Commonwealth Embassies: Canada and the United Kingdom, possibly Australia and New Zealand to share c
22 replies, posted
[Quote=The Globe & Mail]The Union Jack and the Maple Leaf may soon fly side by side at embassies and consulates around the world, as part of a new cost-saving foreign affairs agreement between Britain and Canada, prompting concern that a hybrid diplomatic channel could weaken Canada’s global standing.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and British Foreign Secretary William Hague will announce plans Monday in Ottawa to begin sharing embassy space and resources. The arrangement is being touted as a money-saving move to offset budget cuts to diplomatic missions against the desire to establish a larger presence in emerging markets such as China and India.
“We have an incompatible brand with the U.K.,” said Mr. Heinbecker, citing past disagreements, including Canada’s support for sanctions to fight apartheid in South Africa, and Britain’s reluctance to get involved in Bosnia militarily.
The agreement, according to sources, will include not just sharing real estate, but working together in other areas – representing civilians abroad, providing passports and visas, and dealing with emergencies such as revolutions, disasters and evacuations. The two countries will not share diplomatic representation, sources said – so British diplomats would not present Canadian views to foreign governments, or vice versa.
While combining resources for security may save on costs, there is some concern that it would add to the security risks for Canadian diplomats, especially in the Middle East. “The idea that we have a sufficient amount in common with the British that it makes sense that we share premises as a matter of routine, that, I think, is a mistake,” Mr. Heinbecker said.
Sharing diplomatic space and services isn’t uncommon between countries: Canada and Britain, for instance, already have several such arrangements, though none of them announced with the fanfare of an afternoon press conference in Ottawa. In Mali, British diplomats are housed in the Canadian embassy. In Myanmar, where Canada has just reopened its diplomatic presence, a sole Canadian is housed in the British embassy. Britain also has some similar arrangements with Australia.
Money is certainly a significant driver in the decision: The foreign service in both countries is trying to manage cutbacks while reserving funds for new consulates and trade offices in booming economic markets. Britain is cutting £100-million ($160-million) from its Foreign Office budget, while Canada’s Foreign Affairs department is cutting $170-million. A senior government official with the Canadian government said, “Co-locating with our most trusted allies and making the most of our shared resources makes perfect sense. It increased our diplomatic reach in a cost-efficient way.”
Mr. Hague’s stop in Ottawa on the way to the United Nations this week is the first bilateral visit by a British Foreign Secretary since 1966. In the past year, Mr. Hague has announced plans to open seven new consulates and increase British diplomatic representation in more than 20 countries, as well as reopening the embassy, for example, in Paraguay and establishing representation in Haiti, though any role with Canada was not mentioned in the announcements.
It’s not clear which embassies or locations would be affected by the agreement, or how extensive the resource-sharing would be – the memorandum is a plan to go forward with an eye to share resources. But foreign affairs experts were quick to debate the wisdom of so closely – and physically – aligning with a country that has a distinctly different history than Canada, and has taken diverging opinions in the past. (As well as the fact that having a stand-alone foreign policy was key to establishing Canada’s independence from Britain, even after Confederation.)
Contrary to media reports in Britain, sources said the agreement does not include Australia and New Zealand, as part of a Commonwealth arrangement. British media have also been suggesting that aligning with Canada is an attempt by Britain to counter EU influence – a motivation sources also denied.
Mr. Heinbecker pointed out, however, that this theory is already floating around Britain, whether true or not. “That’s a game,” he said, “we don’t have any interest in playing.”
Still, both the Canadian and British governments are selling the idea as an economic advantage in lean times, with trade and diplomatic benefits for each country.
“We have stood shoulder to shoulder from the great wars of the last century to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and supporting Arab Spring nations like Libya and Syria. We are first cousins,” Mr. Hague said in a written statement to the media. “So it is natural that we look to link up our embassies with Canada’s in places where that suits both countries. It will give us a bigger reach abroad for our businesses and people for less cost.”
If it is simply the kind of resource-sharing arrangements embassies have had for years, “why the pomp and ceremony?” asked NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar. “Diplomacy is about perception. It’s one thing to require that all embassies have a portrait of the Queen, but it’s another thing to have a British flag flying next to a Canadian one. … The bottom line is how is this going to benefit our interests.”
Mr. Heinbecker also wondered how the decision will be perceived by Canadians – in Quebec, for instance, and among immigrant communities. “Domestically, it does raise the question of reinforcing this kind of British veneer that we are putting on Canadian foreign policy.”
By Erin Anderssen & Campbell Clark[/Quote]
[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-and-britain-to-run-combined-embassies/article4561954/[/url]
[thumb]http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/-118740_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x&stmp=1336594502100[/thumb]
Counter the article, I'm actually ok with this. Any Limeys have thoughts?
So the UK embassy in Canada will also stand as an embassy to Canada?
I don't know the inner workings of embassies, but I don't see a problem with this.
Aww how cute, you guys decided to patch things up and move back in together!
It's like an empirical "let's talk about the old days" get together.
Once a commonwealth, always a commonwealth? :v:
Imagining the Canadian desk workers pranking Australian workers by chaining their chairs with iron balls while Australians pour syrup into Canadian worker's coat sleeves with syrup
Saves money. Why not?
[QUOTE=redhaven;37784093]Saves money. Why not?[/QUOTE]
The G&M has pretty much always been anti-monarchist of some sort or another. What they're trying to get at is that one way Canada asserted its independence back in the old days was by having an independent foreign policy; so for example having separate embassies from the UK. This is being perceived by some - including the G&M, which has always had an anti-conservative/Monarchy slant to it - as harking back to a time when Canada was still a colony of the UK and a partial surrender of our foreign policy.
