President Obama’s first foreign foray took him to Canada. The 19 Feb visit was short in terms of hours, but it was long on ‘conceptual’ substantiveness – and both sides accomplished whatever was planned to be covered during the visit. At the end of the talks the President of United State and Prime Minister of Canada looked more like statesmen than politicians.
The significant part of President Obama’s visit was the half hour one-on-one chat between the two leaders. This tête-à-tête was supposed to be of 10 minutes but the fact that it got extended signifies that the two leaders hit it off well and found a lot of common ground. Both agreed to use each other’s first name in subsequent conversations – that says a lot about establishment of mutual respect and rapport.
People’s general perception is that Harper was previous US president George W’s buddy, but people in the know say that Canadian PM was actually never comfortable in Dubya’s company. It doesn’t seem improbable given that one (Bush) was from a rich background, and a former president’s son and the other comes from middle class. Clearly, there is more common between Obama and Harper.
Now, to the substantiveness. Some folks were looking for so-called ‘substantive’ pronouncements after the talks between the two leaders, and were probably disappointed. But the fact of the matter is that this visit was basically for following reasons:
· Get to know each other;
· Get first hand idea of each other’s perception on issues, like, recession, energy, trade (including protectionism), Afghanistan;
· Lay the foundation for further build up on issues of mutual interest
On all the above counts the visit was a success. The press conference after the talks gave a clear indication of ‘conceptual’ substantiveness. The most important being the agreement on a ‘clean energy dialogue’. President Obama exhibited a very realistic position on the so-called clean energy. He comprehends the GHG issues in a practical perspective whether related to coal based power plants in US, or the oilsands industry of Canada.
His assertion that there was no silver bullet to solve the energy needs of the world was a clear indication that he realises that there was no point in getting carried away by the environmental predictions of doom, instead what is important is to figure out a course of action on global warming which encompasses all the major players, including, China and India.
Obviously, there will have to be follow up from both sides on this conceptual agreement. The scope of this conceptual agreement can potentially expand to include Mexico since President Obama appeared keen to formulate a pan-North American initiative on clean energy.
PM Harper did a good job of mentioning how could Canada tighten its own environmental regulatory laws and compete when its neighbour to the south had no tight regulatory framework, and then went on to praise Obama for now showing leadership on the issue. Harper very cleverly passed on the onus of non-regulation to Bush.
The environmental activists in Canada who seem to be intellectually one-dimensional don’t even know the difference between the amount of GHG emitted from US coal based units and GHG emitted from oilsands units in Canada. These intellectually under-developed two-legged creatures only know how to badmouth oilsands and make a spectacle of themselves by going up on a bridge to hang a poster.
The other conceptual understanding related to the border issue. Harper’s pitch on Canada’s perception of North American security threats was clearly aimed at the American media. At the same time he made it clear that US-Canada border should be managed in such a manner that it should not hinder cross-border trade.
On the issue of trade, whereas President Obama made an observation about environmental and labour clauses should be part of main body of NAFTA, PM Harper made his views known in no uncertain terms that Canada hopes that US will adhere to all the international trade agreements. Harper was clearly alluding towards the ‘Buy American’ clause purportedly included in the USD787 billion US economic stimulus package. So, the two sides got a clear understanding of each other’s position.
The discussion on recession focussed more on how to synergise efforts on both sides of the border to maximise the impact of the stimulus packages implemented in the respective countries. There was, again, a conceptual agreement to coordinate efforts on auto sector. President Obama made it clear that US will keep Canada in the loop on the policy decisions made regarding the big three auto makers.
On Afghanistan, again, there was a conceptual understanding on both sides. Obama didn’t press Canada to extend its troop presence beyond 2011; however, the two sides felt that Afghanistan needs more than simply military solution. The corollary to it is that Canada may be requested to look in to the possibility of contributing in non-military way before and after 2011.
All in all, the working visit of the US President accomplished all that was envisaged by both sides. As well, President Obama made sure to demonstrate his good preparation for this visit by stopping at a market place to buy beaver tail and Canadian cookies for his daughters. Unlike other dignitaries he also took out a crisp Cdn$20 bill to pay for the items he bought. The shopkeeper, however, showed his good gesture by refusing to accept the payment.
President Obama’s parting remark at the press conference was “I would like to come back to Canada”, and after a pregnant pause added, “when it warms up”. One hopes he wasn’t alluding to ‘warming up’ on the part of Canadian leadership. One would hope that PM Harper was warm enough in his conversations with Obama. Harper’s demeanour didn’t seem to suggest anything otherwise. Or, did we fail to notice something that was cleverly hidden under the smiles of the two leaders?!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment