Sandra Finley

2011-06-24 NUKE: Project Definition, National Academy of Science (US), re lifting of uranium mining moratorium in Virginia

 Nuclear  No Responses »
Jun 242011
 

Please go to the original: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49253

The following is only a back-up copy and does not contain all the links and formatting that are in the original.

(NOTE:  the Report has been issued.  There are links at the above URL.)

 

Project Information

Project Title:   Uranium Mining in Virginia

PIN:  DELS-BESR-09-06

Major Unit:   Division on Earth and Life Studies

Sub Unit:  Board on Earth Sciences & Resources,  Water Science and Technology Board

RSO:  Feary, David

Subject/Focus Area:  Earth Sciences

Project Scope

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007. A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens. In particular, the study will:

  1. Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium.
  2. Review global and national uranium market trends.
  3. Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
  4. Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.
  5. Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  6. Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments (“cells”).
  7. Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
  8. Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
  9. Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
  10. Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
  11. Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
  12. Provide a non-technical summary of the report for public education purposes (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.

The project is sponsored by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (with funding provided by Virginia Uranium, Inc.).

The contractual start date for the project is January 15, 2010.

A final report will be issued at the end of the project in the spring of 2012. The project expires in October 2012.

Project Duration:  32 months

Committee Membership

Provide FEEDBACK on this project.

Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry, request a list of the public access file materials, or obtain a copy of the materials found in the file.

2011-06-18 Wikileaks info, critical to democracy, in mainstream media? leaked Guantánamo files PLUS Do you know about leaked American scheme to use Harper to further their agenda in Canada ?

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis, Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Jun 182011
 

If you have not heard  about “US bid to “shore up” Harper from the day he was elected”  (item #1)   through mainstream media, is there a reason why it isn’t being covered?  In your estimation, is it news that should be reported in a democracy?

Item #1  flows out of the massive leaked U.S. Government documents through WikiLeaks.   Media reported on Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and the earlier leaked information. 

The leaked Guantánamo files is in item #7 .   Otherwise, these are articles related to Wikileaks, some of which have been circulated earlier.  Click on the links if you wish to read the articles.

CONTENTS

1.    2011-06-07  WikiLeaks: “US bid to “shore up” Harper from the day he was elected”  (the “alternate media” report along with a  copy of the originating document).

2.    HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?  (see below)

3.    WAY TO GO LEO!  A LETTER-TO-EDITOR CONTAINS THE INFORMATION. I HOPE IT WILL BE PUBLISHED. (see below)

4.    2011-05-02    YOU MAY REMEMBER “WIKILEAKS REVEALS NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION PLOT”? 

5.    2011-05-26    HOW ABOUT “WIKILEAKS SHINES LIGHT ON ALBERTA’S $16-BILLION ELECTRICITY SCANDAL”?   

  (Note:  I added the CBC report on the same WikiLeaks story to the original posting.)

6.    2011-05-01   FROM Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN):  WikiLeaks diplomatic cable on Harper.  Never Apologize: PM Harper’s Governing Style 

7.    2011-02-09   FEBRUARY:  DATA INTELLIGENCE FIRMS PROPOSED A SYSTEMATIC ATTACK AGAINST WIKILEAKS, SUBMIT FAKE DOCUMENTS, ETC.    

8.    June 15, 2011:  The leaked Guantánamo files   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantanamo-files 

9.    2010-10-26    Al Jazeera:  Media war,  WikiLeaks v the Pentagon   

10.    (For newcomers)  2010-07-27     Al Jazeera, EXCELLENT interview with Julian Assange (wikileaks).  Balance of power between us and them; make war against those who make war (Lockheed Martin). 

= = = = = = =  = = = = = ==  ==  == = =  

2.    HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA? 

Sorry – I can’t find who sent in the June 7th Wikileaks  cables with the American plans to support Harper as an instrument of their agenda.  

I posted it on the blog and sat on it, waiting for mainstream media reports:  I prefer to send you one email instead of a few,  and more than one viewpoint on the story.    

 I occasionally googled for reports of it.  Didn’t find anything. 

I did some background checks to satisfy myself that the information came from Wikileaks  and wasn’t some hoax.

 Do YOU know about “US bid to “shore up” Harper from the day he was elected “?  I think every Canadian should know about it.  It’s critical to how we govern ourselves.  

Leo Kurtenbach sent a letter-to-editor of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix that contains information from the Wikileaks cables.   Many thanks to Leo!     I hope his letter will be published.   At least then the story will make it into the mainstream media!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = == = =  == =  = =

 3.  WAY TO GO LEO! A LETTER-TO-EDITOR CONTAINS THE INFORMATION. 

2011-06-18   Leaked cables, Harper as instrument of American interests in letter-to-editor re CWB.  Kurtenbach. 

 The posting includes an update on the long-standing battle to keep the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) against the undemocratic assaults by Harper to dismantle it.   The CWB was created to counter the monopoly of the “Grain Merchants”.  Former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney sits on the Board of ADM, one of the world’s largest grain handlers.  ADM and the biotech corporations like Monsanto want to be rid of the CWB which has been a voice against RR wheat (Monsanto’s and other biotech’s GMO wheats).   Maybe Harper will get a seat on the ADM Board of Directors alongside Mulroney.  Maybe we should all click on   2011-06-18    and sign the petition.  Maybe the corruption can be stopped.

2011-06-18 Leaked cables, Harper as instrument of American interests in letter-to-editor re CWB. Kurtenbach.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis  No Responses »
Jun 182011
 

KURTENBACH: Harper, Ritz, and the CWB

http://forum.stopthehogs.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=5

 Sent for publishing on June 18, 2011

To the Editor,

A majority of the producers of wheat and barley in the Canadian Wheat Board [CWB] area, and probably many other Canadians, may be puzzled why our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and his trusty CWB minister, Gerry Ritz, are so gung- ho to render the CWB meaningless.

Now, with thanks to the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, affinity between Harper and American political conservatism has been revealed in a fairly long excerpted statement by former U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins. He suggested Harper would be useful in advancing the U.S. agenda for Canada. and that giving him a “success story”, like the softwood lumber deal would “shore up” Harper’s  ability to stay in office without appearing to “sell out to the Americans.”

Wilkens also stated that, “Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who, along with many members of his caucus, has an ideological and cultural affinity for America.” 

On another issue, Wilkins stated, “Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable  and deployable force;” and also added, “keeping Canada in the game [my underline] in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; . . .”   Why would we Canadians want to align ourselves to the greatest military power on Earth, which seems to believe that bombs and bullets are the way to make the kind of peace they want?  And would use Canada to do so.

It is now easier to understand why Harper’s Conservatives are determined to gut the CWB and turn over producer control of wheat and barley to American multinational grain traders. The loss of this distinctly Canadian organization, the CWB, with its international reputation for grain sales, will be a serious loss for all Canadians. There will be job losses for CWB employees and other related businesses. The extra earnings that the CWB has garnered for producers of wheat and barley for many years will be siphoned off to foreign corporate shareholders, out of the Canadian economy. We all know that the first duty  of corporations is to get the highest return possible for its shareholders.

Leo Kurtenbach,

Saskatoon, SK

= = = = = = = 

Was softwood lumber deal a gift so Harper government could be more pro-American?

http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011

Even before Conservatives were elected, leaked cables show US was looking to influence new government on Americas, Afghanistan, cross-border initiatives.

By Lee Berthiaume　　　　　　　　　　Published Jun 6, 2011 6:05 PM

A newly-released diplomatic cable indicates the deal to end the softwood lumber dispute in summer 2006 was a gift from the Americans to bolster the Harper government’s credibility so it could be more pro-US in future dealings. [ . . . ]

= = = = = = =

 CWB petition 

http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html

 From: NFU Office

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:49 PM

Subject: CWB petition

The Government of Manitoba has begun a campaign to oppose the federal government’s plans to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s single desk.  The campaign includes a petition that supports the right of farmers to decide the future of the CWB. 

The petition preamble reads as follows:

Whereas the federal government’s unilateral move to end the current Canadian Wheat Board would jeopardize returns to farmers, over 2,000 Manitoba jobs, an internationally recognized head office in Winnipeg, and the Port of Churchill, I support the right of farmers to decide the future of their grain marketing agency.

Here’s the link to the petition:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html

Please pass this message on.  It is important that as many people sign the petition as possible. 

Sincerely,

Kevin Wipf

NFU Executive Director 

= = = = = = = = =

NFU SUPPORTS MANITOBA GOVERNMENT’S STAND ON CWB

http://www.nfu.ca/press_releases/2011/06-15.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                            June 15th, 2011  

SaskatoonThe National Farmers Union (NFU) is expressing its support for the Manitoba Government’s campaign against the federal government’s plan to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board’s (CWB) single desk.  On Monday morning, Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger launched the campaign at the CWB’s head office in Winnipeg by stating that a farmer plebiscite is necessary before any changes to the CWB are considered.  “The NFU supports the stand that the Government of Manitoba is taking against the federal government’s plans to remove the CWB’s single desk.  The NFU calls on the federal government to hold a plebiscite on the matter where western wheat and barley farmers can vote on the issue as reasonably laid out in the CWB Act,” stated Boehm.       , Sask. –

During the press conference, Selinger also drew attention to the economic benefits that the CWB generates for all Manitobans, including the fact that the CWB posted $5.2 billion in revenues last year and that over 2000 jobs in Manitoba are directly or indirectly linked to the CWB’s operations.  “This is a very serious issue for the entire Province of Manitoba, as well as all Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers, and beyond.  The CWB puts $1.5 billion extra into farmers’ pockets each and every year.  If the single desk is removed, this wealth will be going straight into the pockets of the big grain companies and railroads,” stated NFU President Terry Boehm.   

“The CWB generates these benefits at very low cost to the farmer.  Estimates peg the total cost of the CWB’s operations at just 9 cents per bushel.  By the way, those 9 cents are recovered by the CWB in foreign exchange transactions and favourable borrowing terms that this large entity is able to obtain for farmers.  There’s no question that the CWB is extremely efficient.  A lot of talented people work there who are able to devote themselves entirely to finding the best prices for our grain.  The CWB has played a very large role in making Canada a powerhouse in the global wheat and barley markets,” stated NFU Region 5 Coordinator Ian Robson.  

The CWB also plays a very significant role in transportation and grain handling, which enables it to ensure overall efficiency of the grain transportation system and advocate for the interests of farmers.  This is crucial because Prairie grain farmers are further from tide water than any global competitor, and railway charges are a grain farmer’s highest cost.  Given that the CWB directs grain movement from country elevators to ports it can ensure that producer cars and short line railways are utilized, and that the two big railway companies, CP and CN, are challenged when they have provided poor service or imposed unfair costs on farmers.  

“The CWB has been active in pushing for a costing review.  It’s clear that the railways are overcharging farmers for shipping their grain, to the tune of $200 million per year.  How are farmers going to effectively challenge the railways without the CWB?” stated NFU Board Member Doug Scott.    

“The federal government is completely ignoring the fact that the CWB belongs to farmers.  We pay for it, and we make the decisions about its operations and the future of the single desk.  The federal government is being highly undemocratic by trying to run roughshod over the rights of farmers like this,” said NFU Region 6 Coordinator Ed Sagan.   

“We encourage all farmers and citizens to fill out the on-line petition prepared by the Government of Manitoba, which supports the right of farmers to decide the future of the CWB,” stated Boehm.  – 30 –

The on-line petition is located at:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/farmers/index.html

For further information, please contact:

 Terry Boehm             NFU President                                                            (306) 255-2880

Ian Robson                  NFU Region 5 (Manitoba) Coordinator         (204) 858-2479

Edward Sagan             NFU Region 6 (Saskatchewan) Coordinator (306) 728-3760

Doug Scott                  NFU Region 7 (Alberta) Board Member       (780) 358-2376

Kevin Wipf                 NFU Executive Director                                (306) 652-9465  

= = = = = = = = =  

Wheat board’s going… now what?
Monopoly did much more for farmers than just sell their grain for them
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/wheat-boards-going-now-what-121432864.html

By: Laura Rance

The allure of the U.S. market has perhaps been the biggest driver in the campaign to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly.

But unless they tread lightly, it could be one of the first markets Canadian farmers lose after the federal Conservatives make good on their election promise.

Southern Prairie farmers have fumed for years over the difference between U.S. spot market prices and the CWB pool prices, which are an average of sales made to customers in 70 or so countries throughout the year.

As things are now, farmers can’t legally haul to a U.S. elevator. They must sell their wheat through the board, which does the marketing direct to U.S. processors as it does with customers elsewhere. Farmers have the option of buying their grain back from the pool and then selling into the United States, but most find doing the paperwork too bothersome.

U.S. exports, currently at two million tonnes for wheat and durum and 600,000 tonnes for malting barley, are about one-tenth of Canada’s total sales. Not surprisingly, spot prices on a given day are often higher than average prices from all sales to all customers over a year.

Many farmers think that if freed of the pooling system, they could simply sell everything to the United States. In an open market, they would be free to try.

Here’s the catch. Long lines of Canadian grain trucks at northern U.S. grain elevators will be about as welcome as a snowstorm in May — especially if those deliveries plug up the pipeline or have an effect on prices, either real or perceived. Just ask softwood lumber, cattle and hog producers. A trade backlash that makes crossing the border prohibitively expensive is almost inevitable.

The Canadian Wheat Board has spent nearly $18 million fighting 14 trade cases with the United States since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement, which supposedly secured Canadian access. Under a voluntary CWB, the task of taking on U.S. trade law will fall to commodity groups and taxpayers through federal and provincial governments.

The unfortunate reality about the so-called “Canadian Wheat Board debate” is that virtually all of the rhetoric has centred on the merits of the single desk. The often-bitter arguments have waffled between the economics, whether farmers do better by pooling their grain and sharing the average proceeds, and the philosophical, whether private entrepreneurs should be forced to market collectively.

Very little discussion has taken place over the board’s other roles and who will step into them once the board no longer represents all wheat, durum and barley growers. Many assume a voluntary board will continue to carry out the same market development, research and customer-service functions, but with little consideration as to how it would do that, or why.

Farmers, through the Canadian Wheat Board, are the biggest private-sector investors in wheat and barley research in Canada. They pay a checkoff on sales that raises about $6 million annually for varietal development through the Western Grains Research Foundation.

That will change, perhaps even disappear, under a voluntary board. Why would remaining board supporters continue to shoulder the costs of research that also benefits their competition in an open market?

The Canadian Wheat Board is one of the founders and major clients of the Canadian International Grains Institute (CIGI), which offers technical support and training to Canada’s customers. Other commodities and other countries have market development agencies too, such as the largely government-funded U.S. Wheat Associates. But while it travels the world cheerleading for U.S. wheat, it has no direct relationship with customers.

The Canadian approach for wheat, durum and barley is customer specific and unparalleled. It has played a key role in branding Canadian wheat as the best in the world. And it’s cheap, costing about half of one per cent of the CWB’s total sales.

If CIGI, which is financed through matching contributions from industry and government, loses the CWB’s contribution, it loses 60 per cent of its funding. Who fills the gap and how? 

– – – SNIP – – –

The debate over the future of the Canadian Wheat Board ended May 2. Farmers will be freed from single-desk selling. But ending the monopoly is the easy part. It’s what comes afterwards that gets complicated.

Laura Rance is editor of the Manitoba Co-operator. She can be reached at 792–4382 or by email: laura  AT  fbcpublishing.com.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 7, 2011 B6

= = = = = = = =

 WikiLeaks : US bid to “shore up” Harper from the day he was elected

http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2011/06/wikileaks-us-bid-to-shore-up-harper.html

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

An embassy cable　written by　US Ambassador David Wilkins the　day the Cons were first elected in 2006

http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011

suggests Harper would be useful in advancing the US agenda for Canada and that　giving　him ” a success story” like the softwood lumber deal would “shore up” his ability to stay in office without appearing to “sell out to the Americans”.

It’s pretty well a quid pro quo blueprint for every Canada-US initiative Harper has dutifully followed ever since.

Excerpted :

The election of a new government, after thirteen years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing U.S. interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe.

Significantly, the socially liberal core values of the opposition are more in line with most Canadians than the minority Conservatives, weakening their mandate even further. Given a relatively weak mandate and tenuous hold on power, Harper will move deliberately but cautiously to get a few successes under his belt before doing anything even remotely bold.

Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America. But as he has done already with many of his core social and fiscal values, he will simply have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as “selling out to the Americans” to a skeptical Canadian public. I know Harper will be warm and cordial in his dealings with the U.S., but he also has to demonstrate that he has the ability to advance Canada’s interests with Washington, and he may feel compelled to step back from gestures that could be construed as a close embrace.

That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government. I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil’s Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.

Another area where the new government will seek engagement will undoubtedly be border security. Finding a few high-profile SPP-type deliverables to improve cross border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper’s credentials. Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts.

Enhanced info sharing on Canadians, the shiprider program, the imported war on drugs.

On other issues, Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable and deployable force; we have little to contribute to this debate and should stay out of it. He has also suggested that the missile defense decision could be re-examined.

With regards to our transformational agenda, there will be numerous opportunities for engagement. However, I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas — keeping Canada in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there.

And right about now I’m guessing you’re remembering some of Harper’s more bizarre outbursts on Iran, his caginess about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and Canada’s new “leadership role in Haiti” where DFAIT is buying up property to house an infusion of Canadian officials.

Back to Wilkins’ cable :

“We’re going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners.

I look forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda.”

Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, enhanced information sharing, war on drugs, joint maritime operations, security perimeter … There’s also a section on Canada “engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba.”
Has Canada done anything independent of this cable under Harper?

David Emerson, who crossed the floor to　the Cons to implement the soft wood lumber deal a week after he was elected as a Liberal in Vancouver, is mentioned in a second Wilkins cable just after the deal　was signed with USTR Ambassador Susan Schwab eight months later.

Here they are quoted discussing International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a US law which proscribes Canadian dual nationals from some countries from work on the arms deals that comprise 40% of Canadian defense procurement from the US, and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative:

“It would be better, she continued, if we could look at issues as if there were a common border surrounding Canada and the U.S., rather than as an issue caused by the Canadian-U.S. border. Emerson agreed. He said that policies such as the WHTI are a “running sore” in the bilateral relationship and are inconsistent with policies to integrate the Canadian and U.S. economies to the maximum extent possible.”

So, again, Steve, we ask: How’s that US security perimeter deal with Barry coming along?

= = = = = = = =

Was softwood lumber deal a gift so Harper government could be more pro-American?

http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011

Even before Conservatives were elected, leaked cables show US was looking to influence new government on Americas, Afghanistan, cross-border initiatives.

By Lee Berthiaume　　　　　　　　　　Published Jun 6, 2011 6:05 PM

A newly-released diplomatic cable indicates the deal to end the softwood lumber dispute in summer 2006 was a gift from the Americans to bolster the Harper government’s credibility so it could be more pro-US in future dealings.

In addition, the document shows that even before it was elected, American officials were planning on how they could use a Harper government to advance their own agenda on law enforcement, border security and co-operation in the hemisphere. The cable lays out a number of potential policies and areas of co-operation—most of which have since come to pass.

The document from the US Embassy in Ottawa is dated Jan. 23, 2006, hours before Paul Martin’s Liberals were defeated by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, giving the latter their first minority government.

“The election of a new government, after 13 years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing US interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe,” reads the cable from then-US ambassador David Wilkins.

It does go to pains to note the weak position the Harper government would be in, not just because of its minority status, but also because most Canadians were more socially liberal than the Conservative government.

In addition, “relations with the US will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. The new prime minister would “have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as ‘selling out to the Americans’ to a skeptical Canadian public.”

“That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. “I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil’s Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Press reports here indicate a growing willingness across Canada to get back to the table. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.”

Less than four months later, Canada and the US reached an agreement on softwood lumber, with the Americans returning 80 per cent of the $5.3 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports over the years.

However, if the deal was supposed to give the Conservative government an accomplishment to show the public it could stand up for the country and defend Canada’s interests in dealing with the US, it badly backfired.

A large number of softwood lumber industry groups, the BC government and the federal Liberals and NDP strongly opposed the agreement, declaring that the Harper government had in fact sold out to the Americans. The Conservatives retaliated by describing it as the best agreement possible and made the deal a confidence motion. The Bloc Québécois ended up supporting it to avoid an election, and the BC government also eventually signed on after a number of amendments.

Looked forward to helping ‘connect the dots’ for Harper

While resolving the softwood lumber dispute may not have provided the success story US and Canadian officials had been hoping for, many of the other items identified by Mr. Wilkins as being on the US “agenda” continued moving ahead.

The ambassador said the new Harper government would seek engagement on border security, and he recommended “finding a few high-profile [Security and Prosperity Partnership]-type deliverables to improve cross-border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper’s credentials.”

Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts,” Mr. Wilkins concluded.

At the SPP meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006, leaders agreed to a number of initiatives, such as the creation of a powerful advisory group composed of the continent’s largest businesses, a cross-border emergency and disaster management agreement, and a commitment to improving security at the border without making trade more difficult. Then in May 2006, Congress approved an 18-month delay in implementation of visa requirements for cross-border land and sea travellers.

While the significance of each of these possible “deliverables” is debatable, it is clear that many of the other areas identified as US priorities were nonetheless acted upon. Canada and the US have since significantly increased information sharing in a variety of ways. They have also made joint maritime operations a common activity on the border, starting with the Great Lakes and Operation Shiprider, and they have worked more closely on fighting drug trafficking, both along the border and in the hemisphere. This has included tougher laws and sentences for drug offenders.

Not all of the issues of interest to American officials were bilateral. Mr. Wilkins, who at one point said he was looking forward to “forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda,” wrote that there were a number of other areas where the US could lead Canada.

“I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. “We’re going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners.”

Some of the priority areas identified by the ambassador included working to keep Canada “in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there.”

One of the government’s first decisions was to extend the Afghan mission to 2008, while it has taken lead role in censuring Iran on the international stage and, in summer 2006, made Canada the second largest donor to Haiti.

Again, the degree to which the decisions, particularly on Afghanistan and Iran were influenced by US officials is unclear, as many of them fell squarely in line with the Harper government’s views and priorities. However, Mr. Wilkins also suggested getting Canada to begin “engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba.”

In 2007, the Harper government made the Americas one of its first international priorities, a major and surprising shift in Canadian foreign policy after decades of work in Africa. Among the positions adopted included cooler relations with the Venezuela and even Cuba, and stalwart economic, development and political support for Colombia—all of which reflect US policies.

While there have long been indications of behind-the-scenes Canadian-American co-ordination when it came to the hemisphere, this is the first indication that the US may have been responsible for the Conservative government making Latin America and the Caribbean a priority.

lee@embassymag.ca

2011-06-12 Submissions made by other people to the search for a president for a Canadian University

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Take back the University  4 Responses »
Jun 122011
 

This page is available to people who would like to share the submission they made to the University Search Committee for the Next President (reference:  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=2497)

Please copy and paste your submission into the “COMMENTS” box.   (I will receive notice of your input and “approve'” it right away, making it available to others.)  

Thanks!  

Sandra

2011-06-12 GREAT OPPORTUNITY! The University wants your input on the characteristics of the next president.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Take back the University  No Responses »
Jun 122011
 

 (Please post Comments to the following  at  2011-06-12  Submissions made to the search for a president for a Canadian University .  Thanks!)

If you have concerns about the corporatization of universities, here’s your chance to have your say, no matter where you live in Canada!

Please help, circulate widely – what happens in Saskatchewan can affect other universities. 

DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:   Monday,  June 20th,   send to  presidential.search@usask.ca 

If you wish to make an anonymous submission to the University, please get in touch with me.

 CONTENTS

  1. INVITATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN TO HAVE YOUR SAY IN THE SELECTION OF THE NEXT PRESIDENT
  2. LISTING OF NETWORK EMAILS,  MAY BE USEFUL TO SOME
  3. Please consider posting your submission for others to see.  Click on Submissions made to the search for a president for a Canadian University.
  4. I will post my submission to the University as soon as it is written!

Cheers!

Sandra

= = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

  1. INVITATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN TO HAVE YOUR SAY IN THE SELECTION OF THE NEXT PRESIDENT

If you are having trouble viewing this message please click here.

 
The following is a message from Nancy Hopkins, chair, U of S Board of Governors and chair, presidential search committee.After a remarkable 12 years as president of the University of Saskatchewan, Peter MacKinnon is stepping down as of June 2012. We are beginning the process of finding our next president. The U of S made great strides under President MacKinnon, and as Saskatchewan continues to prosper and take its place in the world, so too does our university.Opportunities for Consultation
You are invited to help inform the search process and will be offered opportunities to provide feedback.Three public town hall meetings have been scheduled as follows:SaskatoonDate: Thursday, June 9, 2011Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.Location: Convocation Hall, 105 Administration Place, University of SaskatchewanDate: Monday, June 13, 2011

Time: 7 to 8:30 p.m.

Location: Frances Morrison Library, 311-23rd Street East

Regina

Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Location: Radisson Plaza Hotel Saskatchewan, 2125 Victoria Ave.

The search committee will invite attendees at each town hall to share their thinking about these questions:

  • What in your view are the main issues and challenges that will be facing the University of Saskatchewan over the term of the next president-that is, over the next 5-10 years?
  • Given the context, what are the qualifications, experience and vision that you believe the presidential search committee should be seeking in our next president?
  • Should the presidential search committee be seeking candidates outside the academic field, and if so, from which sectors?

If you are unable to attend the town hall, the committee encourages your written comments in response to these questions. You may send your responses to presidential.search@usask.ca by Monday, June 20, 2011.

Detailed information about the presidential search process can be found at www.usask.ca/presidentialsearch.

Your input to inform the search process is critical and the committee looks forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Nancy Hopkins
 

 = = = = = =  = = ==  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

2.      LISTING OF NETWORK EMAILS,  MAY BE USEFUL TO SOME

• 2009-11-04   Universities & Values.   EXTRAORDINARY, JK Rowling.

JK Rowling’s address to Graduating Class at Harvard University as blueprint for administration of University.

• 2011-05-16   Framework (four topics) for discussion on direction taken by the University

• 2011-05-05   Selection of next president for University: The Chancellor is appointed as the Representative for the Senate on the Search Committee.  No comment.

• 2011-03-15   Process for selection of the new President for the University, Peter Mackinnon’s memo, Jan 28, 2011

• 2011-04-28   Lawyer Stefania Fortugno, letter to University re conflicts-of-interest, nuclear industry Cameco on Board of Governors

• 2011-04-21   Tax-payers give $30 million (or $47?) to Nuke at U of S, Nancy Hopkins Chairs U Board of Governors, is on Cameco Board, has $1.8 million in Cameco shares, Chairs Search for next President +

•   2011-01-21   Top U of S officials face criticism over law dean selection

• 2011-01-08   “Inside Job”, movie narrated by Matt Damon, highly recommended

(“Inside Job” does a nice job of documenting the role of some Deans of Universities and some other academics in supporting the corporate agenda, a complete betrayal of what is needed to stop the corruption of the public interest.  “Inside Job” relates to Wall Street and the U.S.;  Canadian universities are following the American universities.  It is not only some business colleges that are involved (Wall Street) but colleges of Agriculture,  Pharmacology, Toxicology, etc. )

• 2011-01-02   “Expert Political Judgement: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” Bottom line: think for yourself.

• 2010-12-20    Big Pharma – Dollars for Docs (PBS Nightly Business Report). Stanford Medical School Professors Violate Rules By Accepting Paid Speaking Roles.

• 2010-09-23    The corporate agenda at the University: Tackle this one with a quick phone call or email

• 2010-03-05    Love, Hate & Propaganda, the art of mass persuasion (WW2) on CBC

Propaganda is the centre pin in usurping democracy.  You get from democracy to fascism through the use of propaganda. 

Most people understand the equivalence between fascism and corporate governance.  

It is historically common for the “influential” people of a society to participate in the deterioration from democracy into fascism.   The record of the Nazis is that many judges, doctors and people with money became collaborators. 

When you bring corporate interests into the Universities you replace democratic values with corporate values, in the society’s knowledge base. 

“Science” is associated with our universities.  Other postings document the bastardization of science by corporate money.  “Science under Siege” is particularly good.   

Corporate universities become “advertisers”, willing tools.  Most people understand that “advertising” is the sanitized corporate word for “propaganda”, taking us full circle back to the centre pin required for the transition from democracy to corporatocracy (fascism):  propaganda. 

• 2010-03-10    Propaganda, Democracy: Imagining “the other”. Ralston Saul. The Cellist of Sarajevo.

This posting is not directly about the universities;  it has implications.  The corporate university plays a significant role in the undermining of democracy.

• 2009-12-24    NUKE: The University has soul-searching to do while it still has a soul to save.

• 2009-12-04    NUKE, Nuclear Waste. Who is the NWMO? Tactics. John Ralston Saul “On Equilibrium”.

• 2009-11-19    H1N1 (or nukes or gmo’s or energy) in the context of “Selling Out”: the larger issue. Immune systems. TB. Constant Gardener.

• 2009-11-15    Corporatized universities devalue education

• 2009-10-10    Corporations at the Universities. Selling Out. Richard Florizone and UDP. Nuclear at the University.

• 2008-07-23    Letter to Dalhousie University re 2 million dollars from Lockheed Martin

•  2006-04-12    Real-life experience. PPP’s and corruption in action. Government-University-Chemical Biotech.

• 2005-08-05    But what’s happening in the forest? (Science under siege) & Successful Revolutions

• 2005-04-22    Jane Jacobs, “Dark Age Ahead”.   A word of caution.  Loss of the knowledge base.

• 2004-01-11    Biotech critics at risk, San Francisco Chronicle. Scientists attacked. Corruption of science by corporate interests.

• 2011-04-23    The role of values when it comes to governing ourselves. Cruelty to animals a case in point.  (Universities and ILO’s)

• 2011-04-23    ONE disease, different manifestations.  Proposal: “Disease” organizations form a coalition against poisons.  People with the diseases and developmental problems are the best advocates.  Meet with University Toxicology, Agriculture, Water, Environment, Medicine, Dentistry:  many of us are what happens as a consequence of your failure to serve and defend the public interest.

• 2011-04-02    Lawsuit seeks to invalidate Monsanto’s GMO patents, Yeee-aay!

• 2011-01-10    Enviro-Pig = pig genes + E. coli genes + mouse DNA. Seriously. Coming to your favourite restaurant and you will never know the difference!

• 2010-11-01    Saskatchewan Aviation Learning Centre Grand Opening at SIIT. Lockheed Martin’s “products” not itemized (UAVs, cluster munitions, DU weapons, land mines).

• 2010-09-23    The corporate agenda at the University: Tackle this one with a quick phone call or email

• 2010-02-25    Understanding why we flounder, help from John Ralston Saul “On Equilibrium”

• 2010-02-11     Manipulators without conscience. This is your food. Bayer’s GM rice. Triffid (U of S) GM flax. Jane Jacobs on separation of commerce and governance.

• 2009-11-29     NUKE  The Chronology IMPORTANT INFORMATION

• 2009-01-13     Bayer’s biocide glufosinate is banned in Europe as of January 2009. What is status in Canada?

• 2004-06-06    Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships (P3s)

List of corporations, government bodies and universities that are the Canadian Council for PPPs (as at 2004)

2011-06-10 NUKE: Why the Northern Saskatchewan Forum voted (June 2) to ban nuclear wastes

 Radioactive waste  No Responses »
Jun 102011
 

WHY THE NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN FORUM VOTED TO BAN NUCLEAR WASTES

BY Jim Harding

R-Town Papers, June 10, 2011

On the afternoon of June 2nd two hundred people mostly from ten northern communities gathered in the school auditorium at Beauval for the “Forum for Truth on Nuclear Waste Storage”. It was organized by the recently formed Committee for Future Generations, which in barely two weeks got the word out all across northern Saskatchewan. When I arrived at Beauval late on June 1st I was astonished by the number of road signs announcing the event.

People came from Beauval, La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, Ile a la Crosse, Canoe Narrows, Turnor Lake, Pinehouse, Patuanak and La Ronge. A few also came from Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Lloydminster and Regina. Northern mayors, elders, women and youth attended, with the presence of youth being remarkably strong. When I walked into the school auditorium I was greeted by students holding signs they had painted for the forum, saying: “Why here?; “We Want To Keep Our Environment Clean and Safe”; “Why Is This Happening?”, and “Is Mother Earth Important To You?” One read: “We Don’t Want Your Death Money!”

Great concern was expressed about the way the nuclear industry was trying to buy its way into northern politics and culture. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has created a committee of hand-picked, paid “elders” who they say will bring an “Aboriginal perspective” to the search for a northern community to host a nuclear dump. The Committee for Future Generations has asked “who are they, how were they appointed, what is the protocol for representation, how are they being accountable to the people, and how are they getting paid?” These are questions the NWMO should answer.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and Métis Council of Canada have warned of this insidious approach. In its 2005 report the AFN said “To cite with favour the seven generations teaching while at the same time promoting nuclear energy is inconsistent at best and at worst denigrates and belittles the value of Traditional Knowledge and the First Nations cultures, beliefs and spiritual practices.”

DEATH MONEY

If NWMO sincerely wanted to get aboriginal community perspective it would have come to this widely-attended gathering. But Pat Patton, who heads up NWMO’s “Aboriginal Relations”, declined. It turned out that her previous commitment was taking Pinehouse and Patuanak officials to tour a nuclear facility in eastern Canada. So while people from the communities being targeted for a nuclear dump gathered to ask questions and air concerns, some elected community officials were away on a nuclear industry-sponsored tour.

This is clearly more about manipulation than consultation.

The Committee for Future Generations calls for complete transparency of NWMO’s activities in the north. Many at the forum expressed concerns and even anger about all the meetings behind closed doors. A closed NWMO strategy meeting at Pinehouse May 4th inadvertently left its flip-charts behind. These were most revealing. One recorded comment was about “sugar-coating the information” going into the north. Another was about being sure there were “knowledge interpreters”. Some NWMO-selected, paid “elders” were in attendance.

The NWMO is following a two-track strategy in the north. On the one hand it says that a community has to agree to “host” a nuclear dump; that there must be “informed consent”. On the other hand it works behind the scene, with multi-million dollar inducements, to make sure some people are already benefitting, while sugar-coating a nuclear dump to sound good for the north. Several Métis and First Nations leaders spoke eloquently about how NWMO’s process is undermining the duty to consult. NWMO’s deceit is starting to unravel.

FINDING BALANCE

The NWMO wouldn’t send anyone to this first large northern forum on nuclear wastes. It also wrote the organizers that high-profile paid “elders” like Jim Sinclair couldn’t speak for NWMO. But the Committee for Future Generations didn’t want the forum to occur without the NWMO’s position being fairly presented. They did not want to repeat what the NWMO does and present only one side of the controversy. So right at the beginning they played two NWMO’s video’s describing the nuclear waste repository project.

I was then invited to speak about why Saskatchewan should declare a ban on nuclear wastes. I’ve read most NWMO documents as part of my ongoing research, but was still taken by the statement in one video that their nuclear waste containers would “last 100,000 years”. How can any credible organization make such a claim? And how would future generations ever verify this? Would people continue to communicate about NWMO’s guarantee of a period ten times recorded history, and then, after 100,000 years, risk digging down to see if the containers were still intact? And if they weren’t intact, where would they go? And anyway we know that the radioactivity in the nuclear wastes would actually rise after 100,000 years.

Such absurd NWMO claims show why an arms-length body, not controlled by industry, should be considering what to do with nuclear wastes. I asked those at the forum what they would think if DOW Chemical or DuPont came to their community to entice them to take their toxic chemical wastes. We wouldn’t tolerate this. So why are the Wall and Harper governments even allowing the nuclear industry to try to find a place to dump their wastes in the north?

