Hee's Baacck. In the wake of his media scrum and this morning's news cycle, a singular truth is more evident than ever: For the Williams government, everything revolves around Ottawa.
This may seem to be a curious claim to make about a notoriously nationalistic regime, but if you stop and think about it, Williams says practically nothing without reference to Ottawa. I'm not sure that even Clyde Wells was as focused on federal politics during the Meech Lake saga as Danny Williams has been since he took power. From the spin about "going it alone" in foreign policy or resource development, to hauling down the Canadian flag and the never-ending ABC putsch, Williams seems obsessed with the province's relationship with Ottawa. One way or another, Tory politics always comes back to the federal government.
Not convinced? Well, let's take today's news cycle. There are three substantive stories in today's Telegram:
1) Williams' response to last week's fishery protest: "Premier Danny Williams says the fishing industry ought to train its sights on the federal government - not the province - to solve its long-term problems. He said the province has already stepped up to the plate, but Ottawa has not." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=267408&sc=82
2) Williams' statement about the proposed NALCO transmission lines through Gros Morne: "The premier suggested that Ottawa could come up with the extra cash to defray the additional cost of rerouting the towers." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=267415&sc=79
3) Williams' report on his foreign policy junket to Europe. "Because of our unique position, where we've said that we're not totally on side with Canada [sic] in this whole process, I thought it was important that we made a direct link," Williams reported. The story is not available online, but you can view the first section via the Telly's "smart edition" function: http://thetelegram.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
According to Williams' scorecard, today's game of federal-provincial politics is 3-0. First, Williams denied that the provincial government bears any responsibility for the crisis in the shrimp fishery, which is now Ottawa's problem to solve. Evidently, Williams decided that last week's fishery policy -- promulgated in the press release that stated, "the industry itself has failed to take the action needed to address these issues" -- was due for a change, so he switched the blame to Ottawa.
Second, Williams threatened to build a power transmission line in a UNESCO world heritage site unless Ottawa covers the cost to build the towers elsewhere. And finally, he claimed that his relationship with Ottawa is so bad that he has to travel to Europe personally to oversee the province's own foreign policy, though Geoff Meeker has uncovered evidence to the contrary: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=266771&sc=88
If you thought this government was all about going it alone, think again. It's all about Ottawa.
Back to the Future Update
...And it's not as if this is a new phenomenon, either: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2005/02/independence-of-dependence.html
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy in the Republic of Newfoundland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy in the Republic of Newfoundland. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Penetrating the Teflon
If journalism is the first draft of history, we may be seeing some history being made this week. With the fishery protest entering its fourth day, my sense is that we are in the midst of some sort of change.
It's too early to tell whether this change will be temporary or long-lasting, but it appears that Danny Williams' political teflon has been breached. This story seems to have broken through the teflon barrier, and it has the potential traction to do political damage.
The Telegram's editorial this morning gutted the story with a straightforward question: Why are thousands of fishermen receiving far less government attention than 130 paper mill workers? http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=265838&sc=80
It then split the story open by observing that Williams is in Europe on a foreign policy junket and Hedderson is in Texas of all places, leaving Dunderdale to tell the protestors to leave the building. (By the way, wasn't it curious that Williams chose to be out of the province on Memorial Day and Canada Day, and thereby miss the plaque unveiling ceremony?).
It's unclear whether ignoring the fishermen will hurt Williams' poll numbers when CRA does its thing again. If the venomous comments on the CBC and Telly sites are any indication, beating up on fishermen plays well with biased, uninformed, and bigoted people. It's interesting to note that no one ever calls civil servants pampered, overpaid, or lazy; but fishermen get called worse every time a story is posted online.
The larger question here is not about the management of the fishery per se but rather the management of government itself. Earlier in the week, VOCM was sticking fairly closely to the Tory party line, but today's story carries the FFAW's three most important talking points:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=174
1) Williams has refused to meet with McCurdy.
2) Williams needs to spend the same time on the fishery as on oil deals and ABC politics.
3) Williams' government needs to be more respectful towards the fishery.
Point number 2 is similar to the point that Randy Simms was trying to make before Williams' now-infamous meltdown on VOCM, so it will be interesting to see which Danny Williams lands at St. John's airport. Will we see the return of the angry patriarch eager to smite all those who doubt his will? Or will we see Williams quickly dispatch his ministers to throw money at this problem to make it go away as quietly as possible? (One wonders whether Hedderson himself knows the answer to that question).
What we do know at this juncture is this: the fishery protest is not a discrete, stand-alone story. It has hooked into the larger story about how Premier Williams treats people who challenge him. It has become a question of not only the government's fishery policy, but also its judgement, its attitude, and its competence. It relates directly to the political issue I've raised this week: the Tories are out of touch.
For four days now, the government's response has been to attack by throwing all the blame back onto the fishing industry. As a sign of the 8th Floor's irritation, they threw an angry press release at the problem. But still the protest continues.
Here is a question for you: if Williams lost his senses over just one session of Randy Simms' call-in show, how is he going to react to four days of protest?
For the press release and analysis, see:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0630n07.htm
http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/06/record-breaking.html
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/07/fishing-for-sympathy-without-any-bait.html
It's too early to tell whether this change will be temporary or long-lasting, but it appears that Danny Williams' political teflon has been breached. This story seems to have broken through the teflon barrier, and it has the potential traction to do political damage.
The Telegram's editorial this morning gutted the story with a straightforward question: Why are thousands of fishermen receiving far less government attention than 130 paper mill workers? http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=265838&sc=80
It then split the story open by observing that Williams is in Europe on a foreign policy junket and Hedderson is in Texas of all places, leaving Dunderdale to tell the protestors to leave the building. (By the way, wasn't it curious that Williams chose to be out of the province on Memorial Day and Canada Day, and thereby miss the plaque unveiling ceremony?).
It's unclear whether ignoring the fishermen will hurt Williams' poll numbers when CRA does its thing again. If the venomous comments on the CBC and Telly sites are any indication, beating up on fishermen plays well with biased, uninformed, and bigoted people. It's interesting to note that no one ever calls civil servants pampered, overpaid, or lazy; but fishermen get called worse every time a story is posted online.
The larger question here is not about the management of the fishery per se but rather the management of government itself. Earlier in the week, VOCM was sticking fairly closely to the Tory party line, but today's story carries the FFAW's three most important talking points:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=174
1) Williams has refused to meet with McCurdy.
2) Williams needs to spend the same time on the fishery as on oil deals and ABC politics.
3) Williams' government needs to be more respectful towards the fishery.
Point number 2 is similar to the point that Randy Simms was trying to make before Williams' now-infamous meltdown on VOCM, so it will be interesting to see which Danny Williams lands at St. John's airport. Will we see the return of the angry patriarch eager to smite all those who doubt his will? Or will we see Williams quickly dispatch his ministers to throw money at this problem to make it go away as quietly as possible? (One wonders whether Hedderson himself knows the answer to that question).
What we do know at this juncture is this: the fishery protest is not a discrete, stand-alone story. It has hooked into the larger story about how Premier Williams treats people who challenge him. It has become a question of not only the government's fishery policy, but also its judgement, its attitude, and its competence. It relates directly to the political issue I've raised this week: the Tories are out of touch.
For four days now, the government's response has been to attack by throwing all the blame back onto the fishing industry. As a sign of the 8th Floor's irritation, they threw an angry press release at the problem. But still the protest continues.
Here is a question for you: if Williams lost his senses over just one session of Randy Simms' call-in show, how is he going to react to four days of protest?
For the press release and analysis, see:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/fishaq/0630n07.htm
http://labradore.blogspot.com/2009/06/record-breaking.html
http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/07/fishing-for-sympathy-without-any-bait.html
Monday, June 29, 2009
Just Another Manic Monday
If you're too young to get the Bangles reference, then you shouldn't be reading blogs. Like that great Eighties band, Williams is on tour again. And like all boomer stars, he's going to show that he's very big in Europe: http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&id=115&latest=1
One can't blame him, really. Eddy Campbell continues to bask in the longest round of goodbyes in St. John's history. The fishermen are being negative again. The NLMA is ready for negotiations. The Health ministry stumbles from one negative story to the next, with St. Lawrence being the latest hotspot. And the upcoming municipal election is already creating a racket.
Not surprisingly, then, in the audio clip on the VOCM homepage, Williams explains that he is taking a lot of issues to Europe.
VOCM Makeover Update:
Now you can access the audio directly via the funky new page in the Valley:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=115&GetAudio=1&latest=1
I counted 4 "issues" in the clip versus 1 "very very," which runs less than 20 seconds.
One can't blame him, really. Eddy Campbell continues to bask in the longest round of goodbyes in St. John's history. The fishermen are being negative again. The NLMA is ready for negotiations. The Health ministry stumbles from one negative story to the next, with St. Lawrence being the latest hotspot. And the upcoming municipal election is already creating a racket.
Not surprisingly, then, in the audio clip on the VOCM homepage, Williams explains that he is taking a lot of issues to Europe.
VOCM Makeover Update:
Now you can access the audio directly via the funky new page in the Valley:
http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&ID=115&GetAudio=1&latest=1
I counted 4 "issues" in the clip versus 1 "very very," which runs less than 20 seconds.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Will the Real Premier Stand Up?
If you have a few minutes today during your coffee break or lunch, it's worth your time to watch the video feed from VOCM linked to the latest fishery story: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36762
At the 45 second mark, after declaring that he will provide "backstop" funding for "income support" (whatever that means), Mr. Williams says that all this is "bearing in mind that we obviously will want to work with the federal government on such a program."
Fascinating stuff, coming from someone whose recent comments on the federal government included not only a reference to kissing backsides, but also this unqualified declaration: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html
There are two possible explanations for the cognitive dissonnance between the public statements made in the House of Assembly on 30 April and in the media scrum recorded by VOCM on 11 June:
1) Two different people made the statements.
2) The statements were indeed made by the same person, but he changed his mind at some point between 30 April and 11 June.
If it's number 2, then it will be interesting to see how the federal government responds to Mr. Williams' new policy direction. Did Mr. Williams consult with the Prime Minister or the federal Minister of Fisheries before announcing this new income support plan?
If, as seems likely, Mr. Williams has not chatted with Mr. Harper about this, did the Premier's Office at least send an email heads-up to DFO, letting them know that they are now being expected to support a vague and open-ended commitment to provide income support for certain groups of fishermen?
Does this mean that Mr. Hedderson will be able to get a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries? http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html
It's still possible that explanation number 1 is correct, but the fisheries edict fits a larger pattern whereby the provincial government procrastinates and then, after the media attention has reached a critical level, the premier jumps in suddenly and announces that cash will be thrown at the problem.
This was the government's pattern in dealing with the medical crisis, when it singled out oncologists for a special raise, and we all know how well that has worked. It will be interesting to see whether the fishery income support initiative works any better, but I suspect that by the time the provincial government gets around to actually implementing this policy, it will try to pin the mess on the federal government.
Given the shifts in provincial policy since April, I may have to update Triva Pursuit:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/trivia-pursuit.html
At the 45 second mark, after declaring that he will provide "backstop" funding for "income support" (whatever that means), Mr. Williams says that all this is "bearing in mind that we obviously will want to work with the federal government on such a program."
Fascinating stuff, coming from someone whose recent comments on the federal government included not only a reference to kissing backsides, but also this unqualified declaration: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html
There are two possible explanations for the cognitive dissonnance between the public statements made in the House of Assembly on 30 April and in the media scrum recorded by VOCM on 11 June:
1) Two different people made the statements.
2) The statements were indeed made by the same person, but he changed his mind at some point between 30 April and 11 June.
If it's number 2, then it will be interesting to see how the federal government responds to Mr. Williams' new policy direction. Did Mr. Williams consult with the Prime Minister or the federal Minister of Fisheries before announcing this new income support plan?
If, as seems likely, Mr. Williams has not chatted with Mr. Harper about this, did the Premier's Office at least send an email heads-up to DFO, letting them know that they are now being expected to support a vague and open-ended commitment to provide income support for certain groups of fishermen?
Does this mean that Mr. Hedderson will be able to get a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries? http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html
It's still possible that explanation number 1 is correct, but the fisheries edict fits a larger pattern whereby the provincial government procrastinates and then, after the media attention has reached a critical level, the premier jumps in suddenly and announces that cash will be thrown at the problem.
This was the government's pattern in dealing with the medical crisis, when it singled out oncologists for a special raise, and we all know how well that has worked. It will be interesting to see whether the fishery income support initiative works any better, but I suspect that by the time the provincial government gets around to actually implementing this policy, it will try to pin the mess on the federal government.
Given the shifts in provincial policy since April, I may have to update Triva Pursuit:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/trivia-pursuit.html
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Seal Hunt Fallout
Doug Saunders has a thoughtful piece in yesterday's Globe about how the Tories' attempt to make a big splash in Europe was derailed by the seal hunt controversy. Saunders explains how the Tory leader's strident defence of the seal hunt alienated the Europeans. He argues that the inability to compromise seriously undermined relations with European states.
According to Saunders, the unrelenting defence of the seal hunt was part of a pattern of Tory leadership that is at once idealistic and bullying. "Nor would he consider sacrificing the seal hunt," according to Saunders, "despite its negligible role in the economy, in order to gain a larger victory."
Saunders says that the Tory leader's approach is "to project and impose his strongly held" ideals. He quotes a senior EU official as complaining that the mistake “was that they didn't play the diplomatic game – they didn't do the Henry Kissinger stuff and make a big, visible sacrifice so they could get something in exchange. They just wanted to win everything.”
Who do you think Saunders was writing about?
Who do you think took a political hit because he refused to sell out the seal hunt?
The answer may surprise you: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.doug16/BNStory/International
According to Saunders, the unrelenting defence of the seal hunt was part of a pattern of Tory leadership that is at once idealistic and bullying. "Nor would he consider sacrificing the seal hunt," according to Saunders, "despite its negligible role in the economy, in order to gain a larger victory."
Saunders says that the Tory leader's approach is "to project and impose his strongly held" ideals. He quotes a senior EU official as complaining that the mistake “was that they didn't play the diplomatic game – they didn't do the Henry Kissinger stuff and make a big, visible sacrifice so they could get something in exchange. They just wanted to win everything.”
Who do you think Saunders was writing about?
Who do you think took a political hit because he refused to sell out the seal hunt?
The answer may surprise you: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.doug16/BNStory/International
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
ABC's of the Seal Hunt
Okay, I tried. I really tried. I tried to ignore the news, I tried not to read the papers, I tried to block out the ranting and roaring.
But this morning's latest, predictable outburst of populist cant about the seal hunt is just too much to bear silently.
So I posted a comment on the CBC's web site in response to their story on Williams's kangaroo comments: "So Europeans should have a good, hard look at themselves," says Premier Williams.
Europeans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Williams completely burned the political bridge between St. John's and Ottawa and then launched his own foreign policy initiative to deal directly with the Europeans; now that his reckless gamble has failed, he will place responsibility on everyone but himself.
The failure of Williams's seal hunt foreign policy is part of a larger continuum whereby the ABC virus has infected every aspect of NL's public life. Anyone following Hedderson's foreign policy folly in Ottawa could see that the initiative was doomed from the outset.
Blame Ottawa, blame Liberals, blame Europeans...Williams will blame everyone but himself. I'm sure he'll even try to pin this on Manning somehow.
Williams and Hedderson fooled themselves (and tried to fool the public, too) that they could somehow change European opinion without coordinating their actions with the Government of Canada.
As bad as the EU ban is, it will be important not to burn every bridge with the Europeans. As usual, Williams is putting populist rhetoric before reasoned policy.
Williams seems to forget that there is an international jurisdictional battle over undersea resources looming with France, and Canada will need all the allies it can muster. Ranting and raving may be good for the polls, but it's not a sound basis for foreign policy. In other words, it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick than shout loudly and carry a twig.
Before the nationalist mob starts burning European books in the streets, they should stop and think about what would be the best way to fight the next foreign policy battle, not the last one. Here's the link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seal-hunt-506.html
I'm sure the thumbs down votes on my little comment will be in triple digits before the day is over.
It's not as if there aren't voices of reason out there. The Tely had a sensible editorial on the economic realities (as opposed to political rhetoric) of the seal hunt: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=248363&sc=80
But trying to make a reasoned argument when it comes to this issue is like spitting in the wind. It was bad enough when DW had the usual arsenal of populist anger to tap into; now he has the seal hunt to whip the public into an unthinking frenzy of rage and revenge.
Lost in all the rage is reasoned policy. Lost in all the frenzy is a sensible strategy for getting the most out of a difficult situation.
Let me be clear: Yes, the Europeans are hypocrites. In fact, as any diplomat can tell you, geopolitics is full of hypocrisy and Machiavellian manipulation. As Orwellian News tried to point out, for example, Putin did not favour a seal hunt ban because he's a soft-hearted guy: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/bears-seals-and-bad-omens.html
The latest debacle has links to DW's Excellent European Adventure that started in February: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dws-excellent-european-adventure.html
Now we've come full circle: the foreign policy chickens hatched by the ABC folly have now come home to roost.
Which brings us back to hypocrisy. Dangovt expects the unreserved support of Harper's government at the same time as it continues to condemn them.
Dangovt wants it both ways: they want to blame Ottawa and they want Ottawa's help.
So what do they do? Hedderson's quote in the Globe sums it up:
"Obviously the seal hunt and perhaps us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not important,” said Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson. “We joined this country in '49 and we became full Canadians. And we expect our Prime Minister to stand up for us.”
Blame Ottawa for ignoring NL; dredge up Confederation and '49; and demand that Ottawa fix something that wasn't their fault. That's foreign policy in Dangovt.
Before long, the whole thing will be sold as another Shaft, another reason to give DW more blind support in time for the next CRA polling season.
Before Long Is Here Update:
Well, that didn't take very long did it? Note the machismo language of violent revenge (with "muscle" being the Danword of the day), and the lack of thoughtfulness or reflection on the larger contexts or consequences:
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35988
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seals-506.html
Here are the links to the original Globe and VOCM stories:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090505.wottseal0505/BNStory/politics/home http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35967
Now, back to trying to be on hiatus.
But this morning's latest, predictable outburst of populist cant about the seal hunt is just too much to bear silently.
So I posted a comment on the CBC's web site in response to their story on Williams's kangaroo comments: "So Europeans should have a good, hard look at themselves," says Premier Williams.
Europeans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Williams completely burned the political bridge between St. John's and Ottawa and then launched his own foreign policy initiative to deal directly with the Europeans; now that his reckless gamble has failed, he will place responsibility on everyone but himself.
The failure of Williams's seal hunt foreign policy is part of a larger continuum whereby the ABC virus has infected every aspect of NL's public life. Anyone following Hedderson's foreign policy folly in Ottawa could see that the initiative was doomed from the outset.
Blame Ottawa, blame Liberals, blame Europeans...Williams will blame everyone but himself. I'm sure he'll even try to pin this on Manning somehow.
Williams and Hedderson fooled themselves (and tried to fool the public, too) that they could somehow change European opinion without coordinating their actions with the Government of Canada.
As bad as the EU ban is, it will be important not to burn every bridge with the Europeans. As usual, Williams is putting populist rhetoric before reasoned policy.
Williams seems to forget that there is an international jurisdictional battle over undersea resources looming with France, and Canada will need all the allies it can muster. Ranting and raving may be good for the polls, but it's not a sound basis for foreign policy. In other words, it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick than shout loudly and carry a twig.
Before the nationalist mob starts burning European books in the streets, they should stop and think about what would be the best way to fight the next foreign policy battle, not the last one. Here's the link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seal-hunt-506.html
I'm sure the thumbs down votes on my little comment will be in triple digits before the day is over.
It's not as if there aren't voices of reason out there. The Tely had a sensible editorial on the economic realities (as opposed to political rhetoric) of the seal hunt: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=248363&sc=80
But trying to make a reasoned argument when it comes to this issue is like spitting in the wind. It was bad enough when DW had the usual arsenal of populist anger to tap into; now he has the seal hunt to whip the public into an unthinking frenzy of rage and revenge.
Lost in all the rage is reasoned policy. Lost in all the frenzy is a sensible strategy for getting the most out of a difficult situation.
Let me be clear: Yes, the Europeans are hypocrites. In fact, as any diplomat can tell you, geopolitics is full of hypocrisy and Machiavellian manipulation. As Orwellian News tried to point out, for example, Putin did not favour a seal hunt ban because he's a soft-hearted guy: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/bears-seals-and-bad-omens.html
The latest debacle has links to DW's Excellent European Adventure that started in February: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dws-excellent-european-adventure.html
Now we've come full circle: the foreign policy chickens hatched by the ABC folly have now come home to roost.
Which brings us back to hypocrisy. Dangovt expects the unreserved support of Harper's government at the same time as it continues to condemn them.
Dangovt wants it both ways: they want to blame Ottawa and they want Ottawa's help.
So what do they do? Hedderson's quote in the Globe sums it up:
"Obviously the seal hunt and perhaps us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not important,” said Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson. “We joined this country in '49 and we became full Canadians. And we expect our Prime Minister to stand up for us.”
Blame Ottawa for ignoring NL; dredge up Confederation and '49; and demand that Ottawa fix something that wasn't their fault. That's foreign policy in Dangovt.
Before long, the whole thing will be sold as another Shaft, another reason to give DW more blind support in time for the next CRA polling season.
Before Long Is Here Update:
Well, that didn't take very long did it? Note the machismo language of violent revenge (with "muscle" being the Danword of the day), and the lack of thoughtfulness or reflection on the larger contexts or consequences:
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35988
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seals-506.html
Here are the links to the original Globe and VOCM stories:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090505.wottseal0505/BNStory/politics/home http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35967
Now, back to trying to be on hiatus.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
National Boundaries, Provincial Politics
I was reading the CP story on the French boundary claim on the Globe's web site (while trying to ignore the always annoying NewfoundlandLabrador pop-up ad) when this line stuck out: "Mr. Williams, who has repeatedly clashed with Mr. Harper, has said he expects Ottawa's full support in defending the province's interests in the region."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090421.SEA21GTAART2245/TPStory/National
Then I checked VOCM's take on the story, which had a similar line: "Federal cabinet minister Peter MacKay says Canada's position on the matter is clear, and the federal government will be standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador on the matter." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35634
What are these lines doing in a story about an international boundary dispute between two sovereign nation states?
The headline for the CP story gives a clue: "Canada rejects French claim to seabed off Newfoundland, PM tells Williams." While the explicit news is that Harper sent DW a letter to tell him that the federal government is going to do its job and protect Canada's claim to the Atlantic seabed, the implicit news is the question of whether the ABC jihad will affect how Harper deals with France's claim.
Notice how differently the CP story deals with the French department of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. While France does not have a federal system of government likes Canada's, its system of departments is not as uniform as it appears. Since 2003, overseas territories such as the collectivité territoriale de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon have enjoyed a measure of administrative autonomy.
As Nottawa reported last month, Saint Pierre et Miquelon has its own set of political grievances with Paris: http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/03/appel-au-secours.html
And yet, this is all the CP story has to say about the interests of Saint Pierre et Miquelon: "Annick Girardin, the elected member for Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, has said she wants the two countries to come to an agreement on dividing up the resources and any economic windfall that could come from the region."
The story gives two starkly different impressions. On the one hand, we have the unitary interests of France, which speaks with one voice on international border disputes; on the other hand, we have the bifurcated interests of Canada, which speaks with two voices on international border disputes.
This is false on two counts. First, in terms of politics, France is hardly the monolithic entity that it's made out to be, and what's happening involves regional grievances that would sound familiar to anyone in Canada.
Second, in terms of international law, Harper is neither defending the province's interests nor standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador. Rather, he is defending the country's interests and standing up for Canadians.
Harper's letter states, "I have also conveyed our position to President Sarkozy." DW has repeatedly said that he is a proud Canadian who does not support separatism -- so why, I wonder, would anyone think he'd have a problem with the Prime Minister of Canada doing his job?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090421.SEA21GTAART2245/TPStory/National
Then I checked VOCM's take on the story, which had a similar line: "Federal cabinet minister Peter MacKay says Canada's position on the matter is clear, and the federal government will be standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador on the matter." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35634
What are these lines doing in a story about an international boundary dispute between two sovereign nation states?
The headline for the CP story gives a clue: "Canada rejects French claim to seabed off Newfoundland, PM tells Williams." While the explicit news is that Harper sent DW a letter to tell him that the federal government is going to do its job and protect Canada's claim to the Atlantic seabed, the implicit news is the question of whether the ABC jihad will affect how Harper deals with France's claim.
Notice how differently the CP story deals with the French department of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. While France does not have a federal system of government likes Canada's, its system of departments is not as uniform as it appears. Since 2003, overseas territories such as the collectivité territoriale de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon have enjoyed a measure of administrative autonomy.
As Nottawa reported last month, Saint Pierre et Miquelon has its own set of political grievances with Paris: http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/03/appel-au-secours.html
And yet, this is all the CP story has to say about the interests of Saint Pierre et Miquelon: "Annick Girardin, the elected member for Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, has said she wants the two countries to come to an agreement on dividing up the resources and any economic windfall that could come from the region."
The story gives two starkly different impressions. On the one hand, we have the unitary interests of France, which speaks with one voice on international border disputes; on the other hand, we have the bifurcated interests of Canada, which speaks with two voices on international border disputes.
This is false on two counts. First, in terms of politics, France is hardly the monolithic entity that it's made out to be, and what's happening involves regional grievances that would sound familiar to anyone in Canada.
Second, in terms of international law, Harper is neither defending the province's interests nor standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador. Rather, he is defending the country's interests and standing up for Canadians.
Harper's letter states, "I have also conveyed our position to President Sarkozy." DW has repeatedly said that he is a proud Canadian who does not support separatism -- so why, I wonder, would anyone think he'd have a problem with the Prime Minister of Canada doing his job?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Odds, Hatchets & Nadirs
Odds are that Barack Obama is going to have a meeting with Hugo Chavez long before DW has a civilized discussion with Harper: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/17/obama.chavez/index.html?pc=no_id
I'm still puzzled by the lack of local media attention to former Foreign Minister Hedderson's remarkable comments in the House of Assembly on April 8th:
MR. HEDDERSON: On the point of meeting with the [Fisheries] minister, I certainly made the minister aware that I was in Ottawa. I did make a request, but obviously she did not see fit to meet with me at that particular time.
MR. HEDDERSON: We have continually asked him [Stockwell Day] to move forward in the position, to take the, I guess, WTO action. It was only last Friday that they indicated that they will. We have asked them constantly for their strategy and have not been given the courtesy of them telling us what their direction is.
Who knew that we could reach such a nadir that the fact that a provincial cabinet minister cannot even get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries would go largely unnoticed in NL.
Who knew that maintaining even the semblance of a functional federal-provincial relationship would be less likely than the US and Venezuela burying the hatchet after years of tremendous political hostility.
Obama-Chavez Handshake Update:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97KK2T00&show_article=1
I'm still puzzled by the lack of local media attention to former Foreign Minister Hedderson's remarkable comments in the House of Assembly on April 8th:
MR. HEDDERSON: On the point of meeting with the [Fisheries] minister, I certainly made the minister aware that I was in Ottawa. I did make a request, but obviously she did not see fit to meet with me at that particular time.
MR. HEDDERSON: We have continually asked him [Stockwell Day] to move forward in the position, to take the, I guess, WTO action. It was only last Friday that they indicated that they will. We have asked them constantly for their strategy and have not been given the courtesy of them telling us what their direction is.
Who knew that we could reach such a nadir that the fact that a provincial cabinet minister cannot even get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries would go largely unnoticed in NL.
Who knew that maintaining even the semblance of a functional federal-provincial relationship would be less likely than the US and Venezuela burying the hatchet after years of tremendous political hostility.
Obama-Chavez Handshake Update:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97KK2T00&show_article=1
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Foreign Minister Replaced
Dangovt has announced that Foreign Minister Hedderson has been benched.
Hedderson has been replaced by Dave Denine, who is being sent on a whirlwind trip to Ottawa to block the proposed ban on seal products by the EU: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0416n02.htm
Sources have told Orwellian News that this change may be the result of last week's negative coverage: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html
What the news release didn't say:
1. Whether Denine can, unlike his predecessor, manage to get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries, or at least find out the location of the Federal International Trade Minister.
2. That Denine is meeting with officials from only second- and third-tier European nations. There are no meetings scheduled with any officials from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, or even Britain. Getting the Irish ambassador to say something nice about DW may make for a swell PR photo, but it's not going to change EU policy.
3. That these meetings are little more than photo-ops. With no less than 9 meetings scheduled for today and Friday (and we all know how much work gets done in Ottawa after coffee break on a Friday), there will be little time to conduct substantive discussions. By lining up a series of bilateral meetings, Denine has ensured that he will have to spend much of his time sequentially repeating Dangovt's position. Denine could have arranged trilateral meetings in cooperation with the Federal Minister of Fisheries -- alternatively, he could have tried to convene some sort of summit or group meeting -- but he's stuck with the tactic that Hedderson has already tried.
4. The Federal Government has been magically wished away, officially redacted from media advisories. No doubt it's part of a grand strategy to force the Minister of Fisheries into a meeting by ignoring her.
5. As even the media advisory admits, the whole thing is an information session. Denine's mandate is merely "to ensure that EU member states are well informed about the seal harvest and its important implications from both an economic and fisheries conservation perspective." Since European opposition to the seal fishery is based largely on ethical arguments that have little to do with economic considerations, telling European ambassadors about how the ban will adversely affect the NL economy (which DW is telling everyone is in fantastic shape) will have about as much impact as trying to shout down Tory hecklers in the House of Assembly.
6. The trip appears to signal an expansion in the mandate of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. According to their 2007-2008 report, the furthest contacts had been with the Conference of New England Governors and the South Eastern United States–Canadian Provinces’ Alliance, neither of which are bilateral forums:
http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/iga/pdf/IGAS%20Annual%20Report%2020078.pdf
For initial press coverage, see http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=242703&sc=79
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35530
Hedderson has been replaced by Dave Denine, who is being sent on a whirlwind trip to Ottawa to block the proposed ban on seal products by the EU: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/0416n02.htm
Sources have told Orwellian News that this change may be the result of last week's negative coverage: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html
What the news release didn't say:
1. Whether Denine can, unlike his predecessor, manage to get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries, or at least find out the location of the Federal International Trade Minister.
2. That Denine is meeting with officials from only second- and third-tier European nations. There are no meetings scheduled with any officials from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, or even Britain. Getting the Irish ambassador to say something nice about DW may make for a swell PR photo, but it's not going to change EU policy.
3. That these meetings are little more than photo-ops. With no less than 9 meetings scheduled for today and Friday (and we all know how much work gets done in Ottawa after coffee break on a Friday), there will be little time to conduct substantive discussions. By lining up a series of bilateral meetings, Denine has ensured that he will have to spend much of his time sequentially repeating Dangovt's position. Denine could have arranged trilateral meetings in cooperation with the Federal Minister of Fisheries -- alternatively, he could have tried to convene some sort of summit or group meeting -- but he's stuck with the tactic that Hedderson has already tried.
4. The Federal Government has been magically wished away, officially redacted from media advisories. No doubt it's part of a grand strategy to force the Minister of Fisheries into a meeting by ignoring her.
5. As even the media advisory admits, the whole thing is an information session. Denine's mandate is merely "to ensure that EU member states are well informed about the seal harvest and its important implications from both an economic and fisheries conservation perspective." Since European opposition to the seal fishery is based largely on ethical arguments that have little to do with economic considerations, telling European ambassadors about how the ban will adversely affect the NL economy (which DW is telling everyone is in fantastic shape) will have about as much impact as trying to shout down Tory hecklers in the House of Assembly.
6. The trip appears to signal an expansion in the mandate of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. According to their 2007-2008 report, the furthest contacts had been with the Conference of New England Governors and the South Eastern United States–Canadian Provinces’ Alliance, neither of which are bilateral forums:
http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/iga/pdf/IGAS%20Annual%20Report%2020078.pdf
For initial press coverage, see http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=242703&sc=79
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35530
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Foreign Policy Report
More news on the progress of the new foreign policy initiative, from yesterday's Hansard:
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, later today we will be debating a motion dealing with the Province’s seal hunt and the proposed EU ban. This ban on imported seal products brings a serious threat to 6,000 sealers and their families who depend on this industry. Last week, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture travelled to Ottawa to meet with EU officials.
I ask the minister: Did you achieve any results from these meetings and garner any additional support in an attempt to stay the proposed EU ban?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the question from the member opposite, certainly, any time that you speak with European politicians, in this case, ambassadors, you do garner intelligence.
What I did find out was that ban appears to be going full-fledged ahead in the Parliament. However, in meeting with some of these ambassadors, we do have allies, we do have opportunities, and of course, our Premier certainly put a letter out to all ambassadors clearly stating our position and indicating that we are not satisfied just with the ban or the exemptions. We want to have our seal harvest continue without any restrictions, because it is humane, it is viable, it is sustainable, and we as a jurisdiction are going to pull out all the stops to make sure that they fully understand the consequences of what they do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, an issue of such importance requires a solid plan to deal with any potential EU decision, and requires cooperation and dialogue between the federal and provincial governments.
I ask the minister: During your visit to Ottawa, did you meet with the Minister of Fisheries to discuss any strategy in dealing with this important issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: On the point of meeting with the minister, I certainly made the minister aware that I was in Ottawa. I did make a request, but obviously she did not see fit to meet with me at that particular time.
As the regards to the federal government and cooperation with the federal government, we have been two years, I say, Mr. Speaker, asking this federal government to take trade action so that we have something that we can stand behind.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I tell you: finally they have listened to us and are moving forward.
We, as a jurisdiction, as I pointed out, will do anything we can to ensure that this hunt is not only continued but continued in a way that can give us the commercial return that we need.
Thank you, very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, seeing as the Minister of Fisheries would not meet, I am going to ask him another question.
Mr. Speaker, CBC Radio reported on Friday that if a ban on seal products is instituted the Government of Canada will launch a world trade organization action.
I ask the minister: Have you been in contact with the International Trade Minister, Stockwell Day, to lend our support to any international challenges to reverse this potential ban?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. member on the other side, we have left no stone unturned in trying to make sure that the federal government and our European politicians understand the position that we hold. My predecessors and ministers have been in contact with not only the DFO minister but also Stockwell Day. We have continually asked him to move forward in the position, to take the, I guess, WTO action. It was only last Friday that they indicated that they will.
We have asked them constantly for their strategy and have not been given the courtesy of them telling us what their direction is. As a result of it, I say, Mr. Speaker, we have to, as a jurisdiction, step up to the plate. We have stepped up to the plate and we will continue to be at the plate until we finally hit that homerun. Mr. Speaker, we will again leave nothing unturned to make sure that we get that result.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for Oral Questions has expired.
-------------------------------------------------
So here's the Foreign Policy Progress Report:
1) The Foreign Minister cannot get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries.
2) The Foreign Minister cannot get the Federal International Trade Minister to reveal his strategy.
3) The Foreign Minister knows what's being reported in the news.
4) The Foreign Minister knows that DW sent a personal letter.
5) Because of numbers 1 & 2, the Foreign Minister is going to play baseball.
Helps to explain why DW didn't make a significant cabinet shuffle:
http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-08.htm
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, later today we will be debating a motion dealing with the Province’s seal hunt and the proposed EU ban. This ban on imported seal products brings a serious threat to 6,000 sealers and their families who depend on this industry. Last week, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture travelled to Ottawa to meet with EU officials.
I ask the minister: Did you achieve any results from these meetings and garner any additional support in an attempt to stay the proposed EU ban?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the question from the member opposite, certainly, any time that you speak with European politicians, in this case, ambassadors, you do garner intelligence.
What I did find out was that ban appears to be going full-fledged ahead in the Parliament. However, in meeting with some of these ambassadors, we do have allies, we do have opportunities, and of course, our Premier certainly put a letter out to all ambassadors clearly stating our position and indicating that we are not satisfied just with the ban or the exemptions. We want to have our seal harvest continue without any restrictions, because it is humane, it is viable, it is sustainable, and we as a jurisdiction are going to pull out all the stops to make sure that they fully understand the consequences of what they do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, an issue of such importance requires a solid plan to deal with any potential EU decision, and requires cooperation and dialogue between the federal and provincial governments.
I ask the minister: During your visit to Ottawa, did you meet with the Minister of Fisheries to discuss any strategy in dealing with this important issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: On the point of meeting with the minister, I certainly made the minister aware that I was in Ottawa. I did make a request, but obviously she did not see fit to meet with me at that particular time.
As the regards to the federal government and cooperation with the federal government, we have been two years, I say, Mr. Speaker, asking this federal government to take trade action so that we have something that we can stand behind.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: I tell you: finally they have listened to us and are moving forward.
We, as a jurisdiction, as I pointed out, will do anything we can to ensure that this hunt is not only continued but continued in a way that can give us the commercial return that we need.
Thank you, very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, seeing as the Minister of Fisheries would not meet, I am going to ask him another question.
Mr. Speaker, CBC Radio reported on Friday that if a ban on seal products is instituted the Government of Canada will launch a world trade organization action.
I ask the minister: Have you been in contact with the International Trade Minister, Stockwell Day, to lend our support to any international challenges to reverse this potential ban?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. member on the other side, we have left no stone unturned in trying to make sure that the federal government and our European politicians understand the position that we hold. My predecessors and ministers have been in contact with not only the DFO minister but also Stockwell Day. We have continually asked him to move forward in the position, to take the, I guess, WTO action. It was only last Friday that they indicated that they will.
We have asked them constantly for their strategy and have not been given the courtesy of them telling us what their direction is. As a result of it, I say, Mr. Speaker, we have to, as a jurisdiction, step up to the plate. We have stepped up to the plate and we will continue to be at the plate until we finally hit that homerun. Mr. Speaker, we will again leave nothing unturned to make sure that we get that result.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for Oral Questions has expired.
-------------------------------------------------
So here's the Foreign Policy Progress Report:
1) The Foreign Minister cannot get a meeting with the Federal Minister of Fisheries.
2) The Foreign Minister cannot get the Federal International Trade Minister to reveal his strategy.
3) The Foreign Minister knows what's being reported in the news.
4) The Foreign Minister knows that DW sent a personal letter.
5) Because of numbers 1 & 2, the Foreign Minister is going to play baseball.
Helps to explain why DW didn't make a significant cabinet shuffle:
http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-08.htm
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Foreign Policy in the Republic of Newfoundland
Orwellian News has already taken a glimpse at prospective democracy in the Republic of Newfoundland: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/democracy-in-republic-of-newfoundland.html
And we've analyzed DW's Excellent European Adventure:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dws-excellent-european-adventure.html
So to mark the 60th Anniversary of Confederation, let's take at look at what foreign policy would look like in the Republic of Newfoundland. Today's Tely offers as good a glimpse as we're going to get as long as the maple leaf flies in St. John's:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=237552&sc=79
Hedderson gets off to a good start: the Tely has him headlined as meeting with EU Allies. Sounds serious enough to me. NL has formed alliances with foreign nations and is coordinating strategy with them. "We're gathering intelligence and getting some good feel for what this is all about," he told the Tely. While the second part sounds iffy, the first part sounds like 007 territory.
NL not only has a foreign policy; it is conducting intelligence operations. And he has a fast-paced schedule that includes meetings with embassy officials from Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland and non-EU members Iceland and Norway.
While Hedderson had to concede that he failed to arrange meetings with pro-ban ambassadors, he said that they tried really hard. "We've asked, but in a couple of days, it was very, very difficult to get audiences," Hedderson said. I guess we should cut the new Foreign Minister some slack, since he did give them 48 hours, and he is in a bold and brilliant government from the most optimistic place on the entire planet. Surely the ambassadors would know how very, very busy he is going forward. So what's next?
"We're looking to talk with anyone that [sic] will talk with us, because I need to see the good, the bad and, of course, the ugly," Hedderson said. He added, "There's a big wave over there, and we're just trying to find at least some of the trickles." This must be part of the intelligence operation: tell the press that you have meetings scheduled with allies, then tell them that you're meeting with anyone who will have you over to their place. Must be part of an ingenious plot to keep everyone off-balance while the real negotiations get done in a Blue Line Cab. The big wave must be a secret code word of some sort, since it's unintelligible.
Fittingly, the Tely ends with DW: "Last week, specifically, I wrote every (EU) ambassador in Ottawa a personal letter asking them to address it, pointing out to them that it's our understanding that the EU may even have legal opinions that may prevent them from doing this, that may cause them to have some sober second thoughts."
Well then, if DW sent a personal (as opposed to impersonal) letter setting the record straight, then they will certainly be having second thoughts. What those thoughts will be is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, Hedderson has been sighted driving back and forth across Ottawa in a Blue Line Cab, talking excitedly about the big wave.
And we've analyzed DW's Excellent European Adventure:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dws-excellent-european-adventure.html
So to mark the 60th Anniversary of Confederation, let's take at look at what foreign policy would look like in the Republic of Newfoundland. Today's Tely offers as good a glimpse as we're going to get as long as the maple leaf flies in St. John's:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=237552&sc=79
Hedderson gets off to a good start: the Tely has him headlined as meeting with EU Allies. Sounds serious enough to me. NL has formed alliances with foreign nations and is coordinating strategy with them. "We're gathering intelligence and getting some good feel for what this is all about," he told the Tely. While the second part sounds iffy, the first part sounds like 007 territory.
NL not only has a foreign policy; it is conducting intelligence operations. And he has a fast-paced schedule that includes meetings with embassy officials from Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland and non-EU members Iceland and Norway.
While Hedderson had to concede that he failed to arrange meetings with pro-ban ambassadors, he said that they tried really hard. "We've asked, but in a couple of days, it was very, very difficult to get audiences," Hedderson said. I guess we should cut the new Foreign Minister some slack, since he did give them 48 hours, and he is in a bold and brilliant government from the most optimistic place on the entire planet. Surely the ambassadors would know how very, very busy he is going forward. So what's next?
"We're looking to talk with anyone that [sic] will talk with us, because I need to see the good, the bad and, of course, the ugly," Hedderson said. He added, "There's a big wave over there, and we're just trying to find at least some of the trickles." This must be part of the intelligence operation: tell the press that you have meetings scheduled with allies, then tell them that you're meeting with anyone who will have you over to their place. Must be part of an ingenious plot to keep everyone off-balance while the real negotiations get done in a Blue Line Cab. The big wave must be a secret code word of some sort, since it's unintelligible.
Fittingly, the Tely ends with DW: "Last week, specifically, I wrote every (EU) ambassador in Ottawa a personal letter asking them to address it, pointing out to them that it's our understanding that the EU may even have legal opinions that may prevent them from doing this, that may cause them to have some sober second thoughts."
Well then, if DW sent a personal (as opposed to impersonal) letter setting the record straight, then they will certainly be having second thoughts. What those thoughts will be is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, Hedderson has been sighted driving back and forth across Ottawa in a Blue Line Cab, talking excitedly about the big wave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
