Connect with us


Embassies unstaffed, military gaps: America’s toxic politics spills into foreign affairs



A jarring split-screen reality will come into focus this week, highlighting grand American ambitions internationally amid political dysfunction back home.

As the U.S. and China compete for influence, two cabinet members are making yet another trip to the Indo-Pacific, a region with vital naval hubs and shipping lanes: it’s the 12th and eighth trip there for the secretaries of state and defence.

Meanwhile, at home, the U.S.’s notoriously bitter domestic politics is spilling into international issues in novel ways — with battles over abortion and LGBTQ issues stalling everything from U.S. military hiring and promotions, to diplomatic appointments and a new military budget.

After the Supreme Court limited abortion access last summer, the military started funding leaves to allow personnel to have the procedures in pro-choice states.


This prompted Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama to start systematically blocking Senate military confirmations.

The U.S. is looking to build alliances in the Indo-Pacific region, a focal point of its tension with China, as seen here during a U.S.-Philippines military exercise this spring. (Eloisa Lopez/Reuters)

It’s the same in U.S. diplomacy: Nearly three dozen countries lack U.S. ambassadors due to a blockade in the Senate, where Republican Rand Paul wants more information on the origins of COVID-19.

As well, an updated military budget has been paused over the above-mentioned abortion issue, as well as diversity initiatives and gender-affirming care, which Republicans want removed from the Pentagon budget.

U.S. allies vent frustrations

Aside from all this, U.S. President Joe Biden recently had to cancel what would have been a historic first trip to a Pacific island nation at the centre of the U.S.-China power struggle; he was back in Washington amid a Congressional crisis over the debt ceiling.

One Pacific ally was in Washington last week recounting his past frustrations dealing with the U.S. political system, saying it creates doubts among America’s friends.

Surangel Whipps, the president of Palau, noted that it took eight years for Congress to confirm permanent funding for a security and economic pact between the two countries as Democrats and Republicans grappled with other issues.

Man seated on couch
Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr., seen here in June, was in Washington this month. He says people in his area are worried about U.S. politics. (John Geddie/Reuters)

Whipps told a Washington audience at a Foundation for Defense of Democracies gathering that Palau is a model U.S. ally — it’s blocked plans for a Chinese casino next to a U.S. radar site, and it wants to rip up and replace the country’s Huawei cellular infrastructure.

But with the U.S.-Palau pact again up for renewal, Whipps said he hoped to avoid a repeat of last time.

“If the relationship is that important, you have to show it,” he told the audience, noting that allies don’t want to see the U.S. so caught up in internal politics that it ignores international responsibilities.

“Because I think that’s what our people at home kind of fear sometimes — you know, we see how divided [Capitol] Hill is.”

Senator walks with reporters trailing him
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, in an effort to get more information about the origins of COVID-19, has stalled all confirmations to senior U.S. diplomatic posts. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Political polarization isn’t all bad. Robust debate can reduce the risk of groupthink and related errors, and is part of what makes democracies resilient.

Generations ago, political scientists complained about the opposite problem: that U.S. political parties were too similar and they agreed too much.

But several scholars who study the interplay between domestic and foreign politics say the U.S. has swung way beyond the healthy level.

“I think it is a big problem,” said Jordan Tama, who specializes in domestic politics and foreign policy at American University.

“We are shooting ourselves in the foot — not putting in place key national-security officials … It’s troubling.”

Blinken motioning from podium
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, seen during a media conference on July 14, is making his 12th trip to the Indo-Pacific region, an area of increasingly intense U.S. focus. (Ajeng Dinar Ulfiana/Reuters)

Foreign policy at loggerheads is nothing new

Another type of polarization involves substantive disagreements on foreign affairs that see the U.S. zigzagging on certain policies from one administration to the next.

The Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, for example, were all policies adopted under Barack Obama and cancelled under Donald Trump. In some cases, they’re now being renewed under Biden.

One scholar of international relations joked that this is the reason Secretary of State Antony Blinken has made 12 trips to the Indo-Pacific — and probably needs to do 12 more.

Peter Trubowitz said the world is dizzy from trying to follow these U.S. foreign policy zigzags and figure out whether the country’s current positions will survive the next election.

“America’s allies need to be reassured,” said Trubowitz, an American and director of the U.S.-focused Phelan Centre at the London School of Economics.

“One of the reasons they need to be reassured is because the United States is so deeply polarized.”

At Clemson University in South Carolina, political scientist Jeffrey Peake has tried charting one reason this matters: a collapse in frequency of U.S. international treaties.

Between the Second World War and the presidency of George W. Bush, Peake counts an average of 16 treaties per year submitted for approval by the U.S. Senate. That dropped to four per year under Obama.

During the last two presidencies, it’s eroded to one a year.

Because it’s gotten harder to pass a treaty through Congress, Peake says presidents just sign agreements that aren’t entrenched in law, making it easy for a successor to simply cancel them. As Trump did, for example, with the climate accord.

Black and white photo of two men standing and smiling
Foreign policy paralysis has happened before. When Woodrow Wilson, left, tried creating the League of Nations in 1919, the U.S. Senate blocked American participation. Some analysts say the current level of partisanship is without precedent since the U.S. became a global superpower. (Reuters)

Global implications

These types of actions have major global implications, according to Peake. “The world doesn’t really address climate change without the U.S. on board.”

And bitter disagreements about international affairs aren’t new. In one famous example from 1919, the U.S. Senate rejected Woodrow Wilson’s plan for the precursor to the United Nations; the idea lay dormant for another three decades, through another world war.

The Senate later rejected the UN’s genocide convention for four decades, arms-control treaties and various climate accords. The chamber has also often blocked appointments over disputes.

But Peake says what’s happening in Washington right now is not a foreign policy disagreement — it’s about foreign policy becoming hostage to domestic disputes.

And it’s triggered separate blockades of senior military and senior diplomatic confirmations.

A smiling profile picture
Former football coach Tommy Tuberville, now a U.S. senator for Alabama, says a policy to fund abortions for military personnel has no basis in law. So he’s launched a blockade against senior military appointments in hopes of forcing a reversal of the policy. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

“This is not something you see typically in U.S. history,” Peake said, noting that in normal times, Alabama voters would punish Tuberville for blocking the confirmations.

Instead, because the U.S. is so polarized, they’re more likely to reward him for standing up to Democrats.

The benefits of messy debate

There are many examples throughout U.S. history where a little more argument might have helped matters.

In 2003, for example, there was little opposition to the Iraq war in Congress. Or McCarthyism and the Red Scare of the 1950s, abetted by bipartisan groupthink.

The catastrophic war in Vietnam is another example. In 1964, after only 40 minutes of debate, Congress voted to increase its military involvement in Vietnam — the vote was 416-0 in the House of Representatives and 88-2 in the Senate.

“Bipartisanship is not a cure-all,” Trubowitz said. “Too much of anything can be a bad thing.”

Soldier in military fatigues with face covered in black grime.
There are many examples in U.S. history of time when vigorous debate would have helped matters. Including during the Vietnam war, when the U.S. voted to increase its military action after almost no discussion and a 416-0 vote in Congress. (Reuters)

Jim Carafano, a national-security analyst who served on Donald Trump’s presidential transition team and has a long military and history background, said the unfilled positions are not ideal.

“It is problematic,” Carafano said of the military vacancies, which he says create inconveniences and planning problems, but he doesn’t think they’re debilitating. Besides, he says there’s no example of an urgent foreign crisis where the U.S. was prevented from acting.

“Is it hamstringing the [American] giant, you know, tying us down like Gulliver with the Lilliputians? I don’t see that.”

His bottom-line view: democracy is resilient.

The current logjams, Carafano says, will eventually clear, voting coalitions will eventually undergo one of their transformative realignments and the parties will look different.

It’s a view as old as American history.

When he visited the U.S. at the dawn of the republic, French writer Alexis de Tocqueville remarked that autocratic rule looks stable — until it isn’t. Democracy, he wrote, looks messy but it’s sturdy.

Then again, he also wrote that democracies are bad at handling foreign affairs.

Now, the U.S., the world’s self-described oldest democracy, seems determined to test both theories at once, confronting great foreign challenges while there’s so much squabbling in the household.



Source link


Julia Malott: Nope, parents are not ‘fascists’ for being skeptical of gender politics



The core issue at hand is preserving their agency and autonomy over the ideological content of their children’s education

In the coming days, Canada will see heightened activity in the nation’s ongoing gender identity politics debate. The “1 Million March 4 Children” protest against how gender identity is taught in schools, is set to occur on Wednesday, with synchronized events in more than 50 cities countrywide. Two days later, separate Toronto rally will spotlight two figures prominent in the gender-critical movement: Chris Elston, colloquially known as “Billboard Chris” for his distinctive method of protesting against childhood medical transition, and Josh Alexander, a Renfrew, Ontario student who was expelled earlier this year after objecting in class to his school’s transgender washroom policy.

Organizers of these events bill them as a defense of the safety and wellbeing of children, though the protesters’ opinions span a wide spectrum of positions. While some desire personal discretion in how matters of gender identity are handled for their own children, others urge broader constraint on transgender-related discussion and accommodations for the entire student body. The perspectives reflect the diverse community backing the movement.


As parents’ voices grow louder, there’s a perception in the progressive left that all of these emerging movements are rooted and inspired by “far-right” extremism. Many in leftist circles suggest that parental rights advocacy is a dog-whistle: a veiled attempt to advance anti-transgender policies. A recently leaked video from an Ontario Federation of Labour meeting offers a glimpse into how some of the province’s most influential union members perceive these protests. As one member notably stated during the meeting: “The fascists are organizing in the streets … . This is far more than a far-right transphobic protest. They’re fundamentally racist, they’re fundamentally anti-union, they are fundamentally transphobic, and it’s just a matter of time before they come for us.”

Such language of a growing fascist movement, evoking images of 1933 Berlin, is more than a little unhinged, particularly when all they are discussing is parents uniting together to demand involvement in their children’s education. As a covert spectator in the union meeting, there was an undeniable sentiment among participants that if not for them democracy would surely collapse.

It’s a grave mistake to deride the parental collective pushing back against the status-quo as fascist sympathizers motivated by transgender hate. A glance past such alarmist rhetoric reveals that — while a fringe group of hate has always existed — the concerns many parents are championing are much more moderate than a “far-right” moniker suggests.

For many parents, the core issue at hand is preserving their agency and autonomy over the ideological content of their children’s education. They want transparency about what is being taught, the option to excuse their child from content they believe doesn’t align with their values, and the discretion to determine age-appropriateness for activities, such as certain reading material or events like drag queen performances at schools. Perhaps least surprisingly, parents want to be involved in the key decisions of their own child undergoing a social transition in the classroom.

Many of these matters have been surfacing in school board meetings for several years, largely to be ignored by Trustees and Education Directors. The shared sentiment among these parents is the perception that the education system increasingly sidelines them, diminishing their role in their children’s upbringing. This sense of alienation is leading a growing number of parents to take a stand, even if it means confronting accusations of extremism.

The matter of social transition behind parents’ backs in particular is so condemning of their role in upbringing that it has thrust the entire gamut of gender identity matters into the national spotlight, revealing just how out of balance transgender accommodation has become. The manner in which the left has responded — by doubling down in their rhetoric and deriding parents as militant zealots, has played powerfully into the rapid growth of this grassroots movement.

Many parents, even amid those who will stand in protest, have little desire to limit other families’ decisions regarding gender teachings and expression for their children. They realize that their objective of ensuring their own parental autonomy is intertwined with safeguarding those same freedoms for other families as well.

Over time, the persistent branding of even modest parental rights positions as far-right extremism does injury. As the left cries foul each time they encounter a perspective they don’t like, they desensitize the meaning in such a label. By regularly branding modest parental concerns as extremist, progressives may very well be shoehorning the adoption and normalization of more hardline positions that do straddle the line of the parental rights of others. As grassroots gain traction, a vocal minority have now taken to calling for sweeping bans on gender affirming teaching and accommodation for all children and families alike within the public education system.

So where do we go from here? What might a balanced approach to parental rights look like within the nuanced landscape of gender identity politics? Fortunately, we need not start from scratch; history offers us a model for the coexistence of diverse ideologies within our educational institutions. Look no further than religion.

For years, Canada has upheld an educational system truly inclusive of students from all religious backgrounds. The classroom approach to religious topics is robust; it sidesteps direct religious instruction, and when religion intersects with the curriculum, it is presented academically rather than doctrinally. Instead of dictating what’s “true” in religious contexts, educators shed light on what various groups “believe,” cultivating an environment of both choice and critical thinking.

Amid religious diversity, we teach acceptance. Students are taught to make space for varied faith expression among their peers, whether through clothing or other customs, and with a strong desire to maintain neutral, religious symbols are not adorned by the institution. The lesson for students is to embrace and include, even where personal beliefs diverge; Meanwhile, the guiding principle for the institution is to avoid actions that display favouritism toward any specific religious doctrine.

Such a solution could address a significant portion of the concerns fuelling the rising parental unrest. Moderate parents would applaud such an education system, and this would still be inclusive of transgender students. But in order for this to be realized, the two factions moving ever further apart will first need to come to the table and talk. Given the recent rhetoric from progressive quarters, the prospect of this dialogue anytime soon appears distant.


Source link

Continue Reading


Ex-diplomat says Poland asked him to keep tabs on Alberta politician



A month after Global Affairs Canada told CBC News it was looking into claims that the Polish government asked one of its diplomats in Canada to gather information on a former Alberta cabinet minister, the dismissed consul general at the centre of the affair says he still hasn’t heard from the department on the matter.

Andrzej Mańkowski told CBC News the only official he has heard from is a B.C. bureaucrat who asked him to return his diplomatic licence plates and identification.

“[Officials with Global Affairs] haven’t tried talking to me,” he said.

Mańkowski showed CBC News a copy of a letter dated Aug. 31 he received from B.C.’s Chief of Protocol for Intergovernmental Relations Lucy Lobmeier asking him to turn in his identity card and to return his diplomatic plates “within 30 days of this letter.” She also thanked him for his service.


Mańkowski alleges he was dismissed from his post in late July after he refused to carry out orders from the Polish government to gather information about Thomas Lukaszuk, a former deputy premier of Alberta who often provides commentary to CBC News about the province’s politics.

“It’s clear that Polish diplomacy during Communist times, the main responsibility was to collect information, to gather information on some Polish representatives abroad,” Mańkowski said, adding he felt as if the request was a throwback to that time.

“The analogy’s extremely evident.”

Last month, Global Affairs Canada said it was taking the allegations seriously.

Spying allegations ‘out of this world’: ambassador

In August, Lukaszuk said he believed he had been targeted by Poland’s department of foreign affairs over his activism against a controversial Polish pastor, Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, who has private radio and television stations in Poland.

Rydzyk, who has ties to the Polish government, has been criticized for delivering sermons featuring homophobic and anti-Semitic views and for preaching against the European Union.

Lukaszuk also shared what he said were encrypted messages Polish government officials sent to Mańkowski asking him over the course of a year to prepare notes on the former Alberta politician.

CBC News has not independently verified these messages were official government communications. Mańkowski did not dispute their veracity in his interview.

“Asking for my opinion about Lukaszuk was just a kind of trap, was just a political test of my loyalty,” he said.

Polish Ambassador to Canada Witold Dzielski has dismissed the claim that his government tried to get a diplomat to keep tabs on a former Alberta politician. (Darryl G. Smart/CBC News)

Poland’s Ambassador to Canada Witold Dzielski called the allegation “totally absurd.”

“The idea of Polish diplomacy spying on a former provincial politician … it’s really out of this world,” Dzielski said.

He said he has never met Lukaszuk and did not know of his previous career in politics before Lukaszuk emailed him about an unrelated consular matter long before the reports about Mańkowski came out.

Dzielski said that if the notes cited by Lukaszuk are real, they were leaked illegally because they would constitute private diplomatic communications.

The affair has captured attention in Polish media, where the story first broke.

In July, Polish opposition politicians cited the messages released by Lukaszuk when they asked Piotr Wawrzyk, a secretary of state in the government’s foreign affairs department, whether Mańkowski was dismissed because he refused to spy on Lukaszuk.

In reply, Wawrzyk said the government could recall a diplomat who refused to carry out an assignment.

Wawrzyk, who was also a deputy foreign minister, has since been fired himself over an unrelated matter both local media outlets and Reuters have linked to a clandestine scheme awarding migrants visas in exchange for cash.

On Saturday, The Associated Press noted he had been hospitalized following an apparent sucide attempt. 

“The minister, Wawrzyk, was laid off because of a totally different subject,” Dzielski said.

He pointed out that those documents were cited by opposition politicians in the context of a heated election campaign.

Dzielski� also said it’s normal for diplomats to be asked to gather information on notable members of diaspora communities.

‘A very marginal conversation’

“We are working very closely with them,” he said. “It is obvious and natural, and it is an element of diplomatic workshops, that we provide and we build ourselves opinions about the quality of cooperation with particular actors.”

He said Global Affairs has spoken to him about the allegations. “We had a very marginal conversation on this which reflects the level of seriousness of this topic,” he said.

A NATO member, Poland has worked closely with Canada to help out its neighbour Ukraine ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion last year.

Asked for comment, Global Affairs said in a media statement it “continues to work closely with security and intelligence community partners to assess the situation and identify next steps as appropriate.”

The department said last month it had contacted Lukaszuk and that it took the responsibility of protecting Canadians from “transnational repression” very seriously.



Source link

Continue Reading


Put politics aside to solve housing crisis, or your kids might never own a home: Raitt




The Current20:05Putting politics aside to tackle the housing crisis


Political leaders of all stripes must find a way to work together to solve the housing and climate crises impacting Canadians, says former Conservative MP Lisa Raitt.


“Toronto is the best example. NDP mayor, provincial premier who’s Conservative, federal Liberal who’s the prime minister,” said Raitt, co-lead of the new non-governmental Task Force for Housing and Climate, which launched Tuesday.

“And if they don’t figure this out, one voter is going to punish them all.”

The new task force is concerned with accelerating the construction of new homes, while ensuring that’s done in a sustainable way. In a press release, the group of former city mayors, planners, developers, economists and affordable housing advocates said it intends to convene until April 2024 to develop policy recommendations. The work is supported by the Clean Economy Fund, a charitable foundation.

Raitt held several senior cabinet posts under former prime minister Stephen Harper. But as co-lead of the task force, Raitt said she won’t engage in the political partisanship that she thinks “poisons the well” around these issues.

“Part of the reason why we’re coming together as the task force is to have a real pragmatic and practical conversation about these issues instead of weaponizing it into a political arena, and finger pointing back and forth,” she told The Current’s Matt Galloway.

Trudeau pledges more housing as pressure mounts over affordability


Justin Trudeau announced funding to build more housing in London, Ont., as he and Liberal MPs kicked off their caucus retreat. The agreement comes as the government faces growing pressure to help make housing more affordable.

Canada needs to build an extra 3.5 million new units by the end of the decade, over and above what’s already in the works, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. A report this week showed rental costs have increased 9.6 per cent from Aug. 2022 to 2023, to an average now of $2,117 a month.

This week, the federal government announced it would cut the federal goods and services tax (GST) from the construction of new rental apartments, in an effort to spur new development. The Liberal government also pledged $74 million to build thousands of homes in London, Ont., — the first in what it hopes will be a series of agreements to accelerate housing construction.

Speaking in London on Wednesday, Housing Minister Sean Fraser called on municipalities to “legalize housing,” urging them to remove “sluggish permit-approval processes” and zoning obstacles if they expect federal investment in housing construction.

Poilievre slams PM on housing, says Trudeau ‘funds gatekeepers’


Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre took aim at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s housing plans Thursday, saying the Liberal government’s ‘inflationary deficits’ and ‘taxes and bureaucracy’ are holding back construction of new homes.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre criticized the government’s plans as not going far enough, while pointing out it echoes some of his party’s proposals. He’s proposed measures that tie federal funding to the number of housing starts. Funding would be withheld from cities that fail to increase the number of homes built by 15 per cent, while cities that pass that threshold would receive bonuses.

Poilievre’s proposals also include a “NIMBY” fine on municipalities that block construction because of opposition from local residents, and the sale of 15 per cent of federally owned buildings so the land can be used to build affordable homes.

Don Iveson, former mayor of Edmonton and co-lead of the task force, said he understands why partisan politics can creep into the debate — but Canadians expect more.

He said the task force intends “to help all orders of government” understand what’s needed to tackle these problems from an economic, technical and planning perspective.

“We’re not going to be able to solve the housing crisis [by] building housing the way we built it for the last several generations,” said said Iveson, who was mayor of Edmonton from 2013 to 2021.

A woman stands in the House of Commons in Ottawa, with people sitting in the background.
Lisa Raitt held several senior cabinet posts under former prime minister Stephen Harper. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Your kids need a place to live: Raitt

Iveson said the challenge of scaling up housing construction will require some new ways of thinking.

That might mean a greater emphasis on automation and building houses from components prefabricated off-site, which he described as “essentially a more factory approach” that could also reduce construction costs.

Raitt said the task force will examine where houses are built, and in what kind of density, to ensure scaling up can “get the most bang for the buck.”

That might mean Canadians might need to have difficult conversations, including whether to build multi-storey buildings instead of single-family homes.

Raitt said older Canadians who already own their own homes might not like the idea of taller buildings going up around them, but they should speak to their kids about it.


Strangers buy homes together to combat unaffordable housing.


CBC’s Sohrab Sandhu reports on an unorthodox strategy where some people are deciding to buy homes with strangers.

“They don’t care if it’s going to be four, six storeys in a residential neighbourhood. They just want a place that they know that they can purchase,” she said.

“Talk about whether or not our kids are going to have a place to live, let alone rent, let alone own, let alone a house in the communities where they were brought up, because right now it’s not looking so good.”

Counting the cost of climate change

When it comes to climate change and sustainability, the task force’s goals come down to a “very simple equation,” Raitt said.

“Whatever we’re building now is going to be here in 2050. So if it’s going to be part of the calculation of our net-zero aspirations, whatever they’re going to be,” she said.

She said the task force will work to formulate ways to build housing that take emissions into account, but don’t include prohibitive costs that slow down the rate of construction.

“It’s going to be a little bit more costly to build with climate indications built in … but you’ve got to make sure that there’s policies surrounding that to make sure it still makes it affordable,” she said.


Visuals of homes destroyed by wildfire in Upper Tantallon, N.S.


Officials say the fire, which is burning out of control as of Monday morning, is expected to grow.

Iveson said wildfires, floods, heat domes and extreme weather events are already disrupting the economy, as well as posing huge financial burdens for the Canadians caught up in them.

“Climate change is already costing us a fortune,” he told Galloway.

Building without those climate considerations “maybe seems affordable in the short term, but it’s false economy when it comes to the real costs ahead of us,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading