is in a country as a guest and can be thrown out any way the government wants. One would do well to mind his manners when one is a guest.

Furthermore, it is illegal for a foreign person to try and influenece the election in Canada. Diplomatic immunities serves well mr. Wilkins there but he souldn't be surprised if we say F**k off to him as we rather like law-abiding citizens more than two-timing douchebags. (which is why you hear so much complaints from Canada towards the US; softlumber anyone?)

Also, as mr. Wilkins is a representative of the US, I can only conclude that the average US citizen is a loudmouth, spotlight-hogging bully who puts his nose in other's people private business. And I'll obviously assume that the average US citizen is saying one thing and doing the very contrary as mr. Wilkins tell us to stpop bashing the US while his boss, president Bush, took potshot at Canada during his last visit about the missile-defense system even though the US contingent specified that this would not be mentionned.

It does honor its bargains in good faith. It's killing terrorists. Always remember, the United States of America can live on without trade from Canada.

The USA isn't so impotent that it can only give a tongue lashing. We'll just give you an economic lashing...

And we can just wait for the economic collapse...
You do realize that Canada can live without trade from the US. Sure, there would be an economic recession for a while but we'll survive. Just like there would be an economic recession in the US if we stop trading together.

It is not in the US's best interest to stop trading with Canada. For starters, you can expect your electric bill to skyrocket as most of your northern states depend on Canadian electricity to work. Also, if you think gas prices are high now, wait 'till you loose your number one supplier.

Oh come on. Wilkins can say whatever he wants in Canada, just as McKenna can say whatever he wants in the States. They're ambassadors; talking is what they do. Besides, the PM started the "conversation" - Wilkins had a right to rebut.

However, each country can react to/interpret statements by ambassadors anyway they want. Remember how Cellucci warned us that if we relaxed pot laws we'd harm US-Canada trade, even though there are US states with laws that decriminalize the possession of marijuana already? I seem to recall a lot of PO'd Canadians then, even though there was no election at the time.

Frankly, Wilkins response really just plays into Liberal hands, showing Canadians that they aren't "lapdogs of the US". After all, the Libs had seriously considered joining the war on Iraq and accepting missile defense on Canadian soil and only backed out of that acceptance after a public outcry - they've got a lot of backtracking to do.

What is more interesting is that US right-wing religious groups and the NRA are getting directly involved in the Canadian election (as did Michael Moore and Nader in 2004). If I recall correctly (and I'm sure I do), many Americans were up in arms because European citizens wrote letters to American citizens asking them not to vote for Bush.

How is it not ok for people to interfere with the US election, but okay for Americans to try to directly influence Canadian elections? Nadar wrote a letter to Canada published in several newspapers. Moore made a self-serving promotional comment meant to sell F 9-11 in Canada 2 days before the election that referred to the election (which angered Canada's conservatives). Focus on the Family and other US religious groups are guiding/advising Canadian conservatives advertising campaigns, as are the NRA.

That's much more interference than what Wilkins did. Wilkins was just responding to comments made by the Prime Minister.

U.S. better than Canada on greenhouse-gas emissions: Wilkins

Wilkins noted the United States has a better track record on cutting its greenhouse-gas emissions, as a percentage of its total, than Canada does.

Since Kyoto was signed, Canada's emissions have gone up 24 per cent over 1990 levels, while U.S. emissions have climbed 13.3 per cent from 1990 to 2003.

"I would respectfully submit to you that when it comes to a 'global conscience,' the United States is walking the walk," Wilkins said.

I remember hearing this from the CBC when the recent conference on global warming started. Weeks before Wilkins had to say it. In fact, I remember posting about it - the fact that the US is doing better than some nations who are criticizing it.

I remember hearing this from the CBC when the recent conference on global warming started. Weeks before Wilkins had to say it. In fact, I remember posting about it - the fact that the US is doing better than some nations who are criticizing it.

Yes, but you have to remember that Kyoto was not really about pollution, it was one of those pretexts to bash the US.

And as I predicted, now that the US has refused to play those idiots have found that Kyoto isn't really any fun after all, and they are all trying to wiggle out of it.

Still, it's not a breech of international law, becuase canada did it. And by definition, any action that is taken by canada is legal under IL.

Yes, but you have to remember that Kyoto was not really about pollution, it was one of those pretexts to bash the US.

And as I predicted, now that the US has refused to play those idiots have found that Kyoto isn't really any fun after all, and they are all trying to wiggle out of it.

Still, it's not a breech of international law, becuase canada did it. And by definition, any action that is taken by canada is legal under IL.
Someone is cranky today...

Someone is cranky today...

The mention of Kyoto makes me cranky. People should observe international law. It's very important.

...

sometimes I feel as though no one even reads my posts

...

sometimes I feel as though no one even reads my posts


If I recall correctly (and I'm sure I do), many Americans were up in arms because European citizens wrote letters to American citizens asking them not to vote for Bush.

And I remember that myself. So turnabout is fair play. I remember quite a few Canadians (especially Steph) defending the Canadian right to mess with our elections as much as they desired, because "so much was at stake".

Fine, we'll treat Canada like the 51st state, and send ALL of our political action committees up there.

And I remember that myself. So turnabout is fair play. I remember quite a few Canadians (especially Steph) defending the Canadian right to mess with our elections as much as they desired, because "so much was at stake".

Fine, we'll treat Canada like the 51st state, and send ALL of our political action committees up there.

Fair enough. :D

I just want the rules to be the same for everyone.

Personally, while I have no problem with anyone speaking out about their political preferences (especially on a forum like this one), I find that I do not accept active foreign intervention in an election (such as donating money, or providing campaign assistance).

For example, I dismissed Moore's "electioneering" as an obvious attempt to get more people to watch his movie. However, I was annoyed at Nader, because his letter was essentially campaigning against the Conservatives. I am particularly annoyed at the religious groups and the NRA, because they are putting real money and resources into interfering.

So you'd be all hunky-dory if ambassador Frank McKenna took media potshots at the candidates in an American election? Especially if his comments made the six o'clock news on all national media?

Thought so.

Your assuming that I would care what the Canadian ambassador said. Which I truly don't. I would listen to what he said and probably say. Oh that's nice. Wouldn't ruin my day over it.

Fair enough. :D

I just want the rules to be the same for everyone.

Personally, while I have no problem with anyone speaking out about their political preferences (especially on a forum like this one), I find that I do not accept active foreign intervention in an election (such as donating money, or providing campaign assistance).

For example, I dismissed Moore's "electioneering" as an obvious attempt to get more people to watch his movie. However, I was annoyed at Nader, because his letter was essentially campaigning against the Conservatives. I am particularly annoyed at the religious groups and the NRA, because they are putting real money and resources into interfering.


Moore is out to shamelessly self-promote - the people who believe he is the Second Coming of the Democratic Party are only fooling themselves.

I don't recall the Europeans asking the US if it was ok to interfere in our elections, and George Soros is definitely a foreigner with money.

As long as they obey campaign financing laws, I don't care. Maybe you need some additional campaign finance laws (although from reading the election canada web site, it looks like they are more stringent than in the US).

So you'd be all hunky-dory if ambassador Frank McKenna took media potshots at the candidates in an American election? Especially if his comments made the six o'clock news on all national media?

Thought so.
Your assuming that I would care what the Canadian ambassador said. Which I truly don't. I would listen to what he said and probably say. Oh that's nice. Wouldn't ruin my day over it.And there's the difference. What McKenna says (unless it is EXTREMELY outrageous) is unlikely to be widely reported, as most Americans really don't care whether the Canadian ambassador is having a snitfit.

However, what any of us say or do is unlikely to have an appreciable impact on any election. Not so for Mr. Bush or his mouthpuppet. Ironically, the more they feel they have the right to speak out on matters Canadian, the less likely they'll see their golden-boy Harper installed as governor of "Banana-Republic North".

Silence is golden. Too bad the current American admin, and their chosen men are all gormless motormouths.

However, what any of us say or do is unlikely to have an appreciable impact on any election. Not so for Mr. Bush or his mouthpuppet. Ironically, the more they feel they have the right to speak out on matters Canadian, the less likely they'll see their golden-boy Harper installed as governor of "Banana-Republic North".

Silence is golden. Too bad the current American admin, and their chosen men are all gormless motormouths.

For all you know, they could want Martin re-elected.

For all you know, they could want Martin re-elected.
Nah, Martin might be a small-c conservative, but no way in Hell is he that conservative. Dude's been ex-communicated by the current Pope over the same-sex issue. That's no yes-man in the PMO.

Even if he's not getting my vote, Paul Martin gets my nod.

Much as I dislike some of the foreign policy positions of Canada, we have no business commenting on their internal affairs, really. That's their business, not ours. This Wilkins joker should be fired out the end of a gun. Censored at the very least.

Nah, Martin might be a small-c conservative, but no way in Hell is he that conservative. Dude's been ex-communicated by the current Pope over the same-sex issue. That's no yes-man in the PMO.

Even if he's not getting my vote, Paul Martin gets my nod.

I am sure the United States is supremely disinterested in his domestic policies however. This all could be smoke and mirrors. After all, if he gets elected again, at least there is going to be solid continuity to Canadian foreign policy, and that's the main thing.

To be honest, if I were sitting in washington, a far bigger worry would by a NDP minority government, or, to a lesser extent, more gains by the Bloc. The liberals staying in power, or gaining a majority would be far preferable to those events. I'd quite happily throw Harper to the wolves to get that, especially since he has bugger all chance of getting elected anyway.

To be honest, if I were sitting in washington, a far bigger worry would by a NDP minority government
An NDP minority government is a far-fecthed scenario. But more to the point, there's absolutely nothing to fear from an actual social-democratic Canadian government.

Hardly cause for worry. Whaddaya think, we'll start putting up billboards of Chairman Mao?

Whaddaya think, we'll start putting up billboards of Chairman Mao?
If we do, it's not like we'll make it with anyone anyhow.

If we do, it's not like we'll make it with anyone anyhow.
Well, y'know... we don't want to change the world.

An NDP minority government is a far-fecthed scenario. But more to the point, there's absolutely nothing to fear from an actual social-democratic Canadian government.

Hardly cause for worry. Whaddaya think, we'll start putting up billboards of Chairman Mao?

From what I can gather, anything other than another liberal government is unlikely.

However, judging by Layton's comments about introducing export tarrifs on oil after the softwood lumber dispute had been resolved (though apparently not to layton's liking), I assume that he would be a questionmark in the minds of Washington insofar as future US/Can relations are concerned.

You are right though, I doubt anyone is really that concerned about the who wins the election. (Except for the Bloc, the US doesn't want an independant Quebec).

From what I can gather, anything other than another liberal government is unlikely.

However, judging by Layton's comments about introducing export tarrifs on oil after the softwood lumber dispute had been resolved (though apparently not to layton's liking), I assume that he would be a questionmark in the minds of Washington insofar as future US/Can relations are concerned.

Hmm, I linked to an article last night outlining how the WTO has not only sided with Canada on softwood, but has stated outright that under the clearly defined terms of the USA/Canada Free Trade Agreement, an agreement first pursued by the American government, Canada actually currently possesses the legal right to introduce tarriffs, or worse, to any American industry. But I'm sleepy and it's past my bedtime.

But to the matter-at-hand - think we'll blink? To paraphrase Trudeau, 'Just watch us'.

Hmm, I linked to an article last night outlining how the WTO has not only sided with Canada on softwood, but has stated outright that under the clearly defined terms of the USA/Canada Free Trade Agreement, an agreement first pursued by the American government, Canada actually currently possesses the legal right to introduce tarriffs, or worse, to any American industry. But I'm sleepy and it's past my bedtime.

But to the matter-at-hand - think we'll blink? To paraphrase Trudeau, 'Just watch us'.

You are correct, while the US was not in compliance, Canada had the right to introduce retaliatory tarrifs.

Now that it is in compliance however, it's a moot point.

So you'd be all hunky-dory if ambassador Frank McKenna took media potshots at the candidates in an American election? Especially if his comments made the six o'clock news on all national media?


Why not? It's a free country. :D

Canada is so boring. It has to get entertainment from another country's ambassador. How pathetic.

Canada's like a loft apartment over a really great party.

No pot, and no beer til 21, You call that a party?

The USA isn't so impotent that it can only give a tongue lashing. We'll just give you an economic lashing...

And we can just wait for the economic collapse...

I just betcha the US economy tanks before the Canadian. Canada is a net exporter of product, which means that foreign dollars come in and stay. The US on the other hand, eats and wipes with everything it produces, and imports more after that. That means that US dollars are ending up in tin pot dictatorships where kids are weaving throw rugs for pottery barn.

I believe the rough figure is 5000 US dollars lost overseas, per year, per household. 300 million americans, average of 4 people per household = 75 million times 5000 or..... 375 000 000 000. Thats a lot of money bleeding away, but you can just print more.

So go ahead, stop buying from Canada. No more paper/lumber, no more wheat, no nickle for copper, gold, diamonds, no fresh water.... go ahead.

Your real looming crisis is that america faces a choice: economic collapse, or starvation. If you stop buying, you starve. If you keep buying, you devalue your dollar to nothing. 50 years of baby boomer inspired instant gratification

A big problem with western economies(not just the US) is that roughly half our population is engaged in work that doesnt produce anything of lasting value. We have to many paper pushers, managers, artists, and our governments are too large. Maybe some of you create ideas and concepts of incredible value; thats good, but you cant eat a screen play, and if a dollar is only worth one peso, you cant trade it for a loaf of bread!

A big problem with western economies(not just the US) is that roughly half our population is engaged in work that doesnt produce anything of lasting value. We have to many paper pushers, managers, artists, and our governments are too large. Maybe some of you create ideas and concepts of incredible value; thats good, but you cant eat a screen play, and if a dollar is only worth one peso, you cant trade it for a loaf of bread!
This isn't exactly true. We have as many people in each of these positions as it makes sense to have. If we were actually running out of materials, the cost for them would go up until more people started being farmers, steel workers, etc. The thing is that we aren't running out of materials because we live in a global economy that can supply us with these things anyway. As a result, the shift away from producing material goods is not a problem in Western society. You seem to be suggesting that the American dollar will consistently devalue to nothingness, but that's not how currency works. Everytime the American dollar devalues, it becomes more expensive for Americans to import and less expensive for them to export. As a result, the system is created in such a way that it naturally puts an end to things like trade deficits well before the dollar is only worth a peso. The problem is that the United States government is currently content to let the dollar remain high, which is like holding the top of something in place while the bottom shifts. Sure, you can hold the top in place for a time, but after a while it takes to much effort to keep it in place, and instead of it just gradually moving along with the bottom with minimal effect, you let go and it snaps into place, creating a whiplash effect. That's what current American policies regarding the dollar and the trade deficit are going to result in. What would have been a minor economic downturn from readjustment now could result in either recession or, worse still, depression.

Your real looming crisis is that america faces a choice: economic collapse, or starvation. If you stop buying, you starve. If you keep buying, you devalue your dollar to nothing. 50 years of baby boomer inspired instant gratification

One small problem:

If I owe you 500 dollars, I have a problem. But if the US owes the world trillions of dollars - well, the world has a problem if we can't pay it back. And we have the only military with any real ability to globally project massive amounts of force, and we still have thousands of nuclear weapons.

One small problem:

If I owe you 500 dollars, I have a problem. But if the US owes the world trillions of dollars - well, the world has a problem if we can't pay it back. And we have the only military with any real ability to globally project massive amounts of force, and we still have thousands of nuclear weapons.

Unless of course you take the Chinese approach and actively buy up US debt from other countries - while at the same time investing heavily in US banking institutions and the energy sector... which in the long run makes defaulting on any of the debt a seriously bad idea given what the Chinese could do both the US economy, energy sectory, and dare I say militarily. Sure, one on one the can't go toe-to-toe against the US on one of these alone - but on all three?

Unless of course you take the Chinese approach and actively buy up US debt from other countries - while at the same time investing heavily in US banking institutions and the energy sector... which in the long run makes defaulting on any of the debt a seriously bad idea given what the Chinese could do both the US economy, energy sectory, and dare I say militarily. Sure, one on one the can't go toe-to-toe against the US on one of these alone - but on all three?

China buys US treasuries to keep its currency pegged artificially low against the dollar. T-bills can't be called so there is nothing really China can do with with which won't cost china a lot of money - other than sit on them till maturity - especially since they bought them at record low interest rates, and rates are now going up.

Also, it buys the T-bills directly from the US, not other countries. Its not even the top holder of US debt anyway.

Look at all the cool posts I'm missing 'cause of my day job. Sheesh.

Quite frankly the man has the right to voice his opinion so if he wanted to he could. See here is the thing in most progressive countries they have this little freedom called freedom of speech meaning the gov can't stop them from speaking their mind. Now this of course does not prohibit you from turning off the tv, changing the channel, or just not listening to the guy. So don't like it don't read or watch it.

In fact He doesn't have the right to voice his opinion. He's an ambassador, and therefore comes under a different set of diplomatic rules and unwritten obligations. Public pronouncements are considered to be the policy of the country he or she represents rather than private opinions covered by free speech laws.

It's generally been considered undiplomatic for ambassadors to comment on election underway in a foreign country, however politically or geographically close that country may be. It's just not done. It simply doesn't look good for the country represented by the ambassador, comes across as interference in the electoral process of a sovereign state, and is as likely to backfire as it is to be beneficial.

Note that what the ambassador is saying is essentially irrelevant - it could be the most cogent and insightful analysis of the country in question in the entire campaign, but he (or she) simply can't say it. It would have been equally inappropriate for the Canadian ambassador to Washington to criticise Bush for speeches made in his last election campaign.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has been increasingly leaving aside many of the traditional laws of diplomacy. The American ambassador to Australia - a close friend of GW - made several comments about the opposition in the most recent election down here that were interpreted by many as inappropriate intervention in the democratic process of an independent nation.

It's only fair to note that 'inappropriate' often translates as 'I didn't agree with those comments', but its precisely because ambassadors aren't supposed to make partisan comments, or even comments that can be construed as partisan that the remarks are inappropriate in an election context.

Outside of an election, anodyne comments of support for a government are generally acceptable, but that's as far as it should go when that other government is a fully functioning democracy - which both Canada and Australia are.