This is also a giant watershed moment in Canadian foreign policy. We're (finally?) moving back to the Commonwealth as our focus of foreign policy after being aligned to the USA during the Cold War. Now that America is in decline, the Commonwealth might again become the dominant voice of the English speaking world.
Oh and not to mention that most Francophones are going to hate the fuck out of this decision.
[QUOTE=Sixer;37784308]The G&M has pretty much always been anti-monarchist of some sort or another. What they're trying to get at is that one way Canada asserted its independence back in the old days was by having an independent foreign policy; so for example having separate embassies from the UK. This is being perceived by some - including the G&M, which has always had an anti-conservative/Monarchy slant to it - as harking back to a time when Canada was still a colony of the UK and a partial surrender of our foreign policy.
This is also a giant watershed moment in Canadian foreign policy. We're (finally?) moving back to the Commonwealth as our focus of foreign policy after being aligned to the USA during the Cold War. Now that America is in decline, the Commonwealth might again become the dominant voice of the English speaking world.
Oh and not to mention that most Francophones are going to hate the fuck out of this decision.[/QUOTE]
Commonwealth being dominant voice of the English world? Ha
[quote]Contrary to media reports in Britain, sources said the agreement does not include Australia and New Zealand,[/quote]
In due time.. they shall return to the Empire.
[img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110425223659/deadliestfiction/images/e/e7/The_emperor.jpg[/img]
In countries where Australia has no diplomatic presence, the Canadians always give consular assistance to Australians. Logical next step is to just merge them I suppose.
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;37783925]It's like an empirical "let's talk about the old days" get together.[/QUOTE]
That is not what empirical means you muppet.
[QUOTE=Sixer;37784308]This is also a giant watershed moment in Canadian foreign policy. We're (finally?) moving back to the Commonwealth as our focus of foreign policy after being aligned to the USA during the Cold War. Now that America is in decline, the Commonwealth might again become the dominant voice of the English speaking world.[/quote]
I would prefer if we aligned ourselves with Canada on the global political scale, not swapping abck and forth between international BFFs whenever it suits our purpose. That said, yeah, I'd rather we get closer with the UK, if we really must choose.
[quote]Oh and not to mention that most Francophones are going to hate the fuck out of this decision.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the Bloq is going to be ramping up the anti-Canadian rhetoric pretty hard, eh?
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37783994]Imagining the Canadian desk workers pranking Australian workers by chaining their chairs with iron balls while Australians pour syrup into Canadian worker's coat sleeves with syrup[/QUOTE]
I was more thinking that the Canadian employees would screw & bolt the Australians furniture to the ceiling.
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;37783925]It's like an empirical "let's talk about the old days" get together.[/QUOTE]
*Imperial
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;37785984]I would prefer if we aligned ourselves with Canada on the global political scale, not swapping abck and forth between international BFFs whenever it suits our purpose. That said, yeah, I'd rather we get closer with the UK, if we really must choose.
Yeah, the Bloq is going to be ramping up the anti-Canadian rhetoric pretty hard, eh?[/QUOTE]
The Bloc Quebecois are dead, they've got 4 seats in the house and nobody cares about them anymore. The Parti Quebecois, though, in charge of the Province of Quebec, will no doubt burn an effigy of the Queen made of Union Jacks in protest of this monarchistic display.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;37785033]In due time.. they shall return to the Empire.
[img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110425223659/deadliestfiction/images/e/e7/The_emperor.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I read that in my head in an evil british accent. Perfect.
I always think of Canada as a less shit Britain. you don't have Cameron in it for starters.
[QUOTE=Ereunity;37790603]I always think of Canada as a less shit Britain. you don't have Cameron in it for starters.[/QUOTE]
Harper.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37788597]The Bloc Quebecois are dead, they've got 4 seats in the house and nobody cares about them anymore. The Parti Quebecois, though, in charge of the Province of Quebec, will no doubt burn an effigy of the Queen made of Union Jacks in protest of this monarchistic display.[/QUOTE]
And no one will notice except the 32% of Quebeckers who voted for them.
... Fucking seriously how badly do your political parties need to suck in order to form a government with 32% of the popular vote. Honestly.
[QUOTE=Sixer;37784308]The G&M has pretty much always been anti-monarchist of some sort or another. What they're trying to get at is that one way Canada asserted its independence back in the old days was by having an independent foreign policy; so for example having separate embassies from the UK. This is being perceived by some - including the G&M, which has always had an anti-conservative/Monarchy slant to it - as harking back to a time when Canada was still a colony of the UK and a partial surrender of our foreign policy.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
[QUOTE=Sixer;37784308]This is also a giant watershed moment in Canadian foreign policy. We're (finally?) moving back to the Commonwealth as our focus of foreign policy after being aligned to the USA during the Cold War. Now that America is in decline, the Commonwealth might again become the dominant voice of the English speaking world.[/QUOTE]
I don't see that happening. A unified Commonwealth foreign policy is possible but that wouldn't happened if the USA still exists, even if we get into a multi-polar post-American world. The United States is the centre of the Anglo-sphere, and its big weight (heh!) makes it a better friend than Britain. The Commonwealth would be the dominant voice of the English speaking world if you remove all the Americans.
[QUOTE=Sixer;37791118]And no one will notice except the 32% of Quebeckers who voted for them.
... Fucking seriously how badly do your political parties need to suck in order to form a government with 32% of the popular vote. Honestly.[/QUOTE]
Harper formed a majority with about 36%, the last politician/party to get popular majority was Brian Mulroney of the Tories with about 54%. We seldom have popular majorities.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.