ARMS LENGTH GROUP

A non-industry group should be looking at realistic options for nuclear wastes, including stopping producing them. And you can be sure that it wouldn’t consider trucking 18,000 truckloads of high-level nuclear wastes half way across Canada to dump in northern Saskatchewan. The only reason the industry is shopping around here is because Ontario doesn’t want to have to dump its nuclear wastes within its more densely populated province. And the major rationale for centralizing waste storage is to be able to get the plutonium as a future fuel source.

If a geological repository was such a safe idea and would bring such economic benefits, why isn’t it happening in southern Ontario, near the nuclear plants? The nuclear plants are, after all, also in the Canadian Shield. History explains! Northern Ontario kicked the industry out in the 1970s, Manitoba did the same thing in the 1980s, and now Quebec has banned importing nuclear wastes. When the industry came to Saskatchewan in 1991, to the Meadow Lake Tribal Council (MLTC), they were also told to go home.  But the industry has come back in sheep’s clothing, peddling the same idea that was rejected by the federal inquiry in 1998. This time the NWMO is playing the economic card in a big way.

FORUM SAYS NO!

The Committee for Future Generations has seen through the deceit. After seeing NWMO’s videos, hearing the argument for a nuclear waste ban, and hearing from many people from the north, the forum voted unanimously to ban nuclear wastes in Saskatchewan. It also voted to hold more open forums, the next one to be held in Pinehouse where the NWMO is in negotiations to host a nuclear dump. After that they will go to Patuanak, the other targeted community. Some elders also asked for their names and photos to be removed from NWMO documents, so there was no impression being left that they supported a nuclear dump in the north. Now we will have to wait and see whether the NWMO just ups the ante, and pours even more “death money” into the north, or whether the hand-picked “elders” still receiving NWMO money finally realize they don’t speak for their communities.

This is self-determination and participatory democracy in action. People throughout the south who don’t want to see nuclear wastes trucked along their highways should support the northerners who have spoken at this forum. You can show your support by contacting: committeeforfuturegenerations@gmail.com or going to their Face book: “Say No To Nuclear Waste Storage In Northern Saskatchewan”.

more on nuclear waste at: http://jimharding.brinkster.net

2011-06-07 WikiLeaks : US bid to “shore up” Harper from the day he was elected

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis  No Responses »
Jun 072011
 

The report on the leaked information is followed by an on-line copy of the original cables.  I rooted through the latter website;  I believe it is legitimate.   /Sandra

 

WikiLeaks : US bid to “shore up” Harper from the day he was elected

http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2011/06/wikileaks-us-bid-to-shore-up-harper.html

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

 

An embassy cable　written by  US Ambassador David Wilkins the day the Cons were first elected in 2006  suggests Harper would be useful in advancing the US agenda for Canada and that　giving him ” a success story” like the softwood lumber deal would “shore up” his ability to stay in office without appearing to “sell out to the Americans”.

It’s pretty well a quid pro quo blueprint for every Canada-US initiative Harper has dutifully followed ever since.

Excerpted:   (THIS IS WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE CABLES THAT WIKILEAKS PUBLISHED)

The election of a new government, after thirteen years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing U.S. interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe.

Significantly, the socially liberal core values of the opposition are more in line with most Canadians than the minority Conservatives, weakening their mandate even further. Given a relatively weak mandate and tenuous hold on power, Harper will move deliberately but cautiously to get a few successes under his belt before doing anything even remotely bold.

Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America. But as he has done already with many of his core social and fiscal values, he will simply have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as “selling out to the Americans” to a skeptical Canadian public. I know Harper will be warm and cordial in his dealings with the U.S., but he also has to demonstrate that he has the ability to advance Canada’s interests with Washington, and he may feel compelled to step back from gestures that could be construed as a close embrace.

That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government. I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil’s Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.

Another area where the new government will seek engagement will undoubtedly be border security. Finding a few high-profile SPP-type deliverables to improve cross border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper’s credentials. Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts.

Enhanced info sharing on Canadians, the shiprider program, the imported war on drugs.

On other issues, Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable and deployable force; we have little to contribute to this debate and should stay out of it. He has also suggested that the missile defense decision could be re-examined.
With regards to our transformational agenda, there will be numerous opportunities for engagement. However, I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas — keeping Canada in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there.

And right about now I’m guessing you’re remembering some of Harper’s more bizarre outbursts on Iran, his caginess about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and Canada’s new “leadership role in Haiti“ where DFAIT is buying up property to house an infusion of Canadian officials.
Back to Wilkins’ cable :

“We’re going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners.

I look forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda.”

Afghanistan, Iran, Haiti, enhanced information sharing, war on drugs, joint maritime operations, security perimeter … There’s also a section on Canada “engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba.”

Has Canada done anything independent of this cable under Harper?

David Emerson, who crossed the floor to the Cons to implement the soft wood lumber deal a week after he was elected as a Liberal in Vancouver, is mentioned in a second Wilkins cable just after the deal was signed with USTR Ambassador Susan Schwab eight months later.

Here they are quoted discussing International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a US law which proscribes (INSERT:  forbids, BY LAW)  Canadian dual nationals from some countries from work on the arms deals that comprise 40% of Canadian defense procurement from the US, and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative　　:

“It would be better, she continued, if we could look at issues as if there were a common border surrounding Canada and the U.S., rather than as an issue caused by the Canadian-U.S. border. Emerson agreed. He said that policies such as the WHTI are a “running sore” in the bilateral relationship and are inconsistent with policies to integrate the Canadian and U.S. economies to the maximum extent possible.”

So, again, Steve, we ask: How’s that US security perimeter deal with Barry coming along?
. . . . . . .

Posted by Alison at 5:18 AM

Labels: Afghanistan, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, David Emerson, deep integration, Haiti, Harper, Obama, security perimeter, softwood lumber, SPP, WHTI, WikiLeaks, Wilkins

= = = = = = = =

Was softwood lumber deal a gift so Harper government could be more pro-American?

http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/us_gave_harper_softwood_lumber_deal_as_a_gift_to_allow_closer_cooperation_on_drugs_americas_cable_06-06-2011

Even before Conservatives were elected, leaked cables show US was looking to influence new government on Americas, Afghanistan, cross-border initiatives.

By Lee Berthiaume　　　　　　　　　　Published Jun 6, 2011 6:05 PM

A newly-released diplomatic cable indicates the deal to end the softwood lumber dispute in summer 2006 was a gift from the Americans to bolster the Harper government’s credibility so it could be more pro-US in future dealings.

In addition, the document shows that even before it was elected, American officials were planning on how they could use a Harper government to advance their own agenda on law enforcement, border security and co-operation in the hemisphere. The cable lays out a number of potential policies and areas of co-operation—most of which have since come to pass.

The document from the US Embassy in Ottawa is dated Jan. 23, 2006, hours before Paul Martin’s Liberals were defeated by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, giving the latter their first minority government.

“The election of a new government, after 13 years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing US interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe,” reads the cable from then-US ambassador David Wilkins.

It does go to pains to note the weak position the Harper government would be in, not just because of its minority status, but also because most Canadians were more socially liberal than the Conservative government.

In addition, “relations with the US will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. The new prime minister would “have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as ‘selling out to the Americans’ to a skeptical Canadian public.”

“That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government,” Mr. Wilkins wrote. “I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil’s Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Press reports here indicate a growing willingness across Canada to get back to the table. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.”

Less than four months later, Canada and the US reached an agreement on softwood lumber, with the Americans returning 80 per cent of the $5.3 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports over the years.

However, if the deal was supposed to give the Conservative government an accomplishment to show the public it could stand up for the country and defend Canada’s interests in dealing with the US, it badly backfired.

A large number of softwood lumber industry groups, the BC government and the federal Liberals and NDP strongly opposed the agreement, declaring that the Harper government had in fact sold out to the Americans. The Conservatives retaliated by describing it as the best agreement possible and made the deal a confidence motion. The Bloc Québécois ended up supporting it to avoid an election, and the BC government also eventually signed on after a number of amendments. [ . . . ]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  == =

http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=06OTTAWA194

Cable reference id: #06OTTAWA194

“All of them, those in power, and those who want the power, would pamper us, if we agreed to overlook their crookedness by wilfully restricting our activities.” — “Refus Global“, Paul-Émile Borduas

Full-text search Browse tags Overview Publishing history Private cart WL Central The magic of WikiLeaks: telling it like it is Andrew Fowler on Assange

Subject Canada’s New Government: Opportunities And Challenges
Origin Embassy Ottawa
Cable time Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:42 UTC
Classification CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN
Reference id 06OTTAWA194
Source http://wikileaks.fi/cable/2006/01/06OTTAWA194.html
Release time Wed, 18 May 2011 03:30 UTC
History First published on Thu, 19 May 2011 10:42 UTC

VZCZCXRO9050 OO RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHQU RUEHVC DE RUEHOT #0194/01 0231542 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 231542Z JAN 06 FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1194 INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RHMFISS/HQ USNORTHCOM IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/OSD WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUEAHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE

Hide headerC O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000194 SIPDIS NOFORN SIPDIS FOR THE SECRETARY FROM AMBASSADOR WILKINS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/22/2016 TAGS: PGOV [Internal Governmental Affairs] PREL [External Political Relations] CA [Canada] SUBJECT: CANADA’S NEW GOVERNMENT: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Classified By: AMBASSADOR DAVID WILKINS, REASONS 1.4 (B) (D) ¶1. (C/NF)

Summary: Unless the polls are badly mistaken, Canada’s Conservatives will win today’s election and Stephen Harper will be asked by the Governor General to form a minority government. The election of a new government, after thirteen years of Liberal rule, presents opportunities for advancing U.S. interests in such areas as law enforcement and continental security, and in developing Canada as a more useful partner in the Hemisphere and around the globe. However, managing the bilateral relationship with an inexperienced, inherently weak minority government also poses challenges and calls for some soft treading. End Summary

¶2. (C/NF) Assuming that the polls are right and he falls short of a Parliamentary majority, Harper will know that the Conservative hold on power will be tenuous. The Tory seat total will allow them to form government, but the combined forces of the opposition (Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and NDP) could cause the Conservatives to fall at virtually any time. The Conservatives also have no natural allies among the three opposition parties, so Harper’s government will have to take things one issue, and one week, at a time. Significantly, the socially liberal core values of the opposition are more in line with most Canadians than the minority Conservatives, weakening their mandate even further. Working in the Conservative’s favor, however, and giving them a bit of operating space, is the fact that the Liberals will need to switch leaders, and the Bloc may have hit its high-water mark, so no one will want to see an election too soon. But fairly early in 2007 the Conservatives know that the political sharks will start to circle in earnest. The last Tory minority government lasted eight months, and we could easily see another election within a year.

¶3. (C/NF) Given a relatively weak mandate and tenuous hold on power, Harper will move deliberately but cautiously to get a few successes under his belt before doing anything even remotely bold. His first initiatives will likely deal with the core issues he was elected to improve — corruption and accountability — for which he can gain widespread Parliamentary and popular support. This will allow him to test the waters in Parliament and get his team organized before moving on to areas that may spark controversy.

¶4. (C/NF) Relations with the U.S. will be tricky for Harper, who along with many members of his caucus has an ideological and cultural affinity for America. But as he has done already with many of his core social and fiscal values, he will simply have to sideline this affinity in order to not be painted as “selling out to the Americans” to a skeptical Canadian public. I know Harper will be warm and cordial in his dealings with the U.S., but he also has to demonstrate that he has the ability to advance Canada’s interests with Washington, and he may feel compelled to step back from gestures that could be construed as a close embrace. I would also note that, unlike Martin, Harper has very little foreign experience; he will tend to focus, at least initially, on bilateral issues closer to home such as softwood lumber and the border.

¶5. (C/NF) That said, I see a real opportunity for us to advance our agenda with the new government. I recommend Qadvance our agenda with the new government. I recommend early on that we look for an opportunity to give Harper a bilateral success story by resolving an irritant such as the Devil’s Lake filter system or entering into good faith negotiations to reach a solution on softwood lumber. Press reports here indicate a growing willingness across Canada to get back to the table. Early success on a bilateral issue will bolster Harper and allow him to take a more pro-American position publicly without as much political risk.

¶6. (C/NF) Another area where the new government will seek engagement will undoubtedly be border security. Finding a few high-profile SPP-type deliverables to improve cross border movement of goods and services would help our image here as well as shore up Harper’s credentials. Laying this groundwork would then open the way for progress on cross-border law enforcement initiatives of interest to us, such as enhanced information-sharing, joint maritime operations, and more robust counter-narcotics efforts.

¶7. (C/NF) On other issues, Harper is committed to increasing spending on the armed forces and will do so, making the Canadian Armed Forces a more capable and deployable force; we have little to contribute to this debate and should stay out OTTAWA 00000194 002 OF 002 of it. He has also suggested that the missile defense decision could be re-examined, but I strongly recommend letting him define to us what this means and only then respond to it. With regards to our transformational agenda, there will be numerous opportunities for engagement. However, I suggest quietly working such cooperation with the new government through official, non-public channels, and that we focus on a handful of priority areas — keeping Canada in the game in Afghanistan as the mission turns more difficult and possibly more bloody; continuing to work together to keep the pressure on Iran; increasing support to the new government in Haiti, possibly even taking on more of a leadership role there; following through with good governance and economic assistance to the new Iraqi government; working closely with us and other partners on Sudan; and engaging more actively in other hemispheric trouble spots such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Cuba. We’re going to be recommending senior level visits and consultations on foreign policy issues to help bring Harper and his new, generally inexperienced team into the fold as more useful partners.

¶8. (C/NF) In short, I see both opportunities and challenges in the coming year in this bilateral relationship, and I look forward to helping connect the dots with the new government so we can effectively advance our agenda. Visit Canada’s Classified Web Site at http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa WILKINS

2011-06-05 Cogent letter to Statistics Canada: my right to privacy is of utmost importance to me (Lockheed Martin in census)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
Jun 052011
 

Sunday, June 5, 2011

 

Mr. Wayne Smith

Chief Statistician

Statistics Canada

Ottawa. Ontario, Canada

 

Dear Mr Smith,

I write this letter in the knowledge that you consider the information requested in your current census form as vital for purposes, which are of little interest or value to me personally whereas my right to privacy is of utmost importance to me.

I respectfully request to be excused from your request for me to provide information, which I regard as an intrusion into my personal and private life. Due to a long career as a management consultant I am very aware of the overabundance of detailed information that is available on individuals the fact of which I find highly objectionable.

However my request to be excused from the current census is based on three important and non-personal reasons:

  1. I insist on claiming my right to privacy according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.  By abdicating my Charter Rights to privacy I not only abandon my personal rights but I also abandon the right of every other Canadian to claim their right to privacy.  This is not something that I take lightly as I sincerely believe abdication of this right is the beginning of absolute governmental control of the lives of its citizens.  Having had a business in China I am all too aware of how intrusive government control can be.

It is my clear and unequivocal opinion that my right to privacy supersedes any need on the part of government to manage its affairs and your request for personal information, accompanied as it was with a threat of legal action, contravenes that right.

2.      I am not alone in my profound concern over the choice of supplier for the software support made by Treasury Board.  Apart from the fact the choice is part of the industrial military complex of a foreign country, I believe at some point the database that you claim to be secure will be hacked.  Are you willing to give me your personal guarantee that Statistics Canada will not be compromised in any way?  What price will come directly from you or your pocket if it is?  Are you  willing to come to my door and apologize to me or will there even be an apology?

Highly competent organizations such as the US Pentagon, Sony Corp., Google, Federal Governmental Departments etc., etc., the list is extensive, have all been the victim of Internet hackers.  So what then does it mean when the information provided by your department states that only authorized personnel will have access to the data?  In truth it is unlikely that you or anyone else can give absolute assurance that Stats Can will never experience an intrusion of this nature.  To my way of thinking the question isn’t IF you are going to be hacked it’s when.

I would ask you to consider the following statement from one of our few trusted civil servants, Jennifer Stoddard, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner.  In her “Message from the Privacy Commissioner” she writes; “Technological advances hold out the promise of greater convenience, but sometimes at a cost to human rights such as privacy and the ability to control our personal information.  Meanwhile, governments and businesses have a seemingly insatiable appetite for personal information.  Governments appear to believe – mistakenly, I would argue – that the key to national security and public safety is collecting mountains of personal data.  Privacy often receives short shrift as new anti-terrorism and law enforcement initiatives are rolled out.” Her comments are vitally important to those of us that choose to resist this constant intrusion into our personal lives, of which Stats Can is a participant.

3.     In addition, Stats Canada has received over $10,000,000. for information since 1996 from information that it has received through the collection of census data which is repackaged and sold.  Your department claims that no individual or personal information is sold but it is combined into consolidated statistical information that is sold; however I would like to point out to you that my information is a part of that consolidation for which Stats Canada is receiving money.  I therefore insist that a part of the monies received by Statistics Canada is rightfully mine.  If I am to be forced to provide data that is then sold to others it is only reasonable and just that I be compensated for that contribution.

As stated at the beginning of this letter I am a very private person and I more than strongly object to the way that information regarding the personal lives of individuals, including myself, are so disrespectfully collected and utilized for purposes that others profit by.  It is of little wonder that there is growing mistrust of all levels of government not the least of which is Statistics Canada.

Finally, I would like to point out that the self-serving admonition on the outside of the envelope that “It’s the law” is a poorly masked threat and I doubt anyone takes kindly to threats.

I realize you believe in the importance of statistical information and the value of that data and it is quite likely that you cannot conceive of anything more important than the statistics you desire but much more important than your need for data is my need for privacy.  Therefore, I will not, under any circumstances, respond to your request to provide private information regarding my personal life.  I respectfully decline to participate in the current or any other census taking from Stats Canada.

Yours sincerely;

(INSERT:  I am not publishing the author’s name at this time.  /Sandra)

2011-06-04 Beyond Border Working Group, stop them.

 Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Jun 042011
 

Dear Judy,

I sent the following to all the Conservative MP’s.  I am hoping that you will add your voice to the fight for Canada.

– – – – –  – – – – — – –

I hope you will take a minute to review the appended and arrive at your own conclusion.  Please stand up to your leadership.

Americans nor Canadians want integration of Canada and the U.S.

Failure to stop the Beyond Border Working Group will create greater and justified civil disobedience.

I sent the following to Lou Dobbs from CNN.  It explains.

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — –  – —

SENT:  Sat 6/4/2011 1:02 PM

TO:  lou  AT  loudobbs.com

Dear Lou,

IN FOLLOW-UP TO your coverage:

YouTube video, CNN Report, Lou Dobbs – reporter Bill Tucker, on the plans for North American Union 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?289963-Do-you-remember-that-whole-North-American-Union-conspiracy-It-may-not-be  

  The North American Union agenda has accelerated with the Harper majority Government elected on May 2nd  in Canada.    See the appended  Beyond the Border Working Group  “public consultation”.   Disregard the Government’s deadline (yesterday) for input.

I am hoping that you (Americans) will join with Canadians in an onslaught of demands to stop the North American Union (NAU).

The email addresses (Government of Canada) to send protest to:

border@ic.gc.ca; rcc-ccr@tbs-sct.gc.ca

Many thanks for your consideration.

I am sorry for the unkind references to the U.S.  in my communication appended.

My grandparents came from the U.S.  I have many friends in the U.S.

It is not “Americans” but  “Corporations” that are behind the lawlessness and corruption.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada

= = = = =  = = = = = = == =  = = = = = = = =

EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR THE BEYOND BORDER WORKING GROUP   &  LETTER OF PROTEST

 From: Sandra Finley
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:45 PM
To: border@ic.gc.ca; rcc-ccr@tbs-sct.gc.ca
Subject: Beyond Border Working Group

Dear Sirs and Mes dames,

  1. The U.S. is floundering in debt and corruption, hated abroad.   You are integrating Canada with a ship that is sinking.
  2. I am very pleased that you think I will believe your initiatives “would improve security while supporting economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity”.   I’ll let the American experience speak to that.  They know best how NAFTA has sent their manufacturing sector off-shore and how de-regulation to serve corporate interests (greed) has turned a million home-owners out into the streets.   You are espousing plans that have brought the American economy into bankruptcy and the international economic system to the brink.   You want to bring Canada to the same fate as the Americans.   Anyhow, I was saying that I am pleased you think I will believe your propaganda.  It signals to me that you are delusional.
  3. Your “joint action plan for . .  economic competitiveness”  is nothing more than a plan for handing over the Governance function to Corporate interests.  Those interests tend to be American.  American corporate interests want to secure access to resources, aided by the military-industrial complex if people resist.   It makes me want to get out my knife that is used for castrating calves.  I won’t, of course, use it on you!
  4. Your “joint action plan”  is an act of treason and deception.  Unmanned drones are already deployed along the Canada-U.S. border, etc etc  – the making of a military state.  Perhaps you have an addicted personality – – addicted personalities are master manipulators and adept at lying (I say this because of the propaganda and deception).
  5. I hope you are consulting with Americans as well as Canadians.  As you will know, the Americans are even more ready than Canadians to kill anything to do with the North American Union (related to NAFTA).  And they are better than Canadians at killing.
  6. You are engaged in illegitimate process.  You are engaged in deception.  You are claiming “public consultation” but are circumventing democratic participation by giving almost no notice to the public.   The deadline for input is June 3rd.  Most of your web pages about these consultations are dated May 26th – – one week ago.   The election was on May 2nd.   How much notice did you give?  How did you publicize the consultations?

Thank-you for this opportunity to express my point-of-view.

I wish it would make a difference.  But it won’t.  These consultations are a sham.  You have already sold us out.   (It doesn’t mean it’s the end of the battle.)

But you know, I don’t really get it.

Is it that you only love money?   and not something that is at least alive?

Otherwise, why would you do these dastardly deeds?

I would just like to understand that.  Can you explain it?  Is there some other motivator besides money?

If there isn’t, I am truly sorry for you.

As always,

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  

Subject: HIGH PRIORITY: Canada-U.S. Perimeter Deal and Economic Integration. DEAD-LINE FOR INPUT to the GOVERNMENT IS JUNE 3rd

People in the U.S. will want to know about this, too.

  CONTENTS

  1. “BEYOND THE BORDER WORKING GROUP” (CANADA – U.S.), ONE WEEK NOTICE, ON-LINE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS.
  2.  IF YOU THINK THIS ISN’T NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION, CHECK OUT THESE VARIOUS SOURCES.  IT IS NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY. 

= = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = =  = = = = ==  

  1.  “BEYOND THE BORDER WORKING GROUP” (CANADA – U.S.),  ONE WEEK NOTICE,  ON-LINE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS.

Beyond the Border Working Group

The Beyond the Border Working Group wants to hear from you on ways to preserve and extend the benefits the close relationship between Canada and the United States has helped bring to Canadians and Americans alike. Your input will inform the development of a joint action plan for perimeter security and economic competitiveness.

From now through to June 3, 2011, you can participate in our online consultation and provide your thoughts on initiatives that would improve security while supporting economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity.

Your input will inform the development of a joint action plan for perimeter security and economic competitiveness.

http://www.borderactionplan-plandactionfrontalier.gc.ca/psec-scep/consultations-consultations.aspx?lang=eng= = = = = = = = = =  == =  == =  ==  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

2.  IF YOU THINK THIS ISN’T NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION, CHECK OUT THESE VARIOUS SOURCES.  IT IS NOT CONSPIRACY THEORY. 

a.  YouTube video, CNN Report, Lou Dobbs – reporter Bill Tucker, on the plans for North American Union

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?289963-Do-you-remember-that-whole-North-American-Union-conspiracy-It-may-not-be  

b.     http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=2222  2011-02-08 Canada kept U.S. border talks under wraps

“The federal government deliberately kept negotiations on a border deal with Washington secret while it planned ways to massage public opinion in favour of the pact, according to a confidential communications strategy. . . . “

c.      http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=1322  2011-02-08  CETA plus Harper signs new security perimeter deal without consultation 

d.     http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=2436    2011-05-02   WikiLeaks Exposes North American Integration Plot

 e.      http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=2220   2009-02-18 US/Canada Border Increasingly Militarized, Unmanned drone prowls over the lonely prairie. G&M  

f.        Some important Additional background.

You can find a taste of the agenda in the Maclean’s magazine interview with Ron Covais,  “President of the Americas” for Lockheed Martin Corporation.  Click on 2006-09-13  –    it makes the agenda clear, and HOW it is done.

If there is a SINGLE most important event in the serial acts of treason by Canadian officials (the quislings) it would be the “Canada First Defence Strategy”.  It’s not lengthy.  Even if you have read it before, I highly recommend reading it again.

Perhaps the SECOND most important event is the Troop Exchange Agreement.   It is addressed in 2008-02-23  and in 2008-02-27.

In THIRD place, I’d vote for the tactics used at Montebello.  Police officers were trained, disguised and deployed for the purpose of turning a peaceful protest violent.  The message to citizens:  do not get involved in protest.   Information at:

  •  2007-08  The video of the protest catches the disguised police officers. The later explanation by the Police Chief is included.
  • 2008-11-28  Follow-up report – no public inquiry.

 The addresses for making submissions to the Working Group (note that there are no names, the members are all anonymous)  are at:

http://www.borderactionplan-plandactionfrontalier.gc.ca/psec-scep/consultations-consultations.aspx?lang=eng

These people do not have a mandate to do what they are doing.

I hope that Canadians will see the link:

–        The reports on the integration repeatedly mention that the Americans want the information on Canadians.

–        In the Macleans Magazine article in item f., Lockheed Martin President details how they are going to circumvent democratic process to get what they want because they know that citizens will not allow it to happen, if they know.

–        Another vehicle for resisting the integration is to refuse to cooperate with the census.  Lockheed Martin plays a role in the Canadian census and they are a big part of the corporate effort behind the integration (among other foul play).

We are dragons.  Remember.

2011-06-03 Canada to set up military bases abroad

 Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Jun 032011
 

Scroll through a sampling of reports:  Montreal Gazette, Calgary Herald,  Press TV,  Rabble.ca .  (Originally reported by Le Devoir, but my French is poor!)

Montreal Gazette:  http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hPqxA8NsB16aA8gt3PvJKBspPCBw?docId=CNG.c0c32039955369c191763a9365df1b65.771 

Canada’s military set to increase footprint abroad

(AFP) – Jun 3, 2011

OTTAWA — Canada is looking to expand its military reach by setting up staging points in Germany, Jamaica and elsewhere to support humanitarian and combat missions abroad, officials and media said Friday.

Jay Paxton, spokesman for Defense Minister Peter MacKay, told AFP: “Military planners are pursuing logistical agreements to ensure Canada is ready to respond quickly to future humanitarian disasters and international crises.”

The warehouses of military equipment and other facilities would support “high-tempo expeditionary operations in places such as Afghanistan, the Middle East, Haiti, Africa and most recently in protecting civilian life in Libya.”

However, he added, “this government and the Canadian Forces have no intention of creating permanent large bases in overseas locations.”

According to Canadian media, Ottawa has reached agreements to open new bases in Germany and Jamaica, and is negotiating with Kuwait for another in that country.

As well, the Canadian Forces are reportedly eyeing a presence in Senegal, South Korea, Kenya and Singapore.

Canada currently uses several of its allies’ bases around the world to support its military deployments, including a US base in Germany and a British base in Cyprus as a place to decompress after serving on the front line in Afghanistan and before returning home.

In October, Canada was forced to close a top-secret military base in Dubai that was part of a key supply route to Afghanistan after refusing to grant the UAE’s two national carriers, Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways, more landing rights.

During the Cold War, Canada also maintained two bases in Germany but closed them in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Canada currently has troops supporting UN missions in Haiti, Sierra Leone, Darfur and southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Sinai peninsula, Cyprus and Kosovo.

Canadian fighter jets are also taking part in the NATO mission in Libya, and Ottawa plans to send 950 military trainers to Afghanistan to coach Afghans after its 2,800 combat troops withdraw from the war-torn country in July.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Growing+military+niche+baffling/4935927/story.html

Growing our military niche baffling 

By Kris Kotarski, For the Calgary Herald June 13, 2011
 

When handed a political hot potato, make some freedom fries.

At least that’s what Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office has been trying to do, after French language newspaper Le Devoir reported earlier this month that the Canadian government had completed agreements for new foreign military bases in Jamaica and Germany, and was closing another deal with Kuwait.

Why this sudden military (and budgetary) expansion for a middle power with a war-weary population that traditionally associates its foreign role with peacekeeping and diplomacy? MacKay calls this “prudent planning.”

“The focus of the planning, let’s be clear, is our capability for expeditionary participation in international missions,” he said.

“We are big players in NATO. We’re a country that has become a go-to nation in response to situations like what we’re seeing in Libya, what we saw in Haiti. . . .”

That was a good and honest answer, but in a sign of just how uncomfortable the minister was taking questions on Canada’s expanding foreign military engagement, he fell back on jargon explaining the foreign bases in a manner that no layman could understand.

“We are constantly working within that paradigm of countries, to see where we can bring that niche capability to bear. It’s part of planning and preparation, in conjunction with our equipment needs.”

What “paradigm of countries” is MacKay talking about? Le Devoir reported that Canada is also in negotiations with Senegal, Kenya, Tanzania, Singapore and South Korea. To further the confusion, while MacKay confirmed that Canada is looking at setting up bases around the world to better position the military to participate in international missions, a day later, his spokesman said that while “prudent planning is necessary to ensure that future expeditionary operations are fully supported,” Canada has “no intention of creating permanent large bases in overseas locations.”

Would non-permanent large bases in overseas locations be acceptable?

Perhaps permanent bases that are small?

When considering the possibilities, I could not help but think of veteran journalist Tom Engelhardt, who continues to delight in the linguistic charm of what the Bush administration once called “enduring camps,” which is perfectly flaccid Pentagonese for something deeply unpopular even in the United States, mainly, permanent large bases in overseas locations such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

With Canada’s most prominent and most expensive military engagement set to draw down this summer with the end of our combat mission in Afghanistan, and with the government promising tough action to balance the budget, overseas bases seem like a dubious investment, unless Canada plans to bring our “niche capability to bear” a lot more often across the world.

Perhaps this is what MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have in store, but according to a February 2011 Angus Reid poll, Canada is a war-weary nation. That poll had Canadians opposing the war in Afghanistan by a 2-to-1 margin, with support hitting an all-time low of 32 per cent with 63 per cent of Canadians against.

Meanwhile, Canada’s engagement in Libya -which has cost $26 million to date -is up for a parliamentary vote on Wednesday. When the government extends what was supposed to be a short mission, the costs will rise to an estimated $60 million by the end of September, and perhaps the Canadian public will begin to pay attention.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps Canadians are satisfied with our foreign and defence policy being conducted behind closed doors with only an occasional press report about something as significant as overseas military bases disturbing the proverbial peace. This state of affairs probably suits our secretive government just fine, and it is a good bet that our military allies south of the border are fairly enthusiastic about having a junior partner with its own “enduring camps” across the globe.

But what does this mean for Canadian troops? What does it mean for our budget? Actually, it’s pretty simple -overseas military bases make overseas military engagements easier for our governments to commit to.

After all, we are big players in NATO, a go-to nation, always ready to bring our “niche capability to bear.”

Kris Kotarski’s column appears every second Monday.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

= = ==  = = == = = = = = = = = =

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/183110.html 

Canada to set up military bases abroad
Sat Jun 4, 2011 4:38AM
Canadian Minister of Defense Peter MacKay
The Canadian military says it plans to set up military bases in seven countries to gain the “capability for expeditionary participation in international missions.”

Canada’s Minister of Defense Peter MacKay said on Friday that the main goal will be supporting the humanitarian and combat missions abroad, AFP reported.

The Canadian media said Ottawa has so far reached agreements to open new bases in Germany and Jamaica, and is negotiating with Kuwait. Other targeted countries include Senegal, South Korea, Kenya, and Singapore.

David Bercuson, a senior research fellow with the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute, said the Canadian facilities are more likely to be “small storage facilities” comprising an airfield, a warehouse and two or three soldiers.

“They will be what you would call ‘forward supply depots,’ strategically placed near parts of the world where Canadian Forces might be deployed in future,” he further explained.

Canada was forced in October 2010 to close a top-secret military base in Dubai that was part of a key supply route to Afghanistan after refusing to grant the UAE’s two national carriers, Emirates Airlines and Etihad Airways, more landing rights.

During the Cold War, Canada also maintained two bases in Germany but closed them in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

JM/AGB/AKM/HRF

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

From  RABBLE.CA

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2011/06/expanding-foreign-military-bases-serves-harper%E2%80%99s-war-agenda

Expanding foreign military bases serves Harper’s war agenda

By Derrick O’Keefe | June 8, 2011

In just a few short weeks, it’s already become obvious that the actions of the new Harper majority government will require a strong response from Canada’s anti-war movement.

The aggressive militarism of this government is central to its long-term political project for transforming this country — that’s why it’s imperative that all those fighting against Harper’s domestic agenda also oppose his government’s foreign policy.

Any day now, the Conservatives will put an extension of the war in Libya through the new Parliament. There was scarcely any debate or discussion of Canada’s role in NATO’s intervention in Libya during the recent election campaign, despite the fact that Libya is the biggest air operation by Canadian Forces since the Kosovo War over a decade ago.

Canadian fighter jets have flown more than 400 sorties over Libya thus far, and NATO’s air campaign is intensifying. The Canadian planes have been operating from a NATO base in Italy. To fight wars from the air, you need to have the use of foreign bases.

Last week, Le Devoir broke the news that the Canadian government had completed agreements for new foreign bases in Jamaica and Germany, with talks ongoing to establish bases in Kuwait, Tanzania and several other countries.

Late last week, Minister MacKay denied that Canada had any plans for “large military bases” abroad. This is an attempt to divert opposition to foreign Canadian bases through semantics: whether large or small, expanding the number of bases abroad will expand the ability of Canada under the Harper government to take part in more wars and military interventions.

In response to this news, the Canadian Peace Alliance has released the following statement. 

Expanding foreign military bases serves Harper’s war agenda

The Canadian Peace Alliance condemns the plans of the Harper government to establish new foreign military bases for Canada. This is a policy that has been in the works for some time but, like so much else about Canada’s foreign policy, it was completely excluded from the discussion during the recent federal election.

The idea of expanding foreign military bases for Canada goes against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians. With the Harper government set to make a series of cuts to public services and spending generally, one of the few areas where they seem intent on spending even more is on war and militarism.

Last week, Peter MacKay admitted that Canada had already made agreements for bases in Germany and Jamaica, and were in talks with Kuwait and a number of other countries. MacKay stated that the focus was on increasing the Canadian military’s “capability for expeditionary participation in international missions.” MacKay noted that Canada has already “become a go-to nation in response to situations” like Libya and Haiti.

The new overseas bases are designed to increase Canada’s ability to play leading roles in future military interventions. Taken together with the Harper government’s policy of acquiring costly new F-35 fighter jets, and an ongoing policy of expanding Canadian Special Forces, this policy of expanding overseas operation bases is lock-step with its exporting of militarism rather than human rights and aid.

It was Canadian Special Forces, the secretive Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2), who participated in the 2004 coup against the elected government of Haiti, securing the airport in Port-au-Prince from which President Aristide was taken out of the country by U.S. Forces. The war in Afghanistan is also increasingly being fought with Special Forces.

The announcement about new foreign bases came at the same time as a request to keep Canadian Forces on the ground in Richelieu, Quebec to help with flood relief was being ignored. The Harper government continues to encourage costly and unnecessary deployments of the Forces abroad, while showing little interest in using its resources at home for disaster relief.

Foreign bases have nothing to do with Canadian security, and everything to do with the Harper government’s desire to be able to participate in future military aggressions like the ones ongoing in Afghanistan and Libya.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries