canada cp Jarrod, Aron B. , Modermatt, Kevin P, Grace P.

1nc shells

1nc sino-jap war

The counterplan solves the case
Jeffs, 12 - President of the Canadian International Council a non-partisan, membership-based research council focused on international affairs, Ph.D. in
International Political Economy (IPE) from the University of Toronto, (Jennifer, Latin America: Land of Opportunity, March 22, 2012, http://opencanada.org/features/blogs/dispatch/latin-america-land-of-opportunity/)//A-Berg The recent Republican debates

in the U.S. have demonstrated a staggering lack of understanding of Latin America. While fears of criminal networks becoming sufficiently internationalized to encompass and accommodate the jihadist threat are understandable in a
post-9/11 world, the strong historic economic and social ties between Latin America and the United States should surely translate into a deeper understanding and support of the trends developing in these vibrant and often resource-rich countries. As Sabatini points out, A little realism would go a long way. But perhaps the historic legacy of U.S. activity in the region is too strong, and resentments too enduring. Meanwhile, Canada

is ideally positioned to deepen its relations with its hemispheric neighbours. Canadas experience of democratic institutionbuilding including its support for the development of judicial, educational, and policing systems in the region and, in contrast to the U.S., its historical record of no military intervention in the region, show potential for mutually beneficial exchange and engagement with Latin American countries . Collaboration with Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, for example, in the development of fossil fuels and biofuels as alternative energy sources would further integrate the hemispheres economy while de-emphasizing the importance of Venezuelas oil. While Mexicos security threats are an obvious concern, Canada could take the lead in partnering with Mexican researchers in areas that would provide entry for Mexicos massive youth population into the knowl edge-based economy. (In addition to clean energy, this could include areas such as biotechnology, aerospace, and health care for developing regions.) By fostering these relations, Canada would pave the way for other hemispheric partnerships , setting an example for the U.S. in its efforts to tackle governance, resource management, and environmental issues through regional investment and partnerships. Given the U.S.s preoccupation with security, transnational crime and its potential links to the jihadist threat might be a good place to start. But security is only one aspect of the global challenges facing the hemisphere, and cannot be addressed in isolation. Latin America needs partnerships in its natural-resource and associated sectors, in education and health-care research initiatives, and in bracing for climate change. Canada should fill that need, engaging with Latin America in a spectrum of areas that the U.S. and China have largely neglected.

Canadas soft power prevents Sino-Japan war---it goes nuclear.

FATDC 12 Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Stopping the Free-Fall Implications of SinoJapanese Rivalry for Regional Stability and Canadian
Interests, 2012-09-14 http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-recherche/intl_securitysecurite_int/yuan2007/section1a.aspx?lang=eng)//A-Berg This report discusses developments in Sino-Japanese

relations since the end of the Cold War and analyses some of the underlining causes of mistrust, misunderstanding, hostility, and emerging rivalry between these two major Asia powers . It presents a
preliminary assessment of the key issues and controversies ranging from Chinese views on the evolving U.S.-Japan military alliance, Japan's aspiration to become a normal state and its pursuit of greater international role and enhancement of military capabilities, to historical legacies and rising nationalism in both countries, unresolved territorial disputes and competition for resources, and growing Japan-Taiwan ties. The report argues that the end of the Cold War, the changing international security environment in East Asia, domestic politics and leadership transition in both China and Japan, especially China's rise as a major power, present serious challenges for the regional balance of power and the need for adaptation and adjustments to the power shift and transformation. This dramatic shift in the power balance also leads to worst-case interpretations by both Beijing and Tokyo of the other's intentions and behavior. Under such circumstances, the old wounds of history are further aggravated by new nationalism, personality, and changing domestic foreign policy making processes where societal pressures impose significant constraints on conciliatory gestures and "new thinking" on managing bilateral relations. The report also reviews and evaluates the validity of limited confidence building measures and security dialogue between Beijing and Tokyo and concludes that their utility is constrained by the overall political relationship between the two countries. At the same time, the report also notes that growing economic interdependence, the recognition that continued deterioration of relations serves neither side's interests; consequently, the resolve of Chinese and Japanese leaders in the post-Koizumi era to mend fences and promote common interests at least for now have prevented the free fall in Asia's most important bilateral relationship. Sino-Japanese

relations have important implications for Canada's interests. Canada has long maintained good relationships with both China and Japan for economic and politico-security reasons. Japan has been a traditional trading partner of Canada while China's
phenomenal growth over the last quarter century has drawn significant interest from Canadian businesses. Ottawa made significant efforts in promoting its ties with Asian Pacific countries in the 1990s, as well as participated in and introduced multilateral security institution-building. In this context, the

continuing

free fall of the Sino-Japanese relationship could seriously affect Canadian interests in the region. Canada remains a "stakeholder" in the future developments in Sino-Japanese relations for at least three reasons: China's rise and its future direction affect both regional peace and stability and the geo-strategic landscape at the global level. China has become an important trading partner for Canada and Canadian "soft power" in engaging and encouraging China to adopt a multilateral approach to regional security and good governance has achieved important results. Ottawa should continue to play an active role in engaging Beijing to promote a disarmament agenda and encourage military transparency so that China's emergence could be better integrated into the existing international norms and frameworks, values a middle power such as
Canada holds dear. Japan and Canada share many common values and interests. Both are members of the G-8 and OECD, and are concerned with emerging nontraditional security challenges, human security, and international peacekeeping. However, Ottawa and Tokyo have placed different emphasis and have different priorities due to their respective threat perceptions, geography and alliance commitments. Continued Sino-Japanese rivalry has serious implications for Canadian interests. Prolonged instability and deteriorating security in that region would negatively affect Canada's interests. Intensified

disputes leading to militarized conflicts between China and Japan could result in a number of negative developments. There is the potential for an arms race. Japan strives for greater military capabilities, including nuclear and missile capabilitie s as Tokyo's confidence in U.S. nuclear umbrella and the alliance protection wanes.

Regional instability leads to extinction

Toon et. Al. 7 Department of Atmosphere and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for Atmosphere and Space Physics, University of Colorado,
Boulder (Owen B. Toon, 2 March 2007, Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear Conflicts, Science Magazine, Vol 315, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/SciencePolicyForumNW.pdf)//KP *Secondary authors include: Alan Robock (Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University), Richard P. Turco (Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California Los Angeles), Charles Bardeen (Department of Atmosphere and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for Atmosphere and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder), Luke Oman (Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University; and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University), and Georgiy L. Stenchikov (Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University).
The world may no longer face a serious threat of global nuclear warfare, but regional

conflicts continue. Within this milieu, acquiring nuclear weapons has been considered a potent political, military, and social tool (13). National ownership of nuclear weapons offers perceived international status and insurance against aggression at a modest financial cost. Against this backdrop, we provide a quantitative assessment of the potential for casualties in a regional-scale nuclear conflict, or a terrorist attack, and the associated environmental impacts (4, 5). Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons. In addition, North Korea may
have a small, but growing, arsenal. Iran appears to be seeking nuclear weapons capability, but it probably needs several years to obtain enough fissionable material .

Of great concern, 32 other nationsincluding Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanhave sufficient fissionable materials to produce weapons (1, 6). A de facto nuclear arms race has emerged in Asia between China, India, and Pakistan, which could expand to include North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (1). In the Middle East, a nuclear
confrontation between Israel and Iran would be fearful. Saudi Arabia and Egypt could also seek nuclear weapons to balance Iran and Israel. Nuclear arms programs in South America, notably in Brazil and Argentina, were ended by several treaties in the 1990s (6). We can hope that these agreements will hold and will serve as a model for other regions, despite Brazils new, large uranium enrichment facilities. Nuclear arsenals containing 50 or more we apons of low yield [15 kilotons (kt), equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb] are relatively easy to build (1, 6). India and Pakistan, the smallest nuclear powers, probably have such arsenals, although no nuclear state has ever disclosed its inventory of warheads (7). Modern

weapons are compact and lightweight and are readily transported (by car, truck, missile, plane, or boat) (8). The basic concepts of weapons design can be found on of the Internet. The only serious obstacle to constructing a bomb is the limited availability of purified fissionable fuels. There are many political, economic, and social factors that could trigger a regionalscale nuclear conflict, plus many scenarios for the conduct of the ensuing war. We assumed (4) that the
densest population centers in each countryusually in megacitiesare attacked. We did not evaluate specific military targets and related casualties. We considered a nuclear exchange involving 100 weapons of 15-kt yield each, that is, ~0.3% of the total number of existing weapons (4). India and Pakistan, for instance, have previously tested nuclear weapons and are now thought to have between 109 and 172 weapons of unknown yield (9). Fatalities were estimated by means of a standard population database for a number of countries that might be targeted in a regional conflict (see figure, above). For instance, such an exchange between India and Pakistan (10) could produce about 21 million fatalities about half as many as occurred globally during World War II. The

direct effects of thermal radiation and nuclear blasts, as well as gamma-ray and neutron radiation within the first

few minutes of the blast, would cause most casualties. Extensive damage to infrastructure, contamination by long-lived radionuclides, and psychological trauma would likely result in the indefinite abandonment of large areas leading to severe economic and social repercussions. Fires ignited by nuclear bursts would release copious amounts of light-absorbing smoke into the upper atmosphere. If 100 small nuclear weapons were detonated within cities, they could generate 1 to 5 million tons of carbonaceous smoke pa rticles (4), darkening the sky and affecting the atmosphere more than major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo (1991) or
Tambora (1815) (5). Carbonaceous smoke particles are transported by winds throughout the atmosphere but also induce circulations in response to solar heating. Simulations (5) predict that such radiativedynamical interactions would loft and stabilize the smoke aerosol, which would allow it to persist in the middle and upper atmosphere for a decade. Smoke

emissions of 100 lowyield urban explosions in a regional nuclear conflict would generate substantial globalscale climate anomalies, although not as large as in previous nuclear winter scenarios for a full-scale war (11, 12). However, indirect effects on surface land temperatures, precipitation rates, and growing season lengths (see figure, page 1225) would be likely to degrade agricultural productivity to an extent that historically has led to famines in Africa, India, and Japan after the 17831784 Laki eruption (13) or in the northeastern United States and Europe after the Tambora eruption of 1815 (5). Climatic anomalies could persist for a decade or more because of smoke stabilization, far longer than in previous nuclear winter calculations or after volcanic eruptions.
Studies of the consequences of full-scale nuclear war show that indirect effects of the war could cause more casualties than direct ones, perhaps eliminating the majority of the worlds population (11, 12). Indirect

effects such as damage to transportation, energy, medical, political, and social infrastructure could be limited to the combatant nations in a regional war. However, climate anomalies would threaten the world outside the combat zone. The predicted smoke emissions and fatalities per kiloton of explosive yield are roughly 100 times those expected from estimates for full-scale nuclear attacks with high-yield weapons (4). Unfortunately, the Treaty on NonProliferation of Nuclear
Weapons has failed to prevent the expansion of nuclear states. A bipartisan group including two former U.S. secretaries of state, a former secretary of defense, and a former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee has recently pointed out that nuclear deterrence is no longer effective and may become dangerous (3). Terrorists, for instance, are outside the bounds of deterrence strategies. Mutually assured destruction may not function in a world with large numbers of nuclear states with widely varying political goals and philosophies. New nuclear states may not have well-developed safeguards and controls to prevent nuclear accidents or unauthorized launches. This bipartisan group detailed numerous steps to inhibit or prevent the spread of nuclear weapons (3). Its list, with which we concur, includes removing nuclear weapons from alert status to reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon; reducing the size of nuclear forces in all states; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty worldwide; securing all stocks of weapons, weaponsusable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world; controlling uranium enrichment along with guaranteeing that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained from controlled international reserves; safeguarding spent fuel from reactors producing electricity; halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and research facilities and rendering the materials safe; and resolving regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers. The analysis summarized here shows that the

world has reached a crossroads. Having survived the threat of global nuclear war between the superpowers so far, the world is increasingly threatened by the prospects of regional nuclear war. The consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts are unexpectedly large, with the potential to become global catastrophes. The combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability, and urban demographics may constitute one of the greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of humans.

1nc conflict res

The counterplan solves
Jeffs, 12 - President of the Canadian International Council a non-partisan, membership-based research council focused on international affairs, Ph.D. in
International Political Economy (IPE) from the University of Toronto, (Jennifer, Latin America: Land of Opportunity, March 22, 2012, http://opencanada.org/features/blogs/dispatch/latin-america-land-of-opportunity/)//A-Berg The recent Republican debates

in the U.S. have demonstrated a staggering lack of understanding of Latin America. While fears of criminal networks becoming sufficiently internationalized to encompass and accommodate the jihadist threat are understandable in a
post-9/11 world, the strong historic economic and social ties between Latin America and the United States should surely translate into a deeper understanding and support of the trends developing in these vibrant and often resource-rich countries. As Sabatini points out, A little realism would go a long way. But perhaps the historic legacy of U.S. activity in the region is too strong, and resentments too enduring. Meanwhile, Canada

is ideally positioned to deepen its relations with its hemispheric neighbours. Canadas experience of democratic institutionbuilding including its support for the development of judicial, educational, and policing systems in the region and, in contrast to the U.S., its historical record of no military intervention in the region, show potential for mutually beneficial exchange and engagement with Latin American countries . Collaboration with Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, for example, in the development of fossil fuels and biofuels as alternative energy sources would further integrate the hemispheres economy while de-emphasizing the importance of Venezuelas oil. While Mexicos security threats are an obvious concern, Canada could take the lead in partnering with Mexican researchers in areas that would provide entry for Mexicos massive youth population into the knowledge -based economy. (In addition to clean energy, this could include areas such as biotechnology, aerospace, and health care for developing regions.) By fostering these relations, Canada would pave the way for other hemispheric partnerships , setting an example for the U.S. in its efforts to tackle governance, resource management, and environmental issues through regional investment and partnerships. Given the U.S.s preoccupation with security, transnational crime and its potential links to the jihadist threat might be a good place to start. But security is only one aspect of the global challenges facing the hemisphere, and cannot be addressed in isolation. Latin America needs partnerships in its natural-resource and associated sectors, in education and health-care research initiatives, and in bracing for climate change. Canada should fill that need, engaging with Latin America in a spectrum of areas that the U.S. and China have largely neglected.

Canada soft power is k/t UN cred and conflict prevention

Carment* and Marriott** 2003, *is the Director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University, where he is Associate
Professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, **is a graduate of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, (David B. and Koren Conflict Prevention in Canada A Survey of Canadian Conflict Prevention Professionals, September 2003, http://http server.carleton.ca/~dcarment/papers/conflictpreventionsurvey1.pdf) According to IMPACS, Canada

has the resources and capability to play a lead role in conflict prevention internationally. It could provide support by delivering training or by building local capacities and developing local assets. Canada should support initiatives related to media and peacebuilding, dialogues and roundtable sessions, mediation efforts, etc. In general, many of the respondents had basically positive things to say about Canadas role in conflict prevention. Often this also
included ways to increase effectiveness, or to capitalize on what one respondent described as the deferring t o Canada on certain issues in multilateral fora. Basically, the responses leave the impression that respondents believe that Canada and Canadians have made a good start and are generally motivated by the right intentions but that more could be done. Partic ular suggestions included pushing for inclusion of womens rights in international

treaties, strengthening of the UN and its procedures, the championing of international law and the encouragement of other states to adopt international treaties relating to the safety and security of people around the globe. The overriding theme that appeared in several of the responses was that Canada should support the work of international and regional organizations. UNICEF stated that by using soft power, Canada is in a strong position to champion international laws and treaties through the UN and other regional and international bodies. CUSOs response reflected similar views, stating; Canada is respected internationally for being a promoter of peace and human security, and should continue this role. It should continue to work within multi-lateral

frameworks, including the UN, ensuring rule of law is adhered to in all its conflict prevention and interventions. Canada should support the reform of the UN in order to make it a more effective international body capable of effecting positive change in today's world. Canada should be more active in ensuring that
people around the world share equitably in its resources. Canada should promote human rights and democratic development in all its international dealings including in trade and development. Theresa Dunn expressed a related opinion, saying she believes Canada

is strategically placed to become a leader in conflict prevention through its role as peacebuilder and often impartial agent. She went on to say that because of Canadas size and commitment to conflict resolution through collaboration we are able to move internationally with knowledge and expertise. These views are fairly representative of a major portion of
the responses received.

Southeast Asia is on the track to collapse---multiple regional and interstate hotspots are on the brink---effective UN conflict prevention is key
Wainwright 10 - Elsina, Deputy Director for Personnel and a Senior Fellow in the Statebuil ding Program at New York Universitys Center on International
Cooperation, Adjunct Associate Professor at the Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) at the University of Sydney, Australia. PhD at Oxford University in International Relations, Conflict Prevention in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific April 2010, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/E9F30DCAFE830FC9492577140018C276-Full_Report.pdf)//A-Berg The Asia Pacific region is in the most broadly peaceful era in its history it has experienced thirty years without interstate conflict. Extraordinary economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Notwithstanding this striking record, however, a

host of long-running, low-level internal conflicts continue in Southeast Asia, and several South Pacific states have recent experience of instability. Significant tensions also exist at the inter-state level, which could be amplified by a raft of growing transnational threats such as climate change and resource scarcity. Dramatic shifts in regional power dynamics are also creating new uncertainty. While for several decades, U.S military strength and its network of alliances have underpinned stability in the region, the rise of China and India may signal the end of this period of American predominance. By 2025 China and India will probably both have overtaken the GDP of all states
except the US and Japan;1 by 2030, Chinas economy could overtake that of the US.2 The global financial crisis appears to hav e accelerated China and Indias rise, and China is on track this year to overtake Japan to become the second largest economy globally.3 The Asia Pacifics growing economic dominance is accompanied by increasing diplomatic and strategic clout, and the 2009 US National Intelligence Community Estimate describes the

region as poised to become the long-term power center of the world.4 China and Indias emergence is also recasting Southeast Asias geopolitical landscape, as both compete for energy, markets, diplomatic influence, and naval access. States in the region apprehend this strategic flux and the uncertainty surrounding continued US strategic primacy. A number, including Australia, Cambodia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, have increased their defense spending,
amplifying the very strategic uncertainty for which they are preparing.5 Who will take responsibility for conflict prevention and conflict management in this transitional period? During any power shift, major power

competition can complicate or obstruct efforts to tackle conflicts, even the Asia Pacific, the existing conflict management mechanisms are under-developed.6 A review of operational conflict prevention efforts in the
where robust international or regional mechanisms have been established for prevention, peacemaking and peacekeeping. In region shows that while international organizations, particularly the UN, and regional organizations perform some conflict prevention roles in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, these roles are circumscribed.7 The constraints upon them flow from the high degree of respect for sovereignty prevalent in the Asia Pacific, but they also have historical, institutional, and political underpinnings. The UN itself faces particular skepticism, including the charge that it and the other Bretton Woods institutions have a relative disinterest in the region, as well as having governance structures that have yet to accomm odate the Asia Pacifics accelerating economic and geostrategic importance.8 Structural prevention initiatives have been less constrained, with a plethora of actors, including the UN, using statebuilding and development tools to build state resilience, manage transnational threats, and avert violence.9 A number of multilateral track two networks and confidencebuilding processes also contribute to conflict prevention in the region. But the

sum of all these efforts is still limited. Given the long-running conflicts and sources of tension in the Asia Pacific, the limited conflict prevention role played by international and regional institutions in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific is at first glance surprising. Yet, as this paper argues, a fair amount of conflict prevention activity has taken place in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, though less by grand
design than in an ad hoc fashion, as opportunities have arisen. In the absence of a major, formalized role for international and regional organizations, regional crisis management has drawn in a variety of other actors, including states and NGOs, and seen ad hoc, multi-actor mechanisms assume a particular prominence. A series of case-specific, multi-actor mechanisms have worked well in the region; their good track record and the ongoing features of the Asia Pacific suggest that they are likely to remain the regions primary conflict management vehicles. What role can the

UN and regional organizations play in this context? This paper argues that in spite of their limitations, they can still make a significant contribution to conflict prevention and management in the Asia Pacific. Their priorities should be to strengthen existing prevention mechanisms; support other actors on a caseby-case
basis; and flexibly add in capabilities to facilitate prevention efforts led by others. This report concludes with recommendations on how the UN and other actors can develop new tools and networks to underpin a flexible strategy for prevention in the Asia Pacific. The first recommendation stresses the importance in the Asia Pacific of a focus on cooperation in functional areas, such as civil-military cooperation in a disaster response context. Such functional cooperation is less constrained by regional sensitivities than full-scale political or security cooperation, and offers the prospect of enabling future political/security cooperation in the region, by allaying concerns about outside involvement. The analysis within this paper falls into two parts. First, it reviews the nature of crises in the region highlighting the complexity and diversity of current and potential conflicts, and noting how growing transnational threats may exacerbate these. Second, it analyzes existing conflict

prevention mechanisms, beginning with the UN and regional organizations, but also considering states, NGOs and financial institutions as preventive actors. This

paper shows that there are significant resources for conflict prevention in the Asia Pacific. The challenge is to harness these in a period of growing strategic uncertainty. 1. Regional Crises Since the end of the Cold War, low-level internal violence has been the prevailing type of conflict in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. This has arguably contributed to the fragmented nature of conflict prevention in the region: case-specific coalitions of actors have emerged to help deal with specific low-level conflicts. In some cases, conflict management processes have been complicated by tensions arising from poor socio-economic conditions. There is also a risk of inter-state conflict in the region, while transnational issues such as resource scarcity and climate change may foster instability and even conflict. a. Internal conflicts, current and potential Internal conflicts persist in the southern part of Thailand, Mindanao in the Philippines, Papua in Indonesia, and in Myanmar. All involve separatist insurgencies fuelled by enduring grievances about representation, access to resourcederived revenues, or employment opportunities, and all have ethnic and/or religious dimensions. In Southern Thailand, violence between the militants and the Thai central government continues, with over 3,400 deaths since the conflict rekindled five years ago.10 The crisis within
the Thai political system has reduced attention to the conflict and slowed peace negotiations. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjaji vas government declared itself open to dialogue with the militants, and formulated fresh guidelines towards the conflict, which focus more on education, justice and development. However, the central political turmoil has made the government loath to move too far on this issue, lest it be used against them in a domestic political dispute. This has left the Thai military in charge of the response in the south. On the Philippine island of Mindanao, fighting reignited between the Philippine army and a Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rogue command in 2008 after the Philippine Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Philippine government-MILF draft peace agreement. The court decision damaged the credibility of moderate MILF members who support negotiation, and burnished the credibility of those that want to fight. Contact between the government and the MILF has resumed talks were held in December 2009, notwithstanding the pall cast by the massacre by the private militia of a local warlord in Maguindanao a few weeks prior. An International Contact Group comprised of Japan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the NGOs the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HDC), the Asia Foundation, Conciliation Resources, and Muhammadiyah has been established to assist with the negotiations process.11 The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), from which the MILF splintered, is also still an actor in Mindanaos four -decade, stop-start separatist insurgency. The 1976 Philippine government-MNLF agreement has not been fully implemented and has yet to resolve that dimension of the conflict. In addition, the Philippines continues to experience a Communist insurgency, particularly in its south: the New Peoples Army (NPA) has been battling government for ces for 40 years, and anticipated

Myanmar remains embroiled in the worlds longestrunning contemporary conflict over 60 years with numerous ethnic groups against the military regime. Myanmars junta has concluded ceasefires with over a dozen of these ethnic groups, but these ceasefires are fragile. Political and development promises made to various groups by the junta have not materialized, and over the last year the military has launched fresh offensives against some of the groups. With elections scheduled for this year and ethnic groups supposed to play an opposition role, Myanmar is heading into a period of considerable uncertainty. In the Indonesian province of Papua,12 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has repaired some of the damage wrought
formal talks, the first in five years, have yet to take place. by previous efforts to undermine the 2001 special autonomy initiative.13 A number of Free Papua Movements (Organisasi Papua Merdekas or OPMs) political demands have been met, and the President has stated that the over 40-year separatist struggle requires a political rather than military solution. The focus in the province is also shifting from political issues to development, and there has been an increase in development spending. However, violence (by the fragmented OPM or its affiliates against the security sector; as well as ethnic Papuans against immigrants; intra-Papuan tensions; and the targeting of the resources sector, especially Freeport mine) increased in 2009, particularly in the lead up to the legislative elections last April. The military reaction was robust, with accusations of Indonesian security sector intimidation.14 So while the last few years have seen a more positive political and development trajectory in Papua, the situation remains volatile. Timor-Leste and the provinces of Aceh in Indonesia and Bougainville in Papua New Guinea are all in the consolidating phase after their respective conflicts. TimorLeste in particular has a tumultuous recent history, and around 550 Australian and New Zealand military personnel remain on the ground, at the Timorese governments request, to help maintain security. TimorLeste has stabilized politically since the 2006 security crisis and the 2008 assassination attempt on President Jose Ramos Horta, and the Timorese government has taken more of a leading role over the UN mission for example, the government has assumed responsibility for policing. Many serious problems remain, however. These include a young and largely unemployed population (nearly half of whom are under 15); significant land and food pressures; quasi-militias in the form of martial arts groups; and a highly problematic security sector, which is politicized and rife with internal tensions, and in which the roles of the police and military are still blurred. Aceh, meanwhile, is enjoying the results of a reasonably successful peace process, with the incorporation of Free Aceh Movement (GAM) militants into democratic political structures. The disarmament of GAM and decommissioning of its weapons, and relocation of nonorganic military and police contributed to an upswing in security.15 Occasional violence in Aceh tends now to stem more from elite competition for Acehs revenues than from actions against the state. Acehs growing prosperity has helped to reinforce the peace, as has publ ic distaste for the involvement of former GAM militants in illegal activities and intimidation. The winding up of the post-tsunami funding apparatus has created some uncertainty in Aceh, and a few aspects of the peace agreement, such as a truth and reconciliation commission, have not been implemented. And while dramatic post-tsunami reconstruction has helped to reinforce the peace in tsunami-affected communities, a number of conflict- but not tsunami-affected communities have not received a similar level of donor support, and there is a risk that growing disparity in support and poverty levels might undermine the peace process. Furthermore, the recent discovery of a terrorist training camp in Aceh indicates that such a

fragile post-conflict setting can be attractive to terrorists and transnational criminal elements.16 Notwithstanding these risks, however, the autonomy framework is by and large working, and in the July 2009
presidential election, the reelected Indonesian President received a greater percentage of the votes in Aceh 90% than in any other part of Indonesia.17 While the 2001 peace agreement in Bougainville also involved the granting of autonomy, the situation on the ground is not as positive as in Aceh.18 Nor has Bougainville received a similar amount of attention from the international donor community or its national government, and its interim decentralization framework and the PNG government-Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) relationship are dysfunctional. Bougainville has not seen a significant improvement in development since the 2005 withdrawal of the UN observer mission,19 and the south of the province has been restive, with little economic activity or government service provision. The ongoing presence of weapons with new ones coming in from neighboring Solomon Islands continues to destabilize the province, particularly its south. The election of President James Tanis in December 2008 resolved an ABG leadership vacuum, and there are signs that some of these problems might be addressed. But Bougainville remains fragile as it moves towards its 2012 referendum on possible independence, and ongoing challenges include youth unemployment, and weapons collection and disposal. Internal

conflicts will likely remain the most common type of conflict in the Asia Pacific region in the medium term. Domestic political imperatives have inhibited resolution of the conflicts in Mindanao and Southern Thailand, for example,
and Papua (where political concessions have been made and the state-periphery relationship is sounder) and Myanmar both experienced an upsurge in violence last

year. In addition to post-conflict Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands, Southeast

Asia and the South Pacific contain a number of other fragile states, including Cambodia, Laos and Papua New Guinea, which have weak institutions of governance and jobless young populations. With limited state resilience, there is a risk such states might experience heightened social and political instability, even conflict, if faced with a significant shock. b. Inter-state tensions in the Asia Pacific While internal conflict is the predominant type of conflict in the region, multiple inter-state territorial disputes persist and occasionally escalate.
The starkest recent example is the 2008 Thai-Cambodia border crisis, in which the UNESCO World Heritage listing of the Preah Vihear Temple in Cambodia rekindled Thai contestation of the temple and its nearby border, and the situation escalated into a military standoff. Cambodia brought the issue to ASEAN and the UN Security Council, whereas Thailand sought to handle the issue bilaterally. While the two states eventually held bilateral negotiations and tensions lessened, Cambodia has not formally withdrawn its request for the matter to be on the Security Council agenda, so the issue continues to simmer. Thai-Cambodian relations have been further exacerbated by the Cambodian Prime Ministers appointment of ousted former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shin awatra as economic advisor, and Cambodias subsequent rejection of Thailands request for Thaksins extradition. Other territorial

disputes in the region include the islands and waters of the South China Sea, which are contested by the Southeast Asian states of Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, as well as by China and Taiwan; the energy-rich Gulf of Thailand, contested by Thailand and Vietnam; and the Ambalat maritime area, over which ongoing Indonesian-Malaysian tensions heightened last year, with Indonesia accusing Malaysia of a naval incursion into its waters.20 In North Asia, territorial disputes persist (such as those between China-Japan and Japan-South Korea), and traditional regional flashpoints include Taiwan and North Korea. With enduring territorial disputes and a shifting geostrategic landscape dominated by China and to a lesser extent Indias rise, Asias continuing peaceful trajectory is by no means guaranteed. 21 Discontinuities are always possible, and potential threats to stability are many. At the great power level, China-Japan relations are still fraught,
though they have improved from their low point of several years ago; and the US-China relationship, as US President Obama recently declared, will shape the 21st Century.22 For several decades Asia-Pacific stability has been premised on US strategic primacy, and the US has managed the region with a traditional hubandspokes alliance model. But China, if its rise continues, will at some point challenge this US primacy, while Indias rise is complicating the regional picture further. c. Transnational security challenges Southeast

Asia and the South Pacific also face a host of pressing transnational challenges including food, water and energy scarcity; climate change; lingering effects of the global financial crisis; terrorism; transnational crime; and pandemics. A number of these challenges are interconnected and can exacerbate each other.23 The 2008 food crisis hit Southeast Asia hard, with protests over
soybean scarcity in Indonesia and government crackdowns on those hoarding rice in the Philippines.24 Potable water availability and transboundary water management are growing problems throughout the region. Along the Mekong river basin, for example, Thailand,

Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar are downstream of Chinese dam projects which will control the rivers flow and have a potentially dramatic effect on those countries fresh water and food supplies. Southeast Asia and the South Pacific will be among the regions most affected by climate change and the attendant increase in the number and strength of natural disasters. The Asia Pacific broadly defined is
the most natural disaster-prone region in the last ten years, the region has experienced more than half of the worlds disasters.25 Urbanization and high -density living in Southeast Asia make its population highly vulnerable to such events. Flooding is expected to increase in coastal areas, particularly affecting the low-lying megadelta regions in Southeast Asia and coastal Pacific island villages.26 Rising temperatures and rising sea levels will increase the risk of illnesses such as malaria, and likely force

mass people movements throughout the region.27 Some of Indonesias smaller islands and whole Pacific Island South Pacific as an existential threat.28 The effects of climate change are already being felt by the archipelagic states of Southeast Asia and the low-lying atolls of the South Pacific. Storms are intensifying in the South China Sea, and their patterns are altering: cyclones which once passed over the Philippines on their way to Vietnam are now bouncing back to
states will probably be subsumed. Climate change is therefore regarded in the batter the Philippines a second time, in effect doubling its number of storm events. Rising sea levels are starting to submerge Pacific Island atolls such as Tuvalu and the Carteret Islands within PNG, coastal villages in the South Pacific are emptying as waters rise (the evacuation of Carteret Islanders has already begun), and states such as Kiribati are making plans to relocate its population. Food,

water and energy scarcity are all linked challenges, and climate change will serve as a major threat multiplier.29 Climate change is already exacerbating existing water problems
such as the salination of the Mekong Delta; salt water is contaminating acquifers across the region, compromising drinking water.30 Experts predict that climate change will also cause food shortages in the region due to lower crop yields and declining fish populations. The risk of significant political and social instability in the region from the global financial crisis has diminished as the recovery has proceeded. In fact Asia, in particular China, India and Indonesia, has experienced the worlds most pronounced economic recovery, and has driven a significant amount of bro ader global growth.31 However, the

financial crisis

amplified the stresses on a number of other regional states including Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia and Timor-Leste, which all experienced a rise in the numbers of people in poverty32 and increased the possibility of instability within those states. Southeast Asia also faces an ongoing threat from Islamic terrorist groups with links to Al-Qaeda. The threat from Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) has diminished, due in large
measure to regional law enforcement cooperation and Indonesias policing and deradicalization efforts. JI retains some capability, however, as the hotel bombings in Jakarta last July demonstrated, and the recent discovery of an Acehbased terrorist training camp seemingly a new grouping which includes disaffected former members of JI and other groups indicates the durability of the terrorist threat.33 The militant group Abu Sayaff also remains active in southern Philippines, and the Philippine military has launched further operations against it. Transnational

crime, including drug production and trafficking, sex trafficking, money laundering and identity fraud, is also a serious problem in the region, particularly emanating from states with weak security infrastructure and control over their territory. Laos, for example, has porous borders with its five

neighbors, and over recent years, there has been a significant increase in opium poppy cultivation and opium production and trafficking. Cambodia is susceptible to money laundering as well as drug trafficking. Large-scale quantities of heroin and metamphetamines are produced in territory controlled by the Wa ethnic group within Myanmar, and then trafficked throughout the region and beyond. Piracy

had long plagued the Malacca Straits, one of the worlds most heavily used and strategic waterways, through which the vast majority of sea-borne energy passes from the Middle East to the Asia Pacific. The number of attacks has decreased markedly over the last few years,
however, as a result of a concerted regional effort that will be discussed later in this paper. Finally, human proximity to birds and livestock in Asia make it the worlds greatest reservoir of viruses transmissible to humans. As SARS and the Avian flu virus showed, Asia

is a likely source of future pandemics which have the potential to overwhelm the health systems of fragile states . All of these transnational threats have significant implications for regional security and could exacerbate the regions ongoing conflicts. Natural disasters occurring in Mindanao, Southern Thailand, and Bougainville, for instance, can contribute to instability and worsen the plight of those affected by conflict. Recent flooding in Mindanao has displaced thousands of people already
displaced by the conflict there, increasing upheaval and the risk of disease.34 Climate change is now expected to have major geostrategic implications, such as the destabilization of state governments, the fuelling of terrorism, and the mass movement of refugees and internally displaced persons.35 The US Department of Defense is factoring climate change into US national security strategy.36 US defense planners are concerned that the humanitarian and relief operations required after climate change-associated events will pose a significant burden on the US military, including its transportation and support assets, and consequently affect its combat readiness posture.37 Transnational threats are also likely to be among the drivers of future instability and possibly internal conflict. A

major shock to a fragile states system, for example from a severe pandemic or water shortage, could significantly weaken governments and their institutions, and overwhelm a fragile states already-reduced capacity to function. Growing food, water and energy scarcity could likewise cause an internal crisis if sub-state groups come into competition over access. And threats such as water and energy scarcity have the potential to inflame interstate tensions . The continuing drive for energy
security, for instance, is intensifying competition between India and China within Myanmar, and could cause conflict between states contesting energy-rich territory such as the South China Sea. The above analysis suggests that, while the main challenge in the Asia Pacific in the near to medium term is likely to remain low-level internal conflicts, there is also a risk of rising inter-state tensions and even inter-state conflicts. The regions many transnational challenges could also generate or exacerbate instability. But these transnational challenges for example, piracy, resource scarcity and climate change are also opening up new opportunities for functional cooperation between both Asia Pacific and outside actors.

South Asia tension causes nuclear war - low-intensity conflict, terrorism, cross-border spillover
Khan 09 Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs (ACDA), Strategic Plans Division, Joint Services Headquarters, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, fellow at Wilson
Center (Feroz Hassan, Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War in South Asia, December 2009, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/DigitalLibrary/Publications/Detail/?ots591=cab359a3-9328-19cc-a1d2-8023e646b22c&lng=en&id=112786)//A-Berg The new international environment has altered the concept of national security. Threats

to international peace and security now emanate not from strategic confrontation between the major powers, but from regional conflicts and tensions and the spread of violent extremism by nonstate actors, threatening nation-states from within and transcending state boundaries and international security. In recent years, the levels of security enjoyed by various states have become increasingly asymmetricsome enjoy absolute security, others none at all. This environment of security imbalance has forced weaker states to adopt a repertoire of strategies for survival and national security that includes alliances and strategic partnerships, supporting low-intensity conflicts, and engaging in limited wars and nuclear deterrence . South Asia has witnessed increased regional tensions , a rise in r eligious extremism , a growing arms race, crisis stand-offs, and even armed conflict in recent years. Nuclear tests did not bring an era of genuine stability between India and Pakistan, though military crises in the region did not escalate into full-fledged wars, underscoring the need for greater imagination to rein in the risks due to the fragility of relations between two nuclear neighbors in an increasingly complex set of circumstances. Pakistans primary and immediate threat now is from within. Its western borderlands are rapidly converting into a battleground where ungoverned tribal space in proximity to the porous and disputed border is degenerating into insurgency both to its east into Pakistan as well as to its west into Afghanistan. The al Qaeda threat has now metastasized into a spreading
insurgency in the tribal borderlands, which is taking a heavy toll on both Pakistan and Western forces in Afghanistan. The newly elected government in Pakistan has hit the ground running; but still mired in domestic politics, it has been unable to focus on the al Qaeda and Taliban threat that is rapidly expanding its influence and targeting strategy. The

most tragic aspect of this conundrum is the success of al Qaeda in creating cracks of misunderstanding between Pakistan and the Western allies, while exacerbating tensions and mistrust between Pakistans traditional adversaries, India and Afghanistan.1 For example, Pakistans security nightmare which
perceives India-Afghanistan collusion in squeezing Pakistan is exacerbated, while the Indian and Afghan security establishments perceive Pakistani Intelligence malfeasance as perpetuating the Afghan imbroglio. Worse, the outcome of this confusion and blame generates real advantage for al Qaeda and the Taliban. Any terrorist act that pits Kabul, New Delhi, and Islamabad against each other and intensifies existing tensions and crises also throws Washington off balance, allowing al

Qaeda and its sympathizers the time and space to recoup, reorganize, and reequip, and continue to survive. The only silver lining in this unhealthy regional security picture is the slowly improving relationship between India and Pakistan, which has developed over the past 4 years. Though

relations are tense and

still fragile , there is a glimmer of hope in this overall crisis-ridden region. The dialogue process between India and Pakistan has been somewhat resilient in
the face of significant setbacks and changing domestic, political, and international landscapes within each. It is very improbable that a nuclear war between Pakistan and India would spontaneously occur. The history of the region and strategic nuclear weapons theories suggest that a

nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would result from an uninhibited escalation of a conventional war vice a spontaneous unleashing of nuclear arsenals. However, this region seems to be the one place in the world most likely to suffer nuclear warfare due to the seemingly undiminished national, religious, and ethnic animosities
countries. Furthermore, between these two

lack of transparency in nuclear programs leaves room to doubt the security surrounding each countrys nuclear arsenal and the safeguards preventing accidental launches. Therefore, discussions aimed at mitigating a catastrophic nuclear war in South Asia should focus mostly on the unilateral and bilateral anti-escalation measures Pakistan and India can take regarding existing issues. Additionally, each countrys perception of its security is interwoven with the political, diplomatic, and strategic movements of the external powers that wield significant influence in the region. Coherent and consistent behavior that discourages conventional and nuclear escalation, although sometimes imperceptibly, is needed from the United States, China, and Russia. Without this, both Pakistan and India are unlikely to feel confident enough to reduce the aggressive posturing of their conventional forces over existing cross-border issues, leaving the escalation from conventional warfare to nuclear warfare a very real possibility.

1nc econ/bmd
Canadian engagement key to export diversification and thats critical to their economy
Randall, 10 professor of history at the University of Calgary, Director of the Latin American Research Centre at the University of Calgary, Fellow with the
Canadian International Council working on Canadian relations with the Caribbean and Latin America, elected member of the Royal Society of Canada, fellow with the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, PhD from the University of Toronto (Stephen J. Randall, August 2010, Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America: Trade, Investment and Political Challenges, Foreign Policy for Canadas Tomorrow No. 9, Canadian International Council, http ://www.opencanada.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/Canada-the-Caribbean-and-Latin-America_-Trade-Investment-and-Political-Challenges-Stephen-J.-Randall.pdf)//KP Recommendations The paper asserts that the

expansion of Canadian trade with the countries of the Americas contributes to the diversification of Canadian trade, and that trade is essential to the health of the Canadian economy, its workers, and social institutions. The Canadian government should continue to seek ways to expand that trade in a politically and socially responsible manner. The Canadian government needs to continue to be proactive in seeking to expand and enhance economic relations with the Canadas main economic partners in the Caribbean and Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and
Venezuela) and to devote less time, energy, and resources to cultivating the less economically significant countries in the region. In its purs uit of trade agreements with the countries of the Americas, the Canadian government should continue to include provisions on human rights, labour, and environmental standards. These provisions should exceed international standards where possible and be consistent with Canadian values. The

Canadian government should not shy away from negotiating with countries that have experienced civil strife if, in the assessment of Canadian
policy-makers, engagement might help alleviate conflict. With regard to foreign direct investment, especially in the natural resou rce extraction sector, the Canadian government should continue to promote a high standard of corporate social responsibility. Where feasible, the government needs to go beyond the application of purely voluntary principles by the private sector, and set high standards for accountability and mechanisms to ensure compliance. Nonetheless, the primary responsibility to maintain good governance in the operation of foreign companies must reside with host countries. The

Canadian government should continue to work closely with the governments of host countries to strengthen their capacity to govern their own natural resources sector.

Low economy leads to budget cuts military acquisition programs next to cut
CBC News, 12 (Canadian News, National defence cuts could tally $2.5B, Oct 1, 2012, The Canadian Press,
https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=mm#inbox)//GP Defence Minister Peter MacKay announces the new Canadian Forces Leopard 2A4 tank at CFB Gagetown in Oromocto, N.B., on Thursday, September 13. An

independent analysis has concluded the waves of federal budget cuts washing over National Defence will run deeper and likely be more painful than advertised by the Harper government. While it won't exactly be a return to the "decade of darkness" the Conservatives attribute to the Liberal years, the reductions will be significant and are expected to cut into the military's "readiness" or ability to respond quickly to a crisis. The days of soldiers rationing their training ammunition, fuel and money used to make equipment operationally ready may be about to return, the report warned. The research paper, written for the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University, estimates the cumulative effect of the Harper government's strategic review and the overlapping deficit reduction action plan will carve up to $2.5 billion out of the nearly $21 billion National Defence budget by 2014-15. The 27-page report, penned by defence expert Dave Perry, is believed to be the first comprehensive snapshot on the post-war military of the impact of the federal government's dual-tracked deficit reduction plan and spending freezes. " With the economy once again the government's top priority, the Canadian Forces will need to adjust to a new fiscal climate, one which will reduce its budget by at least 11 per cent over the next three years," said the research report, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press. "At the same time, the military's
ability to make budgetary adjustments has been tightly constrained by the decision to retain its front-line military capabilities. As a result, the Operations and Maintenance budget will bear the brunt of these budget cuts." Expeditionary role may be reduced The Harper government has repeatedly said it wants Canada playing a leading role internationally alongside allies, but the report warns, the way the cuts are shaking out, the military will be strained almost as badly as in the 1990s. "As a result, it will be very difficult for the military to play the same expeditionary role that it has in recent years," said the report. "While the pursuit of influence may not be over, with less funding available for operational readiness, the prospects of making influential military contributions abroad will be greatly reduced." The government's mantra of being defenders of the military will be sorely tested over the next few years. "They're cutting it quite hard, but no harder than any other government would in the same position," said Perry, who is also a researcher for the Conference of Defence Associations. "DND is a huge chunk of discretionary spending and if you want to cutback on overall federal outlays, no matter how much you like to support the military, you've got to cut defence." But a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the government has increased spending on the military by $1 billion per year since coming to office, including

a guarantee of annual operating increases. "Following the combat mission in Afghanistan, and in conjunction with all government departments, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces need to ensure taxpayers are getting value for their tax dollars and that, in turn, makes the Canadian Forces more efficient and, ultimately, more effective," said Jay Paxton. Little room to manoeuvre But Perry argues that unlike past budget cutting exercises, defence has less room to manoeuvre because of a change in accounting policy and the reluctance to give up specific capabilities, such as submarines or transports. When they've wanted to reduce money to the military past governments have simply cancelled equipment purchases outright. But the system of accrual accounting, where purchases are amortized over their lifetime, means such cuts will not produce large, immediate savings. The Harper government's strategic review mandates a direct defence budget cut of $1 billion by 2014-15, but at the same time it overlaps with a planned 7.4 per cent, or $1.12 billion, reduction under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan. In 2008, the Conservatives made political hay out of the promise to give the military stable and predictable funding, with planned operating budget increases over 20 years. Perry says the $344 million extra the department gets as a result of the Canada First Defence Strategy is being more than chewed up by increased costs associated with the government's 2010 freeze on departmental spending, which came at the same time as negotiated wage hikes. "Thus, the wage measure has effectively negated any increase DND would have otherwise received under the CFDS spending plan," he wrote. The

only place left to cut would be in what's known as national procurement funding, which is money used to make equipment operationally ready. "Accounting for roughly 40 per cent of readiness spending, National Procurement encompasses the acquisition of spare parts, contracts for maintenance, repair and overhaul, technical support, and the ammunition used in training," said the report. It suggests the recent
merging of commands will not save the government very much and a suggestion in the Leslie report to axe outside contractors will hurt the air force, which relies extensively on them to keep aircraft maintained.

That kills BMD

McDonough, 6/06/13 - is a SSHRC post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia and a research
fellow at Dalhousie Universitys Centre for Foreign Policy Studies. He is a recipient of the SSHRC Canadian Graduate Schola rship (2006 9), the SDF Dr Ronald Baker Doctoral Scholarship (200910), and Killam Doctoral Scholarships (200811). He has published widely on Canadian defence and international security, in International Journal, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, RUSI Journal, Strategic Survey, Adelphi Papers, On Track, Orbis, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Canadian Naval Review, Strategic Datalink, Third World Quarterly, Vanguard, Calgary Paper in Military and Strategic Studies (forthcoming), and Comparative Strategy (forthcoming). He is the editor of Canadas National Security in the Post -9/11 World: Strategy, Interests, and Threats (David S. McDonough, 6/06, Back to the Future: Debating Missile Defence in Canada Again, CDFAI, http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Debating%20Missile%20Defence%20in%20Canada%20Again.pdf)//GP The last point brings up another consideration, one that is closely tied to the degree o f Canadas input, confidence over its protection, and indeed nature of its participation and that

is the question of cost. Some commentators seem to assume that Canadas participation would not entail much in the way of substantial costs, without specifying what benefit the United States would gain or why it would then choose to be open to Canadian input. More astute observers have pointed to an asymmetrical or in-kind contribution by Canada. Yet it is important to recognize that this might not come cheaply. One cannot assume that Canada could simply incorporate its existing satellite and landbased tracking facilities into Ballistic Missile Defence. 17 Canada has no land-based tracking facilities to speak of, and its recently launched military satellite (Project Sapphire) is already a component of the US Space Surveillance Network that feeds information to both NORAD and the GMD system, sharply reducing its capacity to leverage this asset to play a role in missile defence. At most, by contributing to NORADs early warning and tracking functions, Project Sapphire could potentially help safeguard the commands aerospace role and even this outcome is not guaranteed.18 Perhaps for this reason, there are reports that Canada is now looking at revising earlier plans for a ground-based xband radar at Goose Bay, Newfoundland. Such a facility would provide important tracking and cueing capabilities and additional radar coverage against an Iranian ballistic missile, especially if the United States moves ahead with constructing a third interceptor site. Defence officials seem confident that Canada would only need to supply territory and services for a total cost of $500 million, with the remainder (including the radar itself) to be supplied by the United States.19 Nevertheless, such an assumption also seems premature, at least if Ottawa hopes to translate such a contribution into input in the interception planning process itself. Indeed, with the onset of sequestration, the United States is expected to make some very sizable defence cuts over the next ten years totaling nearly $1 trillion, if one includes the initial spending caps brought in by the Budget Control Act. Even Obamas recent decision to deploy an additional 14 GBIs is expected to cost an additional $1 billion, which was only partially offset by delaying (and potentially cancelling) the development of a more advanced Standard Missile (SM-3 Block IIB) for its Aegis ships. The cost of a third interceptor site on the East coast would be even steeper. Canada could then find itself confronted with requests for additional contributions that would be difficult to ignore, whether taking a greater share of the cost of a radar site on Canadian territory or contributing funds for a third GBI site. Even Americas recent overture for Canadas

participation, if reports prove accurate, could arise from Washingtons growing interest to offset some of the cost burden of this system. Canada needs a better sense of what participation entails and what costs might result from such a
decision. Proponents like Paul Chapin have criticized the previous Liberal government for rejecting the draft MOU that could provide the necessary flow of information.20 Yet there is also reason for caution. Yes, Canada would finally receive greater information on missile defence. But it would come at the price of having less room to refuse American preferences, even

if it discovers that the costs are higher than expected.

BMD key to prevent north korean nuclear attack

Robertson, 4/02/13 - A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is vice president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and a senior strategic
advisor to McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP. (COLIN ROBERTSON, Apr. 03 2013, North Koreas threats show that Canada needs to be part of U.S. missile defence pact http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/north-koreas-threats-show-that-canada-needs-to-be-part-of-us-missile-defence-pact/article10713612/)//GP

Kim Jong-Un is the third in his family to lead the Hermit Kingdom, and this month has all but declared war including threats to target North America. Normally, sabre rattling by tinpot dictators can be managed or contained. But not when the sabres are ballistic missiles. Nuclear threats are not a game, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned on Tuesday: Aggressive rhetoric and military posturing only result in counter-actions, and fuel fear and instability. Coupled with the improvements that Iran is making to its own ballistic missile capacity, the threat to North America is now clear and present. The United States has moved aircraft and warships to the area and announced that it will increase its ground-based interceptors in California and Alaska. Canada has a conflicted history when it comes to nuclear weapons and domestic defence from them. Though we were present at the creation nuclear-energy research during the Second World War in Canada was vital we eschewed the development of nuclear arms for ourselves. Instead, we opted to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes through the CANDU
reactor. (We were later deceived by the Indians, who developed their own nuclear weaponry using plutonium derived from a research reactor provided by Canada.) Placement of nuclear warheads on Canadian soil, as part of our alliance commitment, tormented John Diefenbaker and the resultingBOMARC controversy contributed to his governments undoing. Lester B. Pearson, who succeeded Mr. Diefenbaker as prime minister, faced similar di ssent but concluded that our obligations to NORAD and NATO required participation. Mr. Pearson, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize over the Suez crisis, was derisively labelled the defrocked prince of peace by a young Pierre Trudeau. Two decades later, prime minister Trudeau faced similar divisions in his own cabinet over testing of cruise missiles on Canadian soil. Mr. Trudeau allowed the testing, arguing that it is hardly fair to rely on the Americans to prote ct the West, but to refuse to lend them a hand when the going gets rough. In good company (with Australia, France et al), prime minister Brian Mulroney rejected participation in the U.S. Star Wars missile-defence program because Canada would not be able to call the shots. When

Ballistic Missile Defence was developed under George W. Bush, prime minister Paul Martin opted out, to the confusion of his new defence chief and ambassador to the United States, both of whom thought that he was going to sign on. A divided Liberal caucus, especially the opposition from Quebec, had helped change Mr. Martins mind.
Mr. Bush was advised that newly-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper would not welcome a renewed request. Mr. Bush found this puzzling, reportedly asking what would happen if a North Korean missile, aimed at Los Angeles or Seattle, wound up heading towards Vancouver or Calgary. The rest of the alliance, as well as Australia, Japan and South Korea, have signed onto missile defence. The Israelis Iron Dome recently demonstrated the defensi ve worth of anti-missile technology. Critics see Ballistic Missile Defence as a latter-day Maginot Line costly, unreliable, and provocative. If you want to detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States you would not send it by missile. NORAD, they argue, provides sufficient defence. But continental defence has been integral to Canadian national security since MacKenzie King and Franklin Rooseveltparleyed at Kingston in 1938. We were architects of NATO because ofour belief in collective security. The

U.S. defence umbrella has guaranteed the peace since 1945, and has coincided with the greatest growth in trade in world history. Canada has been a principal beneficiary, with marginal premiums. Some Canadians, wrote Mr. Trudeau during the cruise missile debate, are eager to take refuge under the U.S. umbrella, but dont want to help hold it. Membership in the alliance entails obligations. But it also brings great benefits that serve our national interests. Incorporating our satellite and land-based tracking facilities into Ballistic Missile Defence could make a difference in shielding Canadians should the missiles be launched. A Senate report in 2006 concluded that an effective BMD could save hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives. Protecting Canadians
(and Americans) was the logic of the original DEW line and NORAD, our bi-national aerospace defence agreement that has served us since 1958 and now includes aspects of maritime defence. Last summer, ministers John Baird and Peter McKay prepared a memorandum for Mr. Harper presenting Ballistic Missile Defence options. The

Prime Minister decided the timing was not right. Circumstances have changed. BMD should

now be incorporated into our Canada First defence strategy.

Extinction
Shultz et al, 2007 - A conference organized by Mr. Shultz and Sidney D. Drell was held at Hoover to reconsider the vision that Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev
brought to Reykjavik. In addition to Messrs. Shultz and Drell, the following participants also endorse the view in this statement: Martin Anderson, Steve Andreasen,

Michael Armacost, William Crowe, James Goodby, Thomas Graham Jr., Thomas Henriksen, David Holloway, Max Kampelman, Jack Matlock, John McLaughlin, Don Oberdorfer, Rozanne Ridgway, Henry Rowen, Roald Sagdeev and Abraham Sofaer. (George Shultz, January 4 2007, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Wall Street Journal By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn0, The Wall Street Journal January 4, 2007; http://fcnl.org/issues/nuclear/world_free_of_nuclear_weapons/)//GP Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective. North

Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium -- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges. Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old
Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The

United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War? * * * Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace" address to the United Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged
America's "determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." John F. Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear disarmament, said,

"The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution." Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed, " Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it on our planet earth . We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness."
Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which had also been expressed by previous American presidents. Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in turning the arms race on its head. They initiated steps leading to significant reductions in deployed long- and intermediate-range nuclear forces, including the elimination of an entire class of threatening missiles. What will it take to rekindle the vision shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the challenge posed by these two questions. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of all nuclear weapons. It provides (a) that states that did not possess nuclear weapons as of 1967 agree not to obtain them, and (b) that states that do possess them agree to divest themselves of these weapons over time. Every president of both parties since Richard Nixon has reaffirmed these treaty obligations, but non-nuclear weapon states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear powers. Strong nonproliferation efforts are under way. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Additional Protocols are innovative approaches that provide powerful new tools for detecting activities that violate the NPT and endanger world security. They deserve full implementation.

The negotiations on proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea and Iran, involving all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Japan, are crucially important. They must be energetically pursued. But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger. Reagan and General Secretary
Gorbachev aspired to accomplish more at their meeting in Reykjavik 20 years ago -- the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, but galvanized the hopes of people around the world. The leaders of the two countries with the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the abolition of their most powerful weapons. * * * What should be done? Can the promise of the NPT and the possibilities envisioned at Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We

believe that a major effort should be launched by the United States to produce a positive answer through concrete stages. First and foremost is intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of
nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way

to avoid the emergence of a nuclear-armed

North Korea and Iran.

The program on which agreements should be sought would constitute a series of agreed and urgent steps that would lay the

groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat. Steps would include: Changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and thereby reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon. Continuing to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them. Eliminating short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward-deployed. Initiating a bipartisan process with the Senate, including understandings to increase confidence and provide for periodic review, to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of recent technical advances, and working to secure ratification by other key states. Providing the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world. Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the guarantee that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a reasonable price, first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and then from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international reserves. It will also be necessary to deal with proliferation issues presented by spent fuel from reactors producing electricity. Halting

the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research facilities around the world and rendering the materials safe. Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers. Achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will also require effective measures to impede or counter any nuclear-related conduct that is potentially threatening to the security of any state or peoples. Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage

. The effort could have a

profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal, beginning with the measures outlined above.

1nc instability
Canada is critical to Latin American stability
Rochlin 12 professor of political science at the University of British Columbia-Okanagan (James Rochlin, 2012, Introduction: Canada and the Americas:
Theres Still Much to Discover, Canada Looks South: In Search of an American Policy, pages 21-23)//KP What are the options for Canada? Although the New World now seems newer than ever, three rather traditional

themes have proven to be quite resilient and deserve consideration as a possible centerpiece for a refashioned Canadian policy toward the Americas. First, despite the profundity of transformations globally and regionally, democracy is not likely to go out of style. Canada will win the support of Latin Americas majority population by working to enhance democratic structures and by supporting their outcome regardless of its ideological implications. Unwavering support for the will of the majority is a primary ingredient for the cultivation of regional political respect that will underpin Canadas economic and security interest in Latin America. Second, tolerance and respect for varied democratic outcomes will fortify Canadas traditional penchant for conflict resolution. Given the intensified ideological polarization in Latin America, the rising tenor of anti-Americanism, and a growing regional potential for class warfare against the backdrop of global economic crisis, the promotion of conflict resolution is more important than ever. Given Canadas past roles in helping the resolve disputes involving Cuba and Central America, Ottawa has a strong foundation upon which to draw. To assume a position as a leading protagonist of serious conflict resolution, Canada will need to formulate an even-handed policy that is respected by regional actors as fair and independent. That kind of respect cannot be achieved quickly. It takes longer to build lasting friendships than to make enemies. There is no better opportunity or role for Canada in the Americas than to evolve as the leading proponent of regional conflict resolution. Third, support for democratic structures and for resolving escalating regional conflict will provide a better context for Canadian economic interests in Latin America. The promotion of corporate social responsibility
should receive priority treatment in a reformulated Canadian policy to the region. This is especially relevant for Canadas e xtractive sector, which has strong interests in Latin America. Critics have observed the Canadian governments flat-out refusal to impose any kind of human rights standards on Canadian companies actions outside Canada, despite such recommendations from the parliamentary Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs and fr om other groups. When Canadian companies are perceived to be involved in human rights abuses, as was the case in late 2009 when a Mexican activist who had p rotested against Canadas Blackfire gold mine in Chiapas was murdered, the reputation of the country s mining sector is tarnished and may inhibit further economic prospects. In a globalized world, and in a region such as Latin America that has become more suspicious of the dark side of transnational corporations, an enhanced platform of corporate responsibility will serve well Canadas economic, political, and security interests in Latin America. Simply put, Canada

is still in the process of discovering the Americas. Incremental but generally steady progress has been made, especially since the formulation of the Trudeau governments Third Option. While the original manifestation of that policy never reached its lofty objective, perhaps Ottawa should dust it off and have another look. This is especially the case in a post-hegemonic world where rising powers such as China require more attention and where the politics of Latin America have been redefined in a democratic but revolutionary way to shed the exploitative and authoritarian yoke that was so dominant during the Cold War.

That causes nuclear war and a laundry list of other impacts

Manwaring, 4 [Max. Latin America Expert @ CSIS, PhD in Poli Sci from UChicago. Shadows of the Past and Images of the Future 2004, Pg 36-8] State failure is an evolutionary process, not an outcome. This state of affairs is often brought on by poor, irresponsible, and insensitive governance, and leads to at least one other very fundamental reason why states fail. That is, state failure can
be a process that is exacerbated by nonstate (insurgent) groups that, for whatever reason, want to take down or exercise illicit control over a given government. In

Latin America, Colombia is, Peru has been, and both continue to be good examples of this. The narco-insurgent/terrorist [is a] threat to the authority of the central governments. Through murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, destruction of infrastructure, and other means of coercion and persuasion, these violent, internal, nonstate actors compromise the exercise of state authority. The government and its institutions become progressively less and less capable of performing the tasks of governance, including exercising their fundamental personal security functions to protect citizens. As a result , the narco-insurgents become increasingly wealthy and powerful, and affected countries deteriorate further and further toward failed state status. Perus
Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda. Drug cartels operating in that country and throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities business incentives. Thus, in

addition to helping to provide

wider latitude to further their specific objectives, Senderos and other violent nonstate actors armed propaganda and business incentives are aimed at lessening a regimes credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. This debilitating and destabilizing activity generates the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. More specifically, failing or failed states in Latin America, Africa, the Middle-East, and Asia are breeding grounds for instability, insurgency, and terrorism. A breakdown in institutional governance can breed or exacerbate humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. Such states can host networks of all kinds, including criminal business enterprises and/or some form of ideological, religious, or populist crusade. They also spawn a variety of pernicious and lethal activities and outcomes, including torture and murder; poverty, starvation, and disease; the recruitment and use of child soldiers; trafficking in women and human organs for transplants; trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and weapons of mass destruction; genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism; and criminal anarchy and insurgency. At the same time, these networks and activities normally are unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of destabilization and failing and failed states simply do not go away . Ample evidence demonstrates that failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new peoples democracies. Moreover, failing and failed states tend not to (1) buy U.S. and other exporting nations products, (2) be interested in developing democratic and free market institutions and human rights, or (3) cooperate on shared problems such as illegal drugs, illicit arms flows, debilitating refugee flows, and potentially dangerous environmental problems. In short, the longer they persist,
conflict. Additionally,

the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity .

answer to perms

at: perm

Engagement is zero sum---the plan forces Canada out.

Jeffs, 12 - President of the Canadian International Council a non-partisan, membership-based research council focused on international affairs, Ph.D. in
International Political Economy (IPE) from the University of Toronto, (Jennifer, Latin America: Land of Opportunity, March 22, 2012, http://opencanada.org/features/blogs/dispatch/latin-america-land-of-opportunity/)//A-Berg Chris Sabatinis piece in the current edition of Foreign Affairs points out that the time capsule. His assertion that Cold War thinking still dominates

U.S. narrative on Latin America seems stuck in a 1980s U.S. policymaker attitudes toward the region indicates that U.S. thinking is stuck in a completely different geopolitical reality than the one that we live in today .
Social movements, electoral trends, and democratic development give little insight into the important relations between states in the region, and between the newly emerged states both within the region and outside it. The rise of Brazil as a global power is promoting Colombias regi onal influence. The Chinese appetite for natural resources that are found in abundance in the hemisphere, and their gifts of bridges and soccer stadiums to several Latin American countries, are trends that U.S. students and policymakers should be watching and pondering, as should Canadians. Given

the substantial investment that Canadian mining companies and at least one major Canadian bank have made in the region, on top of the Canadian governments recent focus on the hemisphere via its Americas Strategy, the short-sightedness of U.S. policymakers that Sabatini laments is, in fact, an opportunity for Canada . As Sabatini points out, while the U.S. lacks sufficient interest in,
and understanding of, the rapidly changing geopolitical dynamics of Latin

America, Canada can fill that void by taking seriously the actions of Latin Americas increasingly potent (and competitive) regional and global players. Informed
Canadian engagement with countries in the region will be mutually beneficial, and could also influence U.S. policymakers, encouraging them to think about Latin America in terms of 2012 geopolitical realities.

Empirically the perm crushes Canadian soft power-only bilateral relationships enable Canadian leadership
Muggah 4/17/13 research director of the Igarap Institute, a principal of the SecDev Group, and a professor of international relations at the Instituto de
Relaes Internacionais, Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio de Janeiro (Robert Muggah, 17 April 2013, Robert Muggah: Canada needs a real Americas Strategy, Igarap Institute, http://pt.igarape.org.br/robert-muggah-canada-needs-a-real-americas-strategy/)//KP

For at least the past five years, Canada has quietly waged a half-hearted war on organized crime and drug cartels. Even before Canadas prolonged engagement in Afghanistan started winding down, politicians and strategists were refocusing on real and perceived threats south of the border in Latin America and the Caribbean. After decades of non-engagement, Canada launched an Americas Strategy in 2007, announcing that it would step up its diplomatic, defence and development engagement in some of the most insecure countries on the planet. This was never going to be easy: six of the top
10 most violent countries in the world are in the Western Hemisphere and for some, the situation is worsening. Although this was characterized as a war of choice,

Canada was effectively drafted by the United States. The United States has long demanded that Canadians take a tougher stand against illegal drugs trafficking, gun smuggling and undocumented migrants. This is hardly surprising. The United States is the principle backer of massive anti-crime programs across the Western Hemisphere and has spent at least $14 billion since the late
1990s on the so-called Mrida Initiative in Mexico, the Central American Security Initiative, the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, Plan Colombia and a host of counter-narcotics programs. The country is also one of the biggest suppliers of weapons and deportees to Latin America and the Caribbean. By way of comparison, Canadas spending on security and justice promotion across the Americas is in the te ns of millions. Canada

exhibits a modest capacity to project either hard or soft power in the Americas. It has traditionally pursued many of its security and development priorities through multilateral organs such as the Organization of American States and the
Inter-American Development Bank. Canada is also an active participant in the Conferences of the Defense Ministers of the Americas, having hosted a regional security summit a few years ago. During the 1980s, Canadian troops were deployed across Central America and the Caribbean to support United Nations peace support operations. Yet Canadas Conservative government has taken a hard unilateral turn in its posture toward the region. W ith the appointment of a minister of state for the Americas in 2008, the government signaled a concerted interest in promoting law, order and democratic governance in its backyard through a whole of-government approach. Of course, Canada had other pragmatic reasons besides common security and democracy priorities to launc h an Americas Strategy. The government recognizes that solidarity on the defence front might also open new business opportunities among the regions 33 c ountries and 590 million residents. Latin Americas impressive economic growth rates are enticing to Canadas ordinarily cautious private sector. Just as successive Liberal governments made Africa a priority in the 1990s, the Harper government is today looking to the South and the Pacific, to what Jean Daudelin calls the Liberal Americas. The prime minister toured Latin America last year while Canadas foreign minister attended the so -called Pacific Alliance whose members include Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and others. Yet Canadas heavily publicized commitment to Latin America and the Caribbean also look decidedly securitized. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly stressed the governments commitment to using force to achieve its objectives. And while Canadian military, in telligence, policing and justice assistance to a scattering of countries in the region pales in comparison to the billions spent each year by the United States and the European Union, the government is nevertheless seeking to re-align its support toward harder and inter -operable measures. On the ground, however, there are also concerns that

the Americas Strategy lacks direction and that interventions are piecemeal and disconnected. One Canadian diplomat describes it dryly as an unfunded priority.

Where Canada scores higher marks is in relation to strategic advocacy. On top of its diplomatic presence in the United States and Mexico, Canada currently fields 27 embassies and high commissions across Latin America and the Caribbean. Canadas foreign affairs and defence departments are also supporting small-scale forward operating stations to support interdiction efforts and modest training packages, though offices in Lima and Panama were recently shuttered without explanation. Canadas erstwhile aid agency also secured annual commitments of hundreds of millions a year in development assistance since the strategy was launched. Some critics question
whether these investments are relevant given the massive footprint of the United States and the growing economic clout of countries across the region, particularly Brazil and Mexico, but also those outside such as China and Russia. It is worth asking whether the Canadian government or its civil society has sufficiently thought through its goals in the Americas. In

spite of efforts to deepen bilateral ties in Central and South America, Canadas investments in advancing the Americas Strategy are minuscule. If it is going to move beyond rhetoric, Canada could set-up an adequately financed Americas Fund to demonstrate the seriousness of its commitment to advancing public security, economic progress and democratic governance. Canada will also need to set up a robust system to monitor and measure the outcomes of its investments, a legitimate concern in an era of austerity. What is more, at a time when many donors are rebalancing their aid portfolios to promote violence prevention and harm reduction, it appears that Canadas law and order approach may be out of touch. The Americas Strategy has to be about more than
simply raising Canadas visibility in the neighbourhood. As Canada reconfigures its foreign affairs and aid agencies in 2013, it would do well to initiate an open debate on the intended objectives and outcomes of the Americas Strategy. Instead

of focusing inwardly on government institutions alone, Canadians of Latin American and Caribbean descent could be enlisted into public diplomacy efforts. What is more, Canada could usefully refocus its investments in a selection of strategic partners and promote triangular and south-south partnerships in thematic and geographic areas where Canada has demonstrated value-added. While Canada will at best muddle along in Central America and Haiti, deeper involvement with regional leaders such as Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica and Jamaica could reap diplomatic and development dividends. This is not to say that Canada should not invest in citizen security in its near abroad. Indeed, Canada
could actually improve the situation by promoting the politics of peace over a war on drugs. This is especially so, given that Latin America and the Caribbean are at the epicentre of a truly progressive debate on drug policy. Countries such as Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Uruguay are resisting the logic of repression and changing tack. For their part, Canadians could also deliberately shift the debate from a narrow focus on the supply of drugs abroad to curbing demand at home. Canada is among the worlds top consumers of a vast range of drugs fuelling violence in Latin America and the Caribbean, and many citizens are harmed by irresponsible use. Canada is also a significant producer in its own right, a fact an updated Americas Strategy would do well to consider.

Foreign policy overlap with the U.S. dooms Canadian soft power
Klein, 4 author of No Logo and Fences and Windows (Naomi Klein, 16 June 2004, Canada Should Keep its Distance from U.S. Foreign Policy, Common
Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-03.htm) In Baghdad, every encounter we had was a bit like going through customs. "American?" was the inevitable first question. "No, no, Canadian," our over-eager reply. Sometimes our word wasn't good enough and our interrogators wanted proof. We'd pull out our passports for inspection. On their faces, you could often see a cloud of rage pass over. Women would sometimes let themselves smile. Kids would stop acting like mini-commandos and run off and play. Don't get me wrong: Canadians aren't loved in Iraq; we just aren't, so far as I could tell, actively loathed. So it's wrenching being back in Canada confronting the prospect of Stephen Harper as our next prime minister. This is a man who so longed to join George W. Bush's coalition of the willing that he called former defense minister John McCallum an "idiot" in the House of Commons, declaring we should be in Iraq with the United States, "doing everything necessary to win." This is a man who was so eager to "support the war effort" that he went on Fox and claimed that "the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive" of the invasion, defying the findings of every credible opinion poll. If

the Conservatives are given the chance to turn Canada into more of a cardcarrying combatant in Mr. Bush's disastrous war on terrorism than we are already, the little bit of grace I encountered in Iraq will quickly disappear. When I go back, showing my passport to the ad hoc inspectors could well have a very different effect. I was
in Iraq in April, at a pivotal moment when the United States decided to wage two pre-emptive wars within a pre-emptive war, one against the resistance in Fallujah, the other against Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and Sadr City. The LA Times estimates that 800 Iraqis have been killed in the past two months of U.S. attacks on Sadr City, almost as many as the 900 that than are estimated to have died in the siege on Fallujah. As mosques were desecrated, prisoners tortured and children killed, I witnessed George Bush's awesome enemy-manufacturing machine up close. Hatred of Americans soared, not just in Iraq but also in neighboring countries. The retaliation began immediately: a wave of kidnappings of foreigners, now so common they barely make the news. The change in mood was palpable. Anti-

Americanism was no longer a sentiment; it was an uncontrollable force of nature. Being Canadian didn't let us off
the hook; we were still part of an ugly invasion of foreign soldiers, contractors and journalists traipsing through the country and taking what wasn't ours: lives, jobs, oil, stories, photographs. The kidnappers didn't usually discriminate based on nationality. But being Canadian, or more specifically, not being American, did sometimes open up a little window. It gave people who were suffering permission to glimpse the humanity behind our nationality. And the overwhelming majority of Iraqis I met -- even, miraculously, those who had just lost children and spouses to U.S. weapons -- were profoundly grateful for that reprieve, relieved not to have to hate. I, of course, was even more grateful, since being not-American kept me out of serious danger more than once. It

is a privilege not to be

hated for your nationality, and we should not relinquish it lightly. George Bush has denied that privilege to his own people, and Stephen Harper would cavalierly strip it from Canadians by erasing what few small but important

differences remain between Canadian and U.S. foreign policy. The danger posed by this act is not just about whether
Canadians are safe when we travel to the Middle East. The hatred that Mr. Bush is manufacturing there, for the United States and its coalition partners, is already following the soldiers home. I have felt that hatred in Iraq, and trust me: We don't want to experience it here in Canada. Or don't trust me, trust the citizens of Spain, who decided in their March elections that they are not willing to accept the blowback from George Bush's wars, that they don't want these multiplying enemies to be their enemies too. Or the citizens of the United Kingdom, who just battered Tony Blair's Labour Party in last week's local elections, furious at being dragged into a war that has made them less safe. Or the citizens of Australia, who are about to send the same message to John Howard. Or even the citizens of the United States, 55 per cent of whom now disapprove of Mr. Bush's performance in Iraq, according to a recent Los Angles Times poll. Yet just

as the rest of the world is finally saying "no more," Canadians are poised to elect a party that is saying "me too." The hawks in Washington like to paint Canada as a freeloader, mooching off their expensive military protection, the continent's weak link on terrorism. The truth is that around the world, it is blind government complicity with U.S. foreign policy, precisely the kind of complicity advocated by Mr. Harper, that is putting civilians in the line of terror. It is the United States that is the weak link. Before I went to Iraq, a seasoned war correspondent who had spent a year reporting from Baghdad gave me his best piece of
security advice. "Stay away from Americans, they're bad for your health." He wasn't being anti-American (he's an American citizen and supported the war); he was just being practical. In Iraq, that advice means you don't want to ride in the U.S. convoys or embed with U.S. troops. You keep your distance and stay independent. At this perilous moment in history, the same principle applies at home: Canadian

security depends on our ability to maintain meaningful sovereignty from the United States. Being inside the U.S. security fortress isn't a missile shield, it's a missile magnet. As long as the United States continues to act as a global aggressor, the best way for us to stay healthy is to stay as far away as from Americans as possible. With 8,890 kilometers of
shared border, geographical distance is not an option. Fortunately, political distance still is. Let's not surrender it.

Perm fails successful peacekeeping cant include U.S. pressure

Klepak 12 professor emeritus of History and Strategy at the Royal Military College of Canada, special adviser to the Commander of the Canadian Army on
Inter-American Affairs (Hal Klepak, 2012, The Most Challenging of Links? Canada and Inter -American Security, Canada Looks South: In Search of an American Policy, pages 49-51)//KP

The principal Canadian challenge for defence policy towards the Americans is to find ways , within reasonable political and financial costs, to help advance our national goals in the hemisphere: creating a prosperous region with which we can trade and invest, furthering that regions elusive quest for effective democracy, and anchoring peaceful relations amo ng its nations. This, of course, is a tall order. It is also important to remember that while our policy on these issues dovetails in public stances with that of the United States on many matters, it does not coincide with Washington on either all of its objectives or on the means to achieve them. This is both Canadas principal advantage and its principal handicap. The fact that Canada has not always followed the U.S. lead on major issues in the past and present
principally in its Cuba policy and on matters as thorny as how to treat the Nicaraguan Sandinista Revolution, what to do about the Central American civil wars, how to perceive and deal with the recent drift to the left in the region, and what to single out as the major causes of unrest and instability there has

meant

that Ottawa enjoys a legitimacy in the South of the hemisphere utterly lost by Washington since the end of
the Good Neighbor Policy in 1954 While Canada is not a formal ally of the United States in the hemispheres affairs south of the Rio Grande, it is that countrys close ally in many parts of the world and in the northern part of the Americas its closest collaborator. I t

is difficult for Canada to resist U.S. pressure to make the two nations approaches to the region as a whole since Washington often sees Canadian legitimacy in the area as a potential aid in its own attempts to get certain things done, especially
in defence and security, where Ottawas comparative advantages are tangible. The U.S. is Canadas most important trading partner and is its major source for investment as well. And as mentioned, our policy objectives, as least on the public level of declaratory policy, do seem to aim at the same ends Accordingly, it

is

vital for the successful achievement of those shared objectives that Canadian efforts be seen as properly Canadian and not merely those resulting from U.S. pressures. An approach showing that Canada continues to understand the very special moment that Latin America is parsing through as its democracies try to find their feet is crucial for the creation of a regional environment that lacks confrontation and excessive ideological bombast and the dangers for peace that such a context presents. Canada is well placed to play this interlocutory role and thereby move forward towards achieving its overall hemispheric goals. And
defence policy is even better placed to help in this because in the security field, until recently, the region was less divided than in the economic or political sphere.

There is more of a need for dialogue in the region than ever before, given the recent stresses caused by the
ideological chasm that has opened between reformists and conservative governments in the region. It is vital not to shut off discussion at such a dangerous juncture. It

is worth recalling that Canada is appreciated across the spectrum of regimes as a country of openness and democratic pluralism that has become especially tuned to the need for building bridges and not tearing them down when things begin to go badly. The northern nations success in building a social democratic system essentially accepted by all its

political parties, along the British and now European continental models, is

acknowledged and generally applauded in Latin America. Ottawa has traditionally understood excesses on the left as a reaction to long-standing excesses on the right, and the need to leave those excesses, on whatever side of the ideological divide, as much behind us as possible in the search for sustainable development and enduring peace. The Canadian Forces are a superbly developed asset in such a drive to find moderation. They are closely tied to those of the United States but also have proud traditions and links with those of the United Kingdom. They are NATO and United Nations forces and reflect that experience in peace enforcement and peacekeeping roles at this time and in the past. They
have been, and currently are, deeply involved in development and nation-building tasks in several parts of the world and here in our own hemisphere in earthquake-ravaged Haiti in early 2010 (where Canada deployed an unprecedented range of military assets). They

are no longer strangers to

the region, and their linguistic capabilities, while still very limited, are much greater than they were even a short time ago.

Perm fails empirically progress is dwarfed by U.S. policies

Rochlin 12 professor of political science at the University of British Columbia-Okanagan (James Rochlin, 2012, Introduction: Canada and the Americas:
Theres Still Much to Discover, Canada Looks South: In Search of an American Policy, page 21)//KP

Overall, in a proportional sense, some economic progress has been achieved, but this appears to be dwarfed by the context of Canadas overwhelming economic dependence upon the U.S. Politically, we have seen that Canada has established a stronger profile in the region in the post-NAFTA period. This has been expressed, for example, through its activities in the OAS, its support for democratic structures, and its crucial role in Haiti (which is analyzed later in this volume). But that sense of progress has been limited by the Harper governments tendency to mimic the most pernicious aspects of U.S. policy to Latin America, and its penchant toward exacerbating regional polarization rather than contributing to conflict resolution. Overall, the new beginning promised to Ottawas Canada and the Americas: Priorities and Progress was rote and failed to recognize tectonic transformations in the world order and in the Americas.

topic solvency

Generic

Canadian engagement solves the case. Brickman, 08 Barry, President, North West International Ltd., WESTERN CANADA AND LATIN AMERICA EXISTING AND POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS, August 1, 2008, http://www.wd.gc.ca/images/cont/11103 -eng.pdf)//A-Berg This report is intended to provide an overview of Western Canada's current

and potential commercial linkages with Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). It will seek to inform Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) of potential opportunities to increase Western Canadas engagement in the LAC region. Current economic conditions in the LAC region are becoming more favourable for international involvement. Effective macroeconomic policies have resulted in increased economic growth and stability and improved social conditions to address low standards of living and inequality. Trade activity is modest between Western Canada and LAC with the majority of exports consisting of agricultural
commodities, specifically wheat and pulse crops. The oil and gas industry has experienced an increase in demand for equipment exports to the LAC region.

Further negotiations of Free Trade Agreements with LAC markets will facilitate exporting opportunities for Western Canadian companies. Despite the strong connections in the oil and gas and mining sectors, few inroads have been made by Western Canadian
innovation clusters in the LAC region. However, the innovation clusters sampled in this study generally are taking note of potential opportunities for collaboration in LAC and some relationship building is taking shape. Export

Development Canada (EDC) continues to be active in Latin America supporting Canadian companies in accessing high tariff markets through foreign direct investment and joint ventures. The LAC region is increasingly becoming more integrated into the global value chain because of competitive wage advantages and an abundance of natural resources. Potential opportunities for Western Canada in Latin America exist in traditional energy and natural resource sectors but also in the tech and advanced industry sectors.
There appears to be some awakening in Western Canada to the potential of Latin America. For example the Government of Manitoba has been increasing its focus on Latin America over the past year. As well the Government of Alberta has identified Latin America as one of its top market priorities, largely thanks to the strong ties in the energy sector. WD is well positioned to contribute to the

Government of Canadas whole-of-government initiative to re-engage in the LAC region. The recommended approach is to focus on enhancing science and technology (S&T) based partnerships with LAC. WDs extensive knowledge and involvement with numerous partnerships and programs in the S&T industry will allow the department to focus on innovation clusters and current S&T departmental priorities that are transferable into the LAC market.
Specific actions for WD consideration include: S&T Study Tour to Western Canada Relationship Building with Canada's Posts in Miami and Houston Facilitate Clusters/Academia Partnerships Support Industry Associations Embraer Outreach Leverage Existing Western Canadian Links with LAC Inter-American Development Bank Annual Meeting in Western Canada It is important that WD target any resulting efforts to support partnership development by innovation clusters to a limited number of specific markets. Chile and Brazil appear to be the most promising areas for innovation relationships. Canada's Science Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Chile has strengthened the partnership between the two nations in the areas of sustainable development, S&T, and investment promotion while negotiation of the Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement with Brazil will further encourage technology commercialization ventures. II. INTRODUCTION II.a. Objectives of Research Study This study addresses Western Canada's

commercial linkages with Latin America (Central and South

America) and the Caribbean, otherwise referred to as the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region. Mexico is not included in the study because of its developed relationship with Canada and engagement in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The remainder of this report provides a general overview of the economic relationship between Canada (particularly Western Canada) and LAC, summarizes the current engagement activities of selected Western Canadian stakeholders, reviews challenges associated with operating in LAC, highlights markets and sectors of greatest opportunity in the region, and concludes with a list of potential options for WD on how to increase Western Canadas engagement in LAC. The study relies on research and consultations with a sample of federal, provincial, and municipal government officials, supplemented by limited outreach to innovation clusters, universities, associations, and a small sample of companies and foreign representatives. The report is illustrative of the commercial linkages between Western Canada and the study area, but makes no claim to being comprehensive. II.b. Canada and LAC: Natural Partners For much of the postwar period, predominantly

agricultural-based trade dominated Canada's interactions with the LAC region. More recently investment, particularly in the energy and mining industries, has driven the Canada LAC economic relationship. This relationship has been accelerated by significant shifts in trade policy towards the aggressive negotiation of free trade arrangements (FTAs) in
the region. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has emphasized that Canadas neighbourhood does not end at the 49th parallel, and neither do Canadas interests. That is why Canada is seeking to re-engage relationships throughout the Americas1. In recent years the relationship between Canada and LAC has been driven by the

Canadian mining industry. Capital flows have been impressive and have generated both the development of recipient countries economies and trade flows from Canada to the region. Members of the Canadian
Association of Mining Equipment and Services for Export have been particularly active in efforts to follow their domestic clients overseas. The Canadian mining industry began investing in LAC in an era of few resource shortages when resource prices were low. Capital

flows are now being propelled by higher resource prices given the fundamental shift in the demand-supply equation. The needs of the mining industry and the opportunities
offered should be the subject of any Latin American strategies the Government of Canada eventually adopts. II.c. Canadian Free Trade Agreements with LAC New

Free Trade Agreements (FTA) are an important element of Canada's re-engagement efforts with LAC. Building on the success of NAFTA and Canada's mutually beneficial FTAs with Chile (1997) and Costa Rica (2002), FTA negotiations have been
launched with Colombia, Peru, the Dominican Republic, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and with the Central America Four (CA4)-which includes the countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.2

Canada solves better than the US

Patrick Donnelly 09- energy securities lawyer in Calgary with the Burstall-Winger (Canadian Engagement in Latin America can counter Chavez Mischief, June 22, 2009, http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadian-engagement-in-latin-america-can-counter-chavez-mischief/)//Modermatt

Not only are Canadian companies perceived as safer and more stable than their Latin American counterpartsand somewhat removed from local corruptionthey are also viewed as Not American. Accurate or not and fair or not, Latin America enjoys, at best, a schizophrenic relationship with the United States. Despite the significant Hispanic demographic in the United States, too much American interest in the region is greeted with suspicion of
imperialism and shouts of Yankee, Go Home (as President Bush was confronted on his 2007 tour). When America appears preoccu pied with other areas of the world, as has happened since 9-11, Latin

America accuses the United States of indifference. Therein lays an opportunity for Canada. We are well-positioned to mentor the regions growth as it develops its vast potential. Aside from private investment, Canada can best assist Latin Americas development through enhanced support of democratic regimes and encouragement of good governance. We can do this through government-togovernment contacts and the promotion of free trade with Latin America, either through the nowmoribund Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), or by negotiating separate bilateral trade agreements with individual countries (as we have with Chile). The FTAA talks were derailed in 2003 by a combination of disinterest from participating countries and fierce opposition by Hugo Chavez and anti-globalists who viewed the FTAA as an American-imperialist plot. Latin America is at a cross-road. Canadas government must not allow this close neighbor, through our own indifference, to slip into the destructive orbit of Hugo Chavez. By engaging with Latin America on all fronts, Prime Minister Harper will provide healthy alternatives to Venezuelas easy money. We can assist with elimination of the corruption, cronyism, human rights abuses and bad economics that have held the region back for too long. Simon Bolivar would approve.

Canada solves best empirically successful with economic engagement in Latin America
Morris, 11 - Regional Vice-President, Western Canada of Haskayne School of Business & Canadian Council for the Americas
(Linda Morris, May 26, 2011, Doing Business in Latin America: Are You There Yet?, Canada of Haskayne School of Business, http://www.edc.ca/EN/AboutUs/News-Room/Speeches/Pages/doing-business-latin-america.aspx)//GP Key Regions and Sectors of Opportunity Now, lets take a whirlwind tour of the key regions and sectors of opportunity, start ing with Brazil. Given that Brazil is hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup and 2016 Olympics, beyond the potential tourist boom, it means massive construction in the ru n up to the games. And its not just sports venuesbut all the roads, mass transit, ports, public buildings and power grids that need to support the influx of people and show their pride.

Estimates are as high as $1 trillion for both government and private spending over the next four years. And that doesnt even include oil and gas, mining and other resource investment! Many of the capital goods and
specialized services for these industries simply cannot be sourced from within Brazil and represent some of the best opportunities for Canadians. For those interested in these opportunities, there is a DFAIT mission to Brazil on June 11th - more information can be found on their website. Still, Brazil is not without its challengesincluding expensive tax frameworks, strong local and foreign competition, and requirements to partner with a local firm or to hire locally. The right market advice can make all the difference and you can get it from Canadas trade commissioners in Brazil and EDCs representatives in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. They can also help connect you to creditworthy buyers and potential local business partners, reputable agents and legal experts to navigate the maze of regulations.

Most of Canada s world-leading engineering-consulting firms already have a strong presence

in Brazil . For example, SNC-Lavalin alone has more than 2,000 employees there. These connections provide opportunities for other Canadian firms to enter
their supply chains, with niche equipment or services. Thats how one of our Calgary clients, Born Canada, makers of direct -fired heaters, first entered world markets back in the late 80s. They started filling contracts for big Canadian engineering firms doing business overseas. Today

theyre around the world and starting to tap into the supply chain of Brazils oil & gas giant Petrobras. Were told it took lots of backand-forth negotiations, but now the business is opening up. Talking about Petrobras, EDC helped finance their growth to encourage them to use Canadian suppliers and partners. Weve pulled the process along by setting up matchmaking meetings between their key decision makers and more than 200 Canadian companies at least 150 from Western Canada. 60-plus companies are doing business with them now. By the way, we call this our pull strategy. Weve taken a similar approach with Brazils mining leader Vale and other corporations seeking Canadian expertise. The result: EDCs loans and insurance volume,

facilitating Canadian trade in Brazil, doubled since 2006to nearly $3 billion; its now our largest market, by volume, after China. Mexico is next on our quick tour : Mexico is recognized as a competitive and relatively close manufacturing base for foreign companies looking to save costs. Two of the countrys chief attributes, our clients have told us, are its well-educated labour force and well-equipped industrial facilities for rent what they call corporate shelters. We estimate about 2,000 Canadian companies have set up affiliates in Mexico to date. EDC too has a relatively large customer base exporting or
investing there--more than 700 companies in 2010, benefiting from nearly $2.5 billion worth of our loans and insurance. In volume, thats more than double our previous years activity. Key sectors for our clients include extractive, transportation, infrastructure, and ICT. As in Br azil, we help finance strategic companies, like Pemex in Oil & Gas, Industrias Penoles in mining, and CFE, Mexicos electricity company, to encourage Canadian procurement. Our representatives in Mexico City and Monterrey also lead matchmaking efforts, bringing these companies and ours together, to strengthen existing business and build future ties. On the risk side, Mexico was relatively hard hit by the credit crunch and is just climbing back to pre-crisis growth levelsbut its banking sector is stable and foreign investment is growing. Some regions must be avoided owing to violence related to drug-trafficking, and our market experts can steer you in the right directionliterally. Zipping down to Chile This is the second largest market in Latin America for Canadian direct investment . And

Canada ranked as the largest

foreign investor in Chile in 2010--mostly in the mining sector. In 2006, EDC started to introduce Canadian companies to Chilean copper giant CODELCO. Whats interesting is that this was the first foreign corporation we financed to enco urage purchases from Canadian suppliers; Since then, they have bought nearly $1 billion worth of goods & services from more than 150 Canadian firms. As I
mentioned before, this pull strategy has now connected many more Latin American companies with like -minded Canadian firms in nearly all key sectors. Overall, EDCs support to Canadian companies in Chile nearly quadrupled over the past decade, with the help of our representative in S antiago. He also serves the Argentinean market. Lets back up again, this

time to Central America & the Caribbean This region covers some 34 markets, where EDCs total volume reached $2.7 billion in 2010. Ill just touch on three markets that have shown the biggest jump in trade with Canada. Trinidad &Tobago is one of the largest economies in the Caribbean, thanks to its energy sector. Its a good candidate for our Western Canadian expertise to help develop its oil reserves. It has also allocated about a third of its budget to rebuilding roads, bridges and its water supply network. Overall, Canadian exports to the country shot up 70 per cent between 2005 and 2010. Our exports to the Dominican Republic have also grown steadily since 2005, as much as 50 per cent before the global downturn. Today this trade is being revived by opportunities in infrastructure and the environment, and demand for
agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, textiles and other consumer goods. Canada ranks third in foreign direct investment stock in the country, after the U.S. and Spain. In mining, Canadas Barrick Gold and Goldcorp are undertaking the largest project in the countrys history, offering supply chain oppo rtunities there too.

Another great pick for Canadian trade is Panama. Speak to Canadians doing business there and virtually everyone is passionate about
the region. Some of the pluses include a well-trained workforce, business thats conducted in US dollars and the largest free trade zone in the world after Hong Kong. The

$5-billion-plus expansion of the Panama Canal is also leading to billions more in other infrastructure

improvements. If you are willing to go farther south, to the Andean region, Peru and Colombia are the best bets. Peru is now ranked first in South America for ease of doing business; Colombia is second. The Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement has been in full swing since 2009, eliminating tariffs on 95 per cent of Canadian exports. Canada is already the main investor in Perus mining sector, and, today, the infrastructure sector is helping lead the countrys growth. Demand is also up for industrial equipment, consumer goods and water treatment technologies. In

Colombia, opportunities abound in the oil and gas sector20 out of the 28 foreign Oil & Gas companies in Colombia are Canadian! For
example, early this year Ecopetrol and Talisman Energy completed the purchase of BP in Colombia, creating a new joint venture. Colombia also seeks investment in infrastructure to improve its highways, ports, airports, water and waste management services, and more. The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement should be ratified this year, which could give some of our goods an edge over U.S. exports. Fears generated from years of drug-related violence in Colombia are also subsiding the country has vastly improved its domestic security since 2002, including large-scale demobilization of guerilla forces. Companies in the extractive sector, in particular, still have to take security seriously, know which areas to avoid and beware of extortion by some priva te security services. EDCs representative in Lima and Canadian Trade Commissioners in the region are both helpful sources of information about market conditions, laws and security issues in the Andean

many parts of Latin America offer more and better opportunities for Canadians today than in their entire history. Nowadays too, more companies recognize they need to diversify their customer basethe U.S. financial crisis gave many firms enough of a scare to actually start doing something
region. Conclusion To sum up, from what EDC is seeing and supporting, about it! We see our clients increasingly importing, exporting and investing in Latin America to create more cost-effective operationsor global supply chains. EDC calls this integrative trade. Indeed,

Latin America has become the most popular emerging-market region for

Canadian participation in this integrative trade whether by investing in projects or joint ventures, setting up a service office, importing lower-cost supplies or exporting finished products.

Structural barriers prevent US leadership in Latin America Canada is uniquely suited to solve
Duquenal, 11 editor of Venezuela News and Views with a PhD in Molecular Biology (Daniel Duquenal, 2 March 2011, Loss of U.S. influence in Latin America
opportunity for Canada, Troy Media, http://www.troymedia.com/2011/03/02/loss-of-u-s-influence-in-latin-america-opportunity-for-canada/)//KP

Events are occurring in the Middle East that, even last December, we would never have thought possible. The modern Beys and Pharaohs have been ejected from power and the worst dictator of the area is teetering. The Western World, in fear for his oil supply, resembles deer caught in the headlights. And yet there are other world concerns that need to be kept in mind, in particular for the U.S. which is slowly but surely losing dominance in its own hemisphere. Events in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries are occurring at the same time as the U.S. has a chance to recover some of the influence it lost in Latin America under former President George W.
Bushs tenure. It was in 1998 that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez won his first election, reviving Fidel Castros old dream s under a new format financed by the oil boom that started in 2002. But, because of U.S. incompetence, Chavez was able to survive a 2002 setback, which led him to hatch schemes in many Latin American countries, including Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, where he succeeded, and Peru and Mexico. But other countries tied their band wagon to a cash rich Chavez and closed their eyes to his abuses as well. By the time Bush was replaced, it seemed that the whole area was veering from left to hard left: only Mexico and Colombia seemed to be the last allies. The left tide recedes But a

world financial crisis, which definitely put a strain on Chavez chequebook, and the election of Barack Obama as U.S. President stymied the leftist tide. Obamas election, particularly, brought with it a propaganda bonus that had been lost with Bush. Yet, these victories have not translated into the ability of the U.S. to recover the ground it had lost in the preceding decade, a void that Brazil has been busily filling. This has led to a mostly silent contest between the U.S. and Brazil to assert their dominance, a contest which has included
dirty tricks from Brazil, such as trying to create a separate structure from the Organization of American States (OAS), one which will not include either the U.S. or Canada. The leftist tide has, in fact, been receding faster than would have been believed two years ago. Its first major setback was the Honduras coup: although mishandled at first by the U.S., it eventually became the first real victory in the area for democracy over Ch avezs authoritarian neo-socialism. Both Chavez and Brazils President, Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, overplayed their hands in Honduras, with Lula even offering shelter to former Honduras President Josa Manuel Zelaya Rosales in his embassy at the worst moment of the crisis. This was an error on Zelayas part, because Brazil ha d never exerted significant influence in Central America before and thus looked like an unacceptable interloper, almost as imperialist an interloper as the U.S. of yore. But there was another contribution to counter Lulas and Chavez ambitions: in years of centre-left concertacion. And it

Panama, Honduras and Chile: the democratic right took office, in Chile after 20 seems that the coming elections in Peru and Argentina could confirm a more centrist route for Latin America, the more so now that the new leader of Brazil - Dilma Rousseff seems to have less international ambitions than Lula did. Unfortunately the U.S. neither seems to wish nor is unable to recover its leadership in the area. For example free trade agreements (FTA) keep languishing in Congress, taken hostage by unions and other interest groups. New paradigms wanted There are, fortunately, other options for the Americas besides a soft struggle between Brazil and the U.S. for dominance: partnership has become the new buzz word. It
started in the U.S. State Department with the understanding that there is life after Iraq and that it is south of the Rio Grande. A first priority, with a Republican House more inclined to support anti Chavez initiatives, should be to approve an FTA with Colombia before the cou ntry starts drifting elsewhere. Brazils Roussef may want to forget the cheap leftist ideas that Lula practiced only outside Brazil. By keeping Chavez and Cuba (and Iran) at arms length, Brazil could become, under her, a real mediator, welcomed and respected, and not be seen as the wannabe substitute of the U.S. There

are other options that could be very appealing: Canada could wake up and realize that the U.S. is a weakening barrier and that there is more to do for the Americas than helping some little islands in the Caribbean. Lets dream of a Three C Group composed of three countries with an impeccable record in human rights and economic development in the last quarter century, one in North America, one in Central America and one in South America: Canada, Costa Rica and Chile. What countries could say no to their combined friendly mediation offer to help solve some regional conflict?

Canada is better positioned than other countries

Dade, 12 senior fellow at the University of Ottawas School of International Development and Global Studies (Carlo Dade, 13 April 2012, We need Latin
America more than it needs us, The Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/we -need-latin-america-more-than-it-needsus/article4100477/)//KP When Stephen Harper buttons up his guayabera to join fellow heads of state and government for the sixth Summit of the Americas in Colombia this weekend, he

Canada will notice that something is different: For the first time, we may need Latin America more than it needs us. Latin America prospered during the 2008-09 financial crisis largely because its house was in order, thanks to reforms put in place during earlier periods of
and economic turmoil. Countries also benefited from an enormous, continuing Chinese appetite for its exports and the regions successful adaptation of bits and pieces of Asian policies of resource and economic nationalism where the state and state-owned companies play a bigger role in the economy a direct rejection of the economic orthodoxy preached by the U.S., Canada and others. Its

been the relative success of Latin American economic governance models against the failure of U.S. and European models, coupled with the rise of China as an alternative to dependence on the U.S. and Europe for trade and loans, that has Brazil and Mexico poised to become
the worlds fourth- and fifth-largest economies in a few decades and Colombia to be a leader of the next group of superstar emerging economies. As a result, among the countries that matter at the Cartagena summit, Mr. Harper will find little interest in the usual lectures from Canada. In fact, he may get pointed rebukes about our irresponsibility in refusing to adopt what these countries view as common-sense policies on charging royalties for mining and oil projects. Therell also be

questions about our capability to be a serious partner in the region. Mr. Harpers announcement five

years ago that the Americas were a Canadian priority was noticed in the region. But the footnote, that Canada wouldnt spend any real money in support of this goal, was largely missed. The same wont hold this time. In the past five years, the government has managed some accomplishments in the region by squeezing the few pennies that were spent beyond what seemed possible. But with the severe cuts in the governments spring budget, even that penny is now gone. It will be hard not to notice these cuts in the region , especially when local government officials and business leaders are asked to bring their own lunch and coffee to meetings at Canadian embassies. If the government hasnt adequately funded investment in building relations with Latin America, Canadas private sector has done worse. It has failed to invest in building broader and stronger relations through support, or even interest, in the types of research, policy and advocacy
infrastructure that its competitors are funding to build their national brands in the region and secure future advantage. All of this combines to make the region wonder whether anyone in Canada is serious. Weak

U.S. growth and potential for negative growth in Europe mean Latin Americas growing economies and growing middle classes in countries such as Mexico and Brazil are more important. As opposed to Asia, the region is also more important as a partner internationally in places and ways that matter to Canada, from Brazils running the United Nations mission in Haiti to Mexicos establishing its own foreign -aid agency. Canada has several advantages in the region, especially compared with China. But as more of the world looks to Latin America, Canada has to sell these advantages and fight aggressively for markets and influence in a region that now regards us as less important. The question is whether Canada still has the resources and ability to do so. There are positive signs. Canadas private sector will be well represented at the CEO Summit also taking place in Cartagena, and the government is se t to reaffirm the Americas as a priority. But without adequate funding from the government, it will be up to the private sector to step in and step up.

AT cant solve China

China is crowding out the U.S. Canada is key to fill the gap the impact is a net positive
Carmichael and Grant, 11 Economics Correspondent for The Globe and Mail; Economics Reporter for The Globe and Mail (Kevin Carmichael; Tavia
Grant, 25 March 2011, South America: Canadas forgotten continent, The Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/southamerica-canadas-forgotten-continent/article577891/?page=all)//KP An escaping opportunity Canada's

false start in boosting economic ties with Latin America and the Caribbean come as the region seeks to diminish its reliance on the United States. China surpassed the U.S. last year to become Brazil's largest trading partner, and the country's Foreign Minister boasts that he's taking Mandarin lessons twice a week. The region's shift to Asia from the U.S. is dramati c. According to the World Bank figures, U.S. imports represented 30.9 per cent of the average total between 2007 and 2009 compared with 48.8 per cent in 2000; imports from "other" countries, a group dominated by China and other Asian exporters, were almost 56 per cent of the average total between 2007 and 2009, compared with 38 per cent in 2000. Canada has "all these natural advantages and long-standing ties in Latin America and yet we remain fixated on India and China," said Jonathan Hausman, vice-chair at the Canadian Council for the Americas who has travelled to the region for the past 15 years.
"Canada has a lot at stake, and in my view we're not leveraging it to the degree we should and could." At the Calgary conference, Enrique Pescarmona, CEO of IMPSA in Argentina, a company that works with renewable energy and has operations around the world, said Canadians can't afford to miss the opportunity to invest in Latin America. "Whoever comes to Latin America is going to hit big as long as he does things correctly ," he told hundreds of delegates at the Inter-American Development Bank's annual meeting of the boards of governors in Calgary Friday. "The best way to do it is to try to [form]partnerships with Latin American [companies]" he said. Still,

challenges remain. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider around the world, but the situation remains most extreme in Latin America. "This can be an obstacle to growth," Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, told reporters Wednesday in Washington. It's not the only obstacle. Inflation, a plague of the past, is creeping back, especially in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil. Mexico is fighting a drug war that has spilled into other Central American countries. Rising currencies are pressuring local manufacturers. Also, Brazil's currency, the real, has been "up and down like a yo-yo," said Hani Basile, an executive at Montreal-based Dorel Industries, which entered Brazil in 2009 to sell car seats. It took Dorel
more than a year to complete the regulatory process - six months longer than expected. Whereas in Canada there might be 10 steps to start a business, in Brazil there are 150, said Eric Bonner, an executive at Brookfield Asset Management and chairman of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce. The

situation is getting better, but slowly. The regulatory maze is one reason that finding a local partner is essential, Mr. Bonner said. But those who have ventured into Latin American and the Caribbean contend the positives far outweigh the negatives. Mr.
Jamieson of ABS Friction said he had to get used to the fact that his clients were going to "give you a big hug and kiss you on the cheeks," but the benefit for adjusting to cultural differences is a market that accounts for 25 per cent of his sales. To capture the promise of Latin America, "the

window for Canadians is open, but in three or four years, it's going to close," said Scotiabank's Mr. Waugh. "It won't close completely, but opportunities are presenting themselves and it would be a shame for us not to take part."

Venezuela

Canada solves best increasing relations with Venezuela now

The Canadian Press, 2/17 - Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird responds to questions in the House of Commons (Baird concerned with Iran ties
with Venezuela, 2/17 /13 , CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/17/baird-chavez-iran.html)//GP

Canada is increasingly concerned with the growing cozy relations between Iran and Venezuela and intends to press the issue with the regime of Hugo Chavez in Caracas next week, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Sunday. "I'm concerned about Iran in general," he told The Canadian Press from Lima, Peru. "I'm concerned about their nuclear program.
I'm concerned about their support of terrorism. "And I'm concerned about their deteriorating human rights record at home. So I don't think we'll see eye to eye with Venezuela on that."

Baird is on an eight-day, six-country Latin American tour that also took him last week to Cuba, Caracas on Wednesday. The Cuba-Venezuela bond was underscored as Baird arrived in Havana on Friday. He was greeted with the release of a new photograph of Chavez convalescing
the hemisphere's most repressive anti-democratic country. He visits happily in a Cuban hospital, where he has spent the last two months receiving treatment for cancer. Though Venezuela is a functioning democracy, it has in Chavez an aging and ailing iron-fisted leader similar to that of communist Cuba, where Raul Castro, 81, succeeded his iconic, 86-year-old brother Fidel five years ago, and has begun instituting modest economic reforms. Deeper economic and commerical engagement

Baird said he is pushing for deeper

economic and commercial engagement for Canada in both countries because that can promote change at what is looking like a pivotal moment in history. The minister said he sees potential for Canadian companies in the financial services, energy and mining sectors. But with Chavez potentially on his last legs, the Obama
administration is hopeful it can reset relations with Venezuela. Chavez has courted Iran as an ally. The Obama administration believes Iran is trying to gain a foothold in Latin America, including perhaps establishing a military base. Last week, Venezuela had to explain a $46-million cheque found in the possession of Iran's former central bank chief when he was detained in Germany. On Sunday, a report by Iran's Press TV said Venezuela's state-owned weapons manufacturer, CAVIM, would continue to do business with Iran in the face of sanctions by the U.S. State Department. Baird said he is eager to bring up the Iran relationship with his counterpart in Caracas later this week. 'On Iran, we have strong views.'John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs "On Iran, we have strong views," he said.

Baird is also scheduled to meet with opposition figures in Venezuela. "The elections held recently were by no means
perfect but I think even the opposition conceded they were much better than anticipated," Baird said in reference to the ballot that returned Chavez to power last fall before his illness struck. "Obviously,

we want to promote democracy, and we want to promote political

freedoms." In Cuba, Baird said he had frank discussions with his counterpart, Bruno Rodriguez, who at 54 is a political spring chicken compared the
octogenarian holdovers from the 1959 revolution who still occupy high offices. Since taking charge, Raul Castro has allowed a series of small, free market reforms, and eased travel restrictions on Cubans.

"I think there's a long way to go," said Baird. "They're beginning to make some significant economic reform, so I think there's some reason for optimism there." He also said Cuba is beginning a transition to new leadership. "There is beginning to be a change of the guard in the cabinet, and among the senior leadership just a beginning I think that gives us some reason for optimism," he said. "Obviously, we want to see people in Cuba live in freedom and prosperity." Baird said Canada still opposes Cuba's return to the
Organization of American States when it holds its next summit in 2015, saying the country needs to go further on its reforms. Canada and the U.S. oppose the return of Cuba to the 35-country Western Hemisphere club. But Canada supports Cuba's calls for the United States to end its five-decade long economic embargo.

Canadian engagement solves

Cameron, 13 - Ph.D., California, Berkeley, 1989, specializes in comparative politics and international political economy, (Maxwell, Cameron: Should building
ties in Latin America be a policy priority for Canada? March 11, 2013, http://opencanada.org/rapid-response-group/cameron-should-building-ties-in-latin-americabe-a-policy-priority-for-canada/)//A-Berg

Building ties in Latin America already is, ostensibly, a policy priority. Canada has been talking about re-engagement with
Latin America for some time. But were seen as out of step and irrelevant by most of the region: were not even included in diplomatic fora like UNASUR and CELAC. It may be time to hit the reset button regardless

of what happens in Venezuela. The way that Canada handles the situation in Venezuela offers an opportunity, not for immediate rapprochement with Venezuela I agree with Bill Graham that it is difficult to foresee much change in Canada-Venezuela relations in the near term but for a fresh approach to Canadas relations with the region as a whole, Venezuela included. Heres how. Right now, Venezuela is in crisis. Chavez was elected to a third term in
October. Now he is dead. How will his successors manage the transition? The solution is elections. A presidential election must be called within a month. For the new government to have democratic legitimacy, the election must not only be free from fraud, it must give the opposition a genuine opportunity to put forward an alternative. Canada

should work with all other democracies in the regionboth through bilateral as well as multilateral diplomacyto ensure that the new leadership understands that its legitimacy at home

and abroad depends on credible elections. I can already hear the objections, so let me address them. Canada has almost no political
capital in Venezuela. True. The likelihood that the elections will held on a level playing field is next to nill. Also true. Canada has no business lecturing other countries about democracy when we have our own problems at home (electoral irregularities, erosion of the separation of powers). Sadly, true. But these objections

miss the point. All democracies have imperfections, and there are many types of democratic regimes. That does not prevent democracies from working together to provide a supportive international context for democratization and to avert backsliding. Will Canada play such a role? If so, maybe it does need to hit the reset button.

Empirics prove Canada can fix oil nationalization

Gindin 06 - an independent journalist and researcher living between Toronto and Caracas (Jonah, Venezuela's and Canada's Very Different Approaches to
Oil, December 14th 2006, http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2138) //A-Berg

Canada and Venezuela represent the most important sources of oil outside the Middle Eastand as heavy oil extraction methods improve, they may surpass even that black-gold mine. But their approaches to oil revenue could not be more different. Venezuela's oil industry was very similar to Alberta's in the early- to mid-1990s, when US-promoted neo-liberalismfree trade and the privatization and deregulation of the oil industrywas implemented. But when the controversial yet popular Hugo Chvez was elected in 1998, Venezuela embarked on a transformative experiment, re-nationalizing the state oil company. With the countrys oil-based income increasing exponentially, Venezuela has
invested heavily in social programs. According to the Venezuelan National Statistics Institute, poverty rates have declined from 49 to 37 per cent since Chvez assumed office. The Chvez administration has presented a serious challenge to neo-liberalism in Latin America by developing a social-democratic model with a sharp revolutionary edge. This process was made possible by Chvez's successful mobilization of poor Venezuelans into a mass movement. Canadas

oil sector is highly regionalized, with royalty rates and the bulk of corporate taxes set and collected at the provincial level. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has pursued diametrically different policies than Chvez. Despite its business-friendly approach, the Klein
government has presided over huge surpluses over the past few years. Nevertheless, though social spending has increased marginally over this period, it remains below the level it reached in 1993 before being slashed by Klein. Were Alberta to begin demanding a bigger piece of the oil-revenue pie, would it end up being invested in the public good? Would it inspire (or require) popular mobilization along the lines of the Venezuelan experience? Two Models From the birth of the Canadian and Venezuelan oil industries in the early 20th century to the late 1990s, the policies in both countries followed similar trajectories. Up until the 1973 OPEC oil shock, both oil industries were increasingly dominated by foreign corporations, most of them American. As happened in many other OPEC countries as a result of the crisis, then-President of Venezuela Carlos Andrs Perz nationalized the oil industry in 1975, creating state-run oil company Petroleos de Venezuela S. A. (PDVSA). Venezuela pursued a series of nationalist policies during the late seventies and early eighties, investing oil revenues in a a slew of ill-conceived development projects. Ultimately, these were doomed by poor planning, arrogance and the misconception that everlasting high oil rents would provide permanent subsidies. Venezuela experienced a country-wide depression for much of the 1980s, as oil wealth was replaced by foreign debt. By 1989, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US Treasury Department, the government implemented the Apertura Petrolera the oil opening. While PDVSA technically remained state-run, the industry was opened up to external investment under extremely generous conditions, quickly becoming dominated (once again) by foreign multinationals. PDVSA itself came under the control of a technocratic elite, eventually becoming known as a state within a state for its viciously defended autonomy from the Venezuelan government. It resisted government oversight through internationalizationinvesting oil rents in overseas ventures to avoid transferring the money to the government. Though not an OPEC member, Canada also founded

a state-run oil company, PetroCanada, in 1975, during the first Trudeau government. In 1980 the federal government implemented the National Energy Program (NEP), despite fervent opposition from Western Canada. The NEP expanded the role of Petro-Canada, gave preferential treatment to Canadian oil producers, and by fixing domestic prices sought to brace Canadas industrial east from the terrifying jumps in the international price of oil. In 1984, however, Brian Mulroney won the federal election campaigning against the NEP, heralding the rise of an emboldened regionalism and the end of nationalist oil politics in Canada. The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) effectively enshrined Canada as an energy satellite of the US, making
it exceedingly difficult for Albertan or Canadian governments to serve the province or the countrys energy needs until the U S had been served first. In 1990, the Mulroney government declared its intention to privatize Petro-Canada, a process completed under Chrtien in 2004.

Canada must act in Venezuela to rebuild its soft power throughout Latin America
Cameron, 3/11/13 Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, specializes in comparative politics of Latin America and international political economy (Maxwell, 11 March
2013, Should building ties in Latin America be a policy priority for Canada? Rapid Response, http://opencanada.org/rapid-response/should-building-ties-in-latinamerica-be-a-policy-priority-for-canada/)//KP

Building ties in Latin America already is, ostensibly, a policy priority. Canada has been talking about re-engagement with Latin America for some time. But were seen as out of step and irrelevant by most of the region: were not even included in diplomatic fora like UNASUR and CELAC. It may be time to hit the reset button regardless of what happens in Venezuela. The way that Canada handles the situation in Venezuela offers an opportunity, not for
immediate rapprochement with Venezuela I agree with Bill Graham that it is difficult to foresee much change in Canada-Venezuela relations in the near term but

for a fresh approach to Canadas relations with the region as a whole, Venezuela included. Heres how. Right now, Venezuela is in crisis. Chavez was elected to a third term in October. Now he is dead. How will his successors manage the transition?
The solution is elections. A presidential election must be called within a month. For the new government to have democratic legitimacy, the election must not only be free from fraud, it must give the opposition a genuine opportunity to put forward an alternative. Canada

should work with all other democracies in the regionboth through bilateral as well as multilateral diplomacyto ensure that the new leadership understands that its legitimacy at home and abroad depends on credible elections. I can already hear the objections, so let me address them. Canada has almost no political capital in Venezuela. True. The likelihood that the elections will held on a level playing field is next to nill. Also true. Canada has no business lecturing other countries about democracy when we have our own problems at home (electoral irregularities, erosion of the separation of powers). Sadly, true. But these objections miss the point. All democracies have imperfections, and there are many types of democratic regimes. That does not prevent democracies from working together to provide a supportive international context for democratization and to avert backsliding. Will Canada play such a role? If so, maybe it does need to hit the reset button.

Canada is in a position to engage Venezuela

FAIT, 2/14/13 Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of Canada (14 February 2013, Baird to Travel to Latin America: Promoting and
Protecting Canadian Interests and Values, http://www.international.gc.ca/wet30-1/aff/news-communiques/2013/02/13a.aspx?lang=eng)//KP

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today announced that he will travel to six Latin American countries from February 14 to 22, 2013. In Mexico, Peru, Panama and the Dominican Republic, the focus will be on expanding cooperation in a variety of areas. In Cuba and Venezuela, Baird will focus especially on democracy, human rights and economic liberalization. Our government is focused on creating jobs, growth and economic prosperity, said Baird. As part of our principled foreign policy, we will also deliver strong messages on economic reforms and greater respect for human rights and democracy as appropriate. Baird added: Our government is committed to ensuring we exercise Canadian leadership in key areas affecting our hemisphere from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Baird will begin his trip in Mexico City, where he will meet Jos Antonio Meade Kuribrea, Mexico's new Secretary of Foreign Relations. This will
be the first meeting between the two men and a chance to expand relations with this key partner. In Mexico and later in Peru, Baird will be engaging like-minded partners, and pursuing the steps needed for membership in the very promising Pacific Alliance. (Canada became an official observer at the Pacific Alliance in November 2012. Alliance members are working to facilitate the free movement of goods, services, capital and people among themselves, while also strengthening trade and investment ties with Asia. The Alliance's founding members Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peruare four of Latin America's fastest-growing economies.) In meetings in Panama and the Dominican Republic, Ba ird

will seek new ways to create opportunities for long-term economic prosperity, while also promoting our shared values regionally and globally. To that end, Baird will conduct visits to Cuba and Venezuela to engage with government representatives. While in these countries, he will also meet with civil society organizations and local members of the Canadian business community. Canada is keenly interested in seeing further progress on human rights, democratic governance and economic liberalization.

Cuba

Canadian engagement solves Cuban economy and ag

CIDA, 6/6 - Canadian International Development Agency, Cuba, Date Modified: 2013-6-6, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cuba-e)//A-Berg CIDA maintains a continuing dialogue with the Government of Cuba on development priorities. CIDA
supports the interest that Cuban officials have expressed in maintaining social gains during a period of economic liberalization. Throughout these discussions, Canada seeks to respond to Cuban development priorities in ways that also correspond to Canadian values and expertise. CIDA's

programming in Cuba is aligned with several of the priorities of the Cuban Government, in particular increasing agricultural productivity and improving the efficient and accountable delivery of public services. For this reason, CIDA's program in Cuba focuses on helping the country increase sustainable economic growth and food security. This includes increasing the diversity, availability and sustainability of food production, and more effective, efficient and accountable public services delivery for all Cubans. Economic growth CIDA works with Canadian organizations and trusted multilateral partners to support ministries and institutions that promote economic growth and that play a key role in implementing Cuba's economic reform process. Selected examples of expected results Competency-based technical training and certification of 200 workers
to international standards will lead to improved industrial productivity Five training programs to help prepare Cubans for employment in emerging industries such as oil and gas operations, petrochemical exploration, power engineering, pipefitting and renewable energy will be introduced Training of up to 6,000 auditors in modern auditing techniques and information technologies will help solidify the advances of government agencies and state-run enterprises toward greater transparency and accountability Food security CIDA

support is increasing agricultural diversification, productivity and competitiveness, emphasizing the poorer provinces. CIDA is helping Cuba strengthen small businesses and cooperatives by building skills and promoting more integrated and efficient production chains. Selected
examples of expected results Increased volume (up to 10 percent) of fruit and grain production in cooperatives in selected municipalities in the provinces of Santiago de Cuba and Sancti Spiritus Implementation of the Ministry of Agriculture's National Strategy for Diversified Crop Production resulting in a 12 percent increase in agricultural production in 19 farms, generating a 30 percent increase in farmers' income

Canada can boost Cuban tourism and infrastructure

Brickman, 08 Barry, President, North West International Ltd., WESTERN CANADA AND LATIN AMERICA EXISTING AND POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS, August 1, 2008, http://www.wd.gc.ca/images/cont/11103 -eng.pdf)//A-Berg

The tourism industry and infrastructure projects are priority sectors for Canada in many countries in the Caribbean. International Financial Institutions (IFIs) play an increasingly important role in generating greater business opportunities in the countries of the Caribbean Community. Many of the islands (such as Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago) are also rich in crude oil and natural gas, making them especially important for Canadas oil and gas industry. Canada has an important relationship with Cuba and has consistently recognized Cubas strong commitment to economic and social rights, with its particularly important achievements in the areas of education and health. At the
same time, Canada has urged Cuban authorities to achieve similar progress with respect to basic civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, association, and the press.38

Canada Solves Cuba

Heine 2/13- Jorge, freelance National Affairs writer (Canada re-engages with Latin America , 2/22/13,
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2013/02/22/canada_reengages_with_latin_america.html)//Modermatt The visit by Foreign Minister John Baird to Mexico, Cuba, Peru, the Dominican Republic and Panama is a welcome development. The same goes for the one by Minister of State for the Americas and Consular Affairs Diane Ablonczy to Nicaragua, Ecuador, Colombia and Chile, also this week. Both visits give a badly needed fresh impetus to the priority given to Latin America by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2007. It

should also give Canadian officials a firsthand impression of what is happening in the region. Over the past decade the regions most successful there has been a sea-change in its politics, its economies and its foreign relations. Yet many
observers continue to look at Latin America through a Cold War lens. Since 2000, the middle class has increased by 50 per cent, and poverty has fallen to 28.8 per cent. Leaving underdevelopment behind seems within the grasp of several countries. A key source of this takeoff has been the regions changing international ties.

Since 2007, the regions foreign trade in goods has increased by 40 per cent from $1.55 trillion (U.S.) to $2.19 trillion in 2012, during the worst international financial crisis in 80 years, which left the region unscathed. While unemployment in Spain and Greece clocks in at 26 per cent, and the U.S. rate is 8 per cent, in Brazil it has reached an all-time low of 4.6 per cent, in Peru 6.7 per cent, and in Ecuador 4.8 per cent. In 2013, Panamas economy is projected to grow 7 .5 per cent, Peru 5.8 per cent, the Dominican Republic 4.3 per cent and Colombia 3.8 per cent. Chile has grown at an average rate of 5.9 per cent over the past three years and attracted a record $26.4 billion in foreign direct investment in 2012 more than Mexico and second only to Brazil. The

business opportunities for Canadian companies are enormous. South Americas largely natural-resource-based economies are strong in areas where Canada has comparative advantages and can move in swiftly. Mining companies like
Barrick Gold have been at the forefront of this, while banks like Scotiabank have also made significant inroads. Yet many Canadian companies still regard Latin lands as terra incognita. Given the good will toward Canadians out there, and how much beckons, this is a pity. Latin American regionalism has also been growing in leaps and bounds, and is one of the secrets behind the regions success. The latest entity is the Pacific Alliance. It was launched on May 6, 2012, in Paranal, northern Chile, in the presence of the presidents of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Originally mooted by former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet (2006-2010), the grouping came formally into being with the Lima Declaration of April 2011. Its main objective is to create an area of deep integration . . . as well as greater growth, development and competitiveness. It aims to do so through the gradual liberalization of the circulation of goods, services, capital and people, including the integration of its members stock exchanges (though this has run into some difficulties). Canada

may want to explore closer ties with the Pacific Alliance, though it should keep in mind that imposing visas on Mexicans (a NAFTA partner) in 2009 went over like lead balloon. It would need sorting out if serious progress is to be made on this front. Minister Bairds visit to Havana is especially encouraging. Though much hope was placed on the possibility of the Obama administrations coming up with a new Cuba policy, it is stuck in neutral, held hostage to Miami s Cuban-American lobby. Canadas long-standing, special relationship with Cuba puts it in a good position to act as a broker to sort out Cubas overdue rejoining the inter American community as a full member. Few issues command such unanimous support throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. A breakthrough on this thorny issue, a Cold War relic that should have been disposed of long ago, would be a real feather in Canadas cap.

Canada solves best increasing relations with Venezuela and Cuba now
The Canadian Press, 2/17 - Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird responds to questions in the House of Commons (Baird concerned with Iran ties
with Venezuela, 2/17 /13 , CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/17/baird-chavez-iran.html)//GP

Canada is increasingly concerned with the growing cozy relations between Iran and Venezuela and intends to press the issue with the regime of Hugo Chavez in Caracas next week, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Sunday. "I'm concerned
about Iran in general," he told The Canadian Press from Lima, Peru. "I'm concerned about their nuclear program. I'm concerned about their support of terrorism. "And I'm concerned about their deteriorating human rights record at home. So I don't think we'll see eye to eye with Venezuela on that."

Baird is on an eight-day, six-country Latin American tour that also took him last week to Cuba, the hemisphere's most repressive anti-democratic country. He visits Caracas on Wednesday. The Cuba-Venezuela bond was underscored as Baird arrived in Havana on Friday. He was greeted with the release of a new photograph of Chavez convalescing happily in a Cuban hospital, where he has spent the last two months receiving treatment for cancer. Though Venezuela is a functioning democracy, it has in Chavez an aging and ailing iron-fisted leader similar to that of communist Cuba, where Raul Castro, 81, succeeded his iconic, 86-year-old brother Fidel five years ago, and has begun instituting modest economic reforms. Deeper economic and commerical engagement Baird said he is pushing for deeper economic and commercial engagement for Canada in both countries because that can promote change at what is looking like a pivotal moment in history. The minister said he sees potential for Canadian companies in the financial services, energy and mining sectors. But with Chavez
potentially on his last legs, the Obama administration is hopeful it can reset relations with Venezuela. Chavez has courted Iran as an ally. The Obama administration believes Iran is trying to gain a foothold in Latin America, including perhaps establishing a military base. Last week, Venezuela had to explain a $46million cheque found in the possession of Iran's former central bank chief when he was detained in Germany. On Sunday, a report by Iran's Press TV said Venezuela's state-owned weapons manufacturer, CAVIM, would continue to do business with Iran in the face of sanctions by the U.S. State Department. Baird said he is eager to bring up the Iran relationship with his counterpart in Caracas later this week. 'On Iran, we have strong views.' John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs "On Iran, we have strong views," he said. Baird is also scheduled to meet with opposition figures in Venezuela. "The elections held recently were by no means perfect but I think even the opposition conceded they were much better than anticipated," Baird said in reference to the ballot that returned Chavez to power last fall before his illness struck. " Obviously,

we want to promote democracy, and we want to promote political freedoms." In Cuba, Baird said he had frank discussions with his counterpart, Bruno Rodriguez, who at
54 is a political spring chicken compared the octogenarian holdovers from the 1959 revolution who still occupy high offices. Since taking charge, Raul Castro has allowed a series of small, free market reforms, and eased travel restrictions on

Cubans. "I think there's a long way to go," said Baird. "They're beginning to make some significant economic reform, so I think there's some reason for optimism there." He also said Cuba is beginning a transition to new leadership. "There is beginning to

be a change of the guard in the cabinet, and among the senior leadership just a beginning I think that gives us some reason for optimism," he said. "Obviously, we want to see people in Cuba live in freedom and prosperity." Baird said Canada still opposes Cuba's return to the Organization of American States when it holds its next summit
in 2015, saying the country needs to go further on its reforms. Canada and the U.S. oppose the return of Cuba to the 35-country Western Hemisphere club. But

Canada supports Cuba's calls for the United States to end its five-decade long economic embargo.

Canada solves the Aff better than the US

Heine, 2/22/13 CIGI Professor of Global Governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University (Jorge, 22 February 2013,
Canada re-engages with Latin America, The Toronto Star, http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2013/02/22/canada_reengages_with_latin_america.html)//KP

The visit by Foreign Minister John Baird to Mexico, Cuba, Peru, the Dominican Republic and Panama is a welcome development. The same goes for the one by Minister of State for the Americas and Consular Affairs Diane Ablonczy to Nicaragua, Ecuador, Colombia and Chile, also this week. Both visits give a badly needed fresh impetus to the priority given to Latin America by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2007. It should also give Canadian officials a first-hand impression of what is happening in the region. Over the past decade the regions most successful there has been a sea-change in its politics, its economies and its foreign relations. Yet many observers continue to look at Latin America through a Cold War lens. Since 2000, the middle class has increased by 50 per
cent, and poverty has fallen to 28.8 per cent. Leaving underdevelopment behind seems within the grasp of several countries. A key source of this takeoff has been the regions changing international ties. Since 2007, the regions foreign trade in goods has increased by 40 per cent from $1.55 trillion (U.S.) to $2.19 trillion in 2012, during the worst international financial crisis in 80 years, which left the region unscathed. While unemployment in Spain and Greece clocks in at 26 per cent, and the U.S. rate is 8 per cent, in Brazil it has reached an all-time low of 4.6 per cent, in Peru 6.7 per cent, and in Ecuador 4.8 per cent. In 2013, Panamas economy is projected to grow 7.5 per cent, Peru 5.8 per cent, the Dominican Republic 4.3 per cent and Colombia 3.8 per cent. Chile has grown at an average rate of 5.9 per cent over the past three years and attracted a record $26.4 billion in foreign direct investment in 2012 more than Mexico and second only to Brazil. The

business opportunities for Canadian companies are enormous. South Americas largely natural-resource-based economies are
strong in areas where Canada has comparative advantages and can move in swiftly. Mining companies like Barrick Gold have been at the forefront of this, while banks like Scotiabank have also made significant inroads. Yet many Canadian companies still regard Latin lands as terra incognita. Given the good will toward Canadians out there, and how much beckons, this is a pity. Latin American regionalism has also been growing in leaps and bounds, and is one of the secrets behind the regions success. The latest entity is the Pacific Alliance. It was launched on May 6, 2012, in Paranal, northern Chile, in the presence of the presidents of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Originally mooted by former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet (2006-2010), the grouping came formally into being with the Lima Declaration of April 2011. Its

main objective is to create an area of deep integration . . . as well as greater growth, development and competitiveness. It aims to do so through the gradual liberalization of the circulation of goods, services, capital and people, including the integration of its members stock exchanges (though this has run into some difficulties). Canada may want to explore closer ties with the Pacific Alliance ,
though it should keep in mind that imposing visas on Mexicans (a NAFTA partner) in 2009 went over like lead balloon. It would need sorting out if serious progress is to be made on this front. Minister

Bairds visit to Havana is especially encouraging. T hough much hope was placed on the possibility of the Obama administrations coming up with a new Cuba policy, it is stuck in neutral, held hostage to Miamis Cuban-American lobby. Canadas long-standing, special relationship with Cuba puts it in a good position to act as a broker to sort out Cubas overdue rejoining the inter-American community as a full member. Few issues command such unanimous support throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. A breakthrough on this thorny issue, a Cold War relic that should have been disposed of long ago, would be a real feather in Canadas cap.

Canada is in a position to engage Cuba

FAIT, 2/14/13 Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of Canada (14 February 2013, Baird to Travel to Latin America: Promoti ng and
Protecting Canadian Interests and Values, http://www.international.gc.ca/wet30-1/aff/news-communiques/2013/02/13a.aspx?lang=eng)//KP

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today announced that he will travel to six Latin American countries from February 14 to 22, 2013. In Mexico, Peru, Panama and the Dominican Republic, the focus will be on expanding cooperation in a variety of areas. In Cuba and Venezuela, Baird will focus especially on democracy, human rights and economic liberalization. Our government is focused on creating jobs, growth and economic prosperity, said Baird. As part of our principled foreign policy, we will also deliver strong messages on economic reforms and greater respect for human rights and democracy as appropriate. Baird added: Our government is committed to

ensuring we exercise Canadian leadership in key areas affecting our hemisphere from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Baird will begin his trip in Mexico City, where he will meet Jos Antonio Meade Kuribrea, Mexico's new Secretary of Foreign Relations. This will be
the first meeting between the two men and a chance to expand relations with this key partner. In Mexico and later in Peru, Baird will be engaging like-minded partners, and pursuing the steps needed for membership in the very promising Pacific Alliance. (Canada became an official observer at the Pacific Alliance in November 2012. Alliance members are working to facilitate the free movement of goods, services, capital and people among themselves, while also strengthening trade and investment ties with Asia. The Alliance's founding members Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peruare four of Latin America's fastest-growing economies.) In meetings in Panama and the Dominican Republic, Baird

will seek new ways to create opportunities for long-term economic prosperity, while also promoting our shared values regionally and globally. To that end, Baird will conduct visits to Cuba and Venezuela to engage with government representatives. While in these countries, he will also meet with civil society organizations and local members of the Canadian business community. Canada is keenly interested in seeing further progress on human rights, democratic governance and economic liberalization.

Cuba will say yes development funds and diplomacy

McKenna 12 chair and professor of political science at the of University of Prince Edward Island (Peter McKenna, 2012, Through the Sun and Ice: Canada,
Cuba, and Fifty Year of Normal Relations, Canada Looks South: In Search of an American Policy, pages 159 -160)//KP Clearly, the

Cuban government is interested in strengthening political and economic relations with Canada for a number of pragmatic reasons: the Canadian government is a key supplier of financing and credit;
approximately seventy Canadian companies comprise the largest source of badly needed foreign investment; and some 900,000 Canadians travel to Cuba annually, generating important revenue and employment on the island. Canada

also provides valuable development assistance funds, officials are now (or rather have been in the past) involved in improving Cubas banking system, tax structure, tourism sector, and its economic planning procedures and intuitions. In sum, constructive relations with Canada provide a host of benefits to Cuba, and without any onerous preconditions. Cuban officials know that, for the most part, the Canadian government does not do Washingtons bidding and is not seeking to destabilize the Cuban government or punish the Cuban people. Cuban authorities also recognize that a cordial and constructive relationship with Canada could prove valuable to Havana some time down the road. Indeed, Canada has often been touted as an important intermediary in any future Cuba-U.S. rapprochement.
including CIDAs outstanding programs and technical expertise. Additionally, Canadian

Mexico

Canada solves bilateral institutions for energy cooperation already exist.

SRE 11 Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Canada-Mexico Joint Action Plan 2010-2012, 6/17/11;
< http://embamex.sre.gob.mx/canada/images/mexico-jap.pdf>)//Beddow

1) Fostering Competitive and Sustainable Economies. Canada and Mexicos economic partnership has evolved, from exports in the 1990s to integrated production in the 21st century. We have a joint interest in the vitality of this partnership, and in strengthening North American competitiveness. A concerted focus on innovation and applied science and technology is critical to our societies goal of achieving and sustaining economic competitiveness. Canada and Mexico share an interest in a wide range of economic activities that could benefit from our closer collaboration, leading to new business opportunities. Our countries also acknowledge the dynamic intersection of the economy and the environment. Energy and climate change initiatives support long-term economic competitiveness, enhance energy security and mitigate air pollution. Our two countries have built a platform of pragmatic cooperation through a number of bilateral, North American and multilateral mechanisms, including the Canada-Mexico Partnership, the North American Leaders Summit, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the technology cooperation partnerships such as the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), the Methane-to-Markets Partnership, the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) and, most recently, the Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas (ECPA). Work programs already underway bilaterally, trilaterally, and globally will be complemented by further initiatives, including in the area of corporate social responsibility.

Canadian engagement with Mexico solves the aff and is key to their soft power. (also has say yes warrant)
Greenspon et. Al 10 - Edward, Chair, The GPS Project, Andr Beaulieu, Vice-president,Value Creation and Procurement, Bell Canada, Cathy Beehan,
Founding CEO, A ction Canada, Gerald Butts, President and CEO, World Wildlife Fund Canada, Mark Cameron, Director, Corporate Affairs, Ontario Power Generation, Hancock Counsellor, WTO, Jonathan Hausman, Vice-president, Alternative, Investments and Emerging, Markets, Ontario Tea chers Pension Plan, Farah Mohamed President, Belinda Stronach, Foundation, George Roter, Co-CEO and cofounder, Engineers Without Borders Canada, Stphane Roussel, Pr ofessor, Universit du, Qubec Montral, Mercedes Stephenson, Host and producer, Mercedes Stephenson Investigates, and vice-president, Breakout Educ ational Network, Kristina Tomaz-Young, Founder and producer, Venture Capital TV, and president and practice leader, Smart Initiatives, Inc., Yuen Pau Woo , President and CEO, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (Open Canada: A Global Positioning Strategy for a Networked Age, June 2010, http://opencanada. org/features/reports/opencanada/)//A-Berg

Mexico is one of Canadas most importantand most underdevelopedrelationships. Few countries care as much about their relationship with Canada as Mexico, and there are few places where Canadas interests are so clear. Getting along with Mexico contributes to both of our goals: deepening ties with the United States and broadening ties with others . Mexico gives Canada an opportunity to contribute to our prosperity, matter more in Washington, and do good at the same time. Mexico respects Canada as the more established and stable bookend to the U.S. However, it has felt rejected in the trilateral NAFTA and
blindsided by the imposition last year of stringent visa requirements for Mexicans seeking entry to Canada requirements that are far tougher than the U.S. visa standards. Sixteen years into the NAFTA era, Canadas two -way trade with Mexico is a modest $24 billion a year, largely in Mexicos favour. Still, it is our fifth -largest export market and growing every year. It is also a major destination for investment, tourists and retirees, and our sixth-largest source of visitors to Canada, at least before the visa requirement.

Our relations with Mexicomostly good, some badshould not be forgotten in the stampede to Asia. As neighbours to the U.S., Canada and Mexico face opposite challenges: Canada cant attract enough attention , and Mexico attracts
too much. Canada only went into NAFTA as a defensive measure against being left behind by a U.S. Mexican bilateral agreement. Some Canadian policy thinkers, in hindsight, argue that Canadas post-1994 flirtation with a third amigo was a strategic mistake; that we need to distance ourselves from Mexico in order to ensure that the U.S. does not treat our respective borders and the countries beyond them in the same way. The GPS Panel dismisses such guilt-by-association fears as the product of faulty analysis. Canada has its own interests in a healthy Mexico. Mexico is a nation in transition. At times it has been rough, no doubt about it. For Canadians who know Mexico only through the media, it is crime ridden and drug infested. But Mexico also is a more democratic and better-managed state than it was in the pre-NAFTA era. It has stabilized its economy, financial system and currency. Its infant mortality is down and its life expectancy is up. It is a democracy, although one with stark reminders of how tenuous young democracies can be. Mexico is a nation in transition. At times it has been rough, no doubt about it. Canada cannot be certain that Mexico will overcome all of its challenges to become a fully fledged democracy and market economy. But the balance is in its favour, and Canada can help itself by helping Mexico achiev e that balance. Tested as it is by drug wars, judicial corruption, an inefficient economy, income inequality and global insularity, it can use whatever help we can muster. The last thing Canada needs is a failed experiment in liberal democratic

capitalism on the doorstep of our most important strategic partner. If

the U.S. is already distracted by Mexico to the detriment of Canada, a Mexico beset by political and economic disorder will only make matters worse. That would
really give Homeland Security a license to tighten the screws. The U.S. is heavily invested in Mexican success, knowing this is the only hope of securing its southern flank. But it is also constrained by its history of violent intervention. Canadians need to appreciate that we have a stake in Mexico, too for better or worseand that our involvement will be welcomed by both Mexico City and Washington. ROOM TO GROW Canadians might also reflect on projections by forecasters such as Goldman Sachs, creators of the BRIC designation, that say the size of the Mexican economy will surpass Canadas within 20 yea rs. Here is an emerging market, 111 million strong, integrated into the North American supply chain (our China), already an OECD and G20 member-state and only four hours away by air and a day and a half by road. Mexicos per capita income is more than twice that of China and four times that of India. There

is no other region in the world in which our political influence and economic interests have the same potential to expand. The GPS Panel recommends making Mexico a major diplomatic priority to help secure its democracy, quell its violence, improve its public administration and become a more active player on the international stage. We see Mexico as a fertile market for more Canadian trade and investment and a partner in our relations with the U.S. To a lesser extent, we would like to
see the same strategy employed elsewhere in the hemisphere. Unlike the failed Free Trade of the Americas, we are not calling for a grand hemispheric strategy but rather a discriminating one. Not all countries in the Americas hold out the same promise for Canada, nor should we spread our resources too thinly. We see great potential in Colombia, a nation of 44 million emerging from decades of brutal violence, as well as in Chile (17 million), Peru (29 million) and much of the Caribbean (40 million). Brazil, the B in BRIC and brimming with confidence, may not have the same desire to engage Canada, but we must find ways to engage it and its 200 million people as the second most important player in the Americas. EASY FIRST STEPS Still, a

starts with Mexico, our Latin cousin in North America and potentially an America. Deepening the relationship begins with simple deliverables: Mexico wants RCMP and legal trainers to help professionalize
its police forces and justice system. Mexico is not a poor country but it has extremely poor regions. It could use Canadas help in poverty alleviation and educa tion, among other things. Mexico has one of the worst records of tax collection in the hemisphere. Just as Elections Cana da helped develop a world-class electoral commission in Mexico, so the Canadian Revenue Agency can make similar efforts on the tax front. Mexico is the perfect place for a newly consolidated Canadian Centre for Democratic Development to make its mark. There is lots of room for

focused relationship with Latin America economic and diplomatic bridge into Central

cooperation trilaterally or bilaterally in energy

production, environmental protection, forestry, oceanography, medicine and more. We would like to see Mexico
more engaged in global security but appreciate its historic aversion to intervention in the affairs of other nations. The Mexican Constitution grants its president exclusive control over foreign policy in accordance with six principles, including one of non-intervention. Mexico did send troops to New Orleans to help during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Although unprecedented, this move did not stir controversy. As the

lines between humanitarian assistance, development and security narrow, Mexico may be more willing to step out and experiment. We would also like to see Mexico, a strong supporter of the United Nations, eventually join Canada in our failing states strategy. The goal,
although difficult to picture today, would be for Mexico, already an OECD member, to join NATO just as the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe have. But first things first. Some Mexico experts have said that joint naval exercises would be a good place to start. Building trust and capability with the Mexican navy would boost confidence on both sides and combine forces against the smuggling operations that bring drugs from Mexico to Canada. The GPS Panel heard many calls to lift visa requirements imposed on Mexican visitors last year after a surge in refugee claimants. We reluctantly support retaining the visa, as part of a larger goal of longterm harmonization of our visa list with the U.S. But we would also harmonize the application, adopting the far simpler and less intrusive American visa form. As neighbours to the United States, Canada and Mexico face opposite challenges: Canada cant attrac t enough attention, and Mexico attracts too much. With

less competition and much need, this is a part of the world where Canada can make a difference. We can offer our services to countries looking for a better future and be useful to our allies, particularly, the U.S., in the process. Canada played an active part during the Peruvian democracy crisis in 2000. There is no reason why we could not have helped
mediate the Honduran democracy crisis last year. Our connections with Cuba, although sometimes used to score cheap political points, should help smooth the way to the eventual normalization of relations with the U.S. We certainly have made a humanitarian difference in Haiti, the failed state of the Americas. Canada cannot save the world, but it can

work toward social and economic progress and against democratic backsliding in our hemisphere. A strategy in Latin America requires staying power, however. To grasp the nuances of this region, like any region, Canada needs to
think in decades, not to the next summit. The 1950s generation did not build close relations with Europe on a passing fancy or single agreement. Two of our founding peoples were European. We fought two wars in Europe. We sold Europeans our wheat, lumber and minerals and were open to their investment. We welcomed their immigrants. We

posted the best and brightest of our diplomats there and developed deep partnerships within international institutions. Specialization, consistency, full engagement that is how truly beneficial relationships are built. Canada Solves Mexico FAITC 11- Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada government website (Canada and Mexico Continue to Strengthen Economic Ties, June 13th 2011,
http://www.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/news-communiques/2011/160.aspx)//Modermatt The Honourable Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, and the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), today welcomed to Ottawa, Bruno Ferrari, Mexicos Secretary of the Economy, and discussed ho w trade can achieve greater prosperity for Canadians and Mexicans alike. The

ministers and secretary met on the margins of the Mexico-Canada

Business2Business Forum: Global Business Opportunities and Innovation Strategies, organized by the Embassy of Mexico to Canada, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and the Mexican Business Council for Foreign Trad e. The forum runs from June 13 to 14. The Harper governments priority is to create jobs, increase prosperity and preserve and strengthen the financial security of Canadians, said Minister Fast. Deepening trade, which represents about 60 percent of our economy, with key countries like Mexico is vital to our economic recovery and future prosperity. Since NAFTA came into effect, merchandise trade between Canada and Mexico has increased sixfold and was worth $27.1 billion in 2010. Besides being among each others largest trading partners, Canada has also become a major foreign investor in Mexico. Our government continues to enhance the competitiveness of Canada, which helps attract foreign investment, said Minister Paradis. We are also helping Canadian businesses grow and succeed around the world, so they can create jobs and economic growth here at home. During his two-day
visit to Ottawa, Secretary Ferrari also met the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, and Canadas Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird. On the opening day of the forum, Minister Fast also delivered the inaugural ke ynote address along with Secretary Ferrari.

He told the group of more than 400 Canadian and Mexican business leaders that Canada has a lot to offer Mexico in many key areasfrom energy, agriculture, the environment and forestry to transportation, infrastructure and high technology. Canada and Mexico are important strategic partners, concluded Minister Fast. In my meeting today with Secretary Ferrari, I told him the Harper government is committed to working closely with Mexico, building on the incredible success of NAFTA, to further strengthen trade and investment opportunities for both countries.

Canadia-Mexico bilateral relationship key to solvency between Canada and Mexico Beatty and Rozental 12- Perrin Beatty and Andres Rozental, staff writers (Whats good for Mexico is good for Canada, Nov. 27, 2012,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/whats-good-for-mexico-is-good-for-canada/article5697426/)

President-elect Enrique Pea Nietos visit to Ottawa this week offers a major opportunity to upgrade bilateral relations between Canada and Mexico to the level of a strategic partnership. Although Canada joined
the North American free-trade agreement talks to preserve the gains from the earlier Canadian-U.S. free-trade agreement, this reluctant decision has proved to be remarkably rewarding. Canada not only succeeded in protecting its primary market with its most important trading partner the United States but it also found a new partner in Mexico.

Since NAFTA, Canadian trade with Mexico has grown nearly sixfold. Mexico is now Canadas third-largest trading partner, with two-way trade reaching $34.4-billion in 2011. The growth in the bilateral economic relationship has not been limited to trade. Canadian investments in Mexico have more than doubled since the late 1980s, as Canada has become one of Mexicos largest sources of foreign direct
investment. More than 2,500 Canadian companies have offices and operations in Mexico. Many have used their Mexican operations as launch pads to reach other markets in Central and South America. Mexican

firms are now also showing greater interest in Canada. After the

United States, Mexico is now the most popular foreign destination for Canadians . The majority of these are short-term visitors, but there are also a growing number of business people, students and other long-term residents living in Mexico. In the other direction, Mexico is the second-largest source of temporary foreign workers for Canada, boosting the productivity of Canadas agricultural sector through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. As Canadas labour force continues to age, Mexico offers a rich source of younger workers upon which to draw. Despite these growing interactions, most Canadians and Mexicans still hold largely stereotypical images of each other. Many Canadians see Mexico as sun, sand and margaritas, while others focus on criminality, corruption and drugs. Our two countries still have much to learn about one another. There

is a tremendous opportunity to increase that knowledge by, for example, increasing exchanges between Mexicans and Canadians through labour and student mobility agreements and initiatives. As global competition becomes more intense, Canada and Mexico could each benefit from taking a broader view of North American relations. An enhanced economic partnership among Canada, Mexico and the United States would make North America as productive and competitive as any other major economic area. To make this a reality, Canada and Mexico must first strengthen their own bilateral bonds. To that end, the two countries should realize that, despite the growth in bilateral trade and investment, they are leaving major economic opportunities on the table. Today, Canadas economy is
larger than Mexicos, but within a few decades, their relative positions will switch. PricewaterhouseCoopers pr ojects that, on a purchasing power parity basis, Mexicos GDP will be $6.6-trillion by 2050 the seventh-largest economy in the world, with twice Canadas projected GDP of $3.3 -trillion. Additionally, by 2050, one in six Americans will be of Mexican ancestry. In short, the Mexican economy and the Mexican diaspora will provide new and compelling opportunities for trade and investment far too large for Canadians to ignore. In

the immediate future, there are opportunities for Canada and Mexico to collaborate on regional and international issues. Both boast large hydrocarbon industries and both have relatively
carbon-intensive economies. With Mr. Pea Nietos promise to allow foreign investment in the Mexican petroleum sector, Canadian ener gy firms can look for

opportunities in Mexico. Mexican-Canadian co-ordination on some continental issues could help even the playing field. This applies, for example, to pursuing greater alignment in their regulatory regimes. Strengthening Mexicos economy will not only help t he 52 million Mexicans who live in poverty, it will enhance Canadas ability to service Mexicos growing middle class. In

the longer term, Canada should support efforts to further reform the Mexican economy and to deal with organized crime. Ultimately, turning the bilateral relationship into a strategic partnership will mean realizing that whats good for Mexico is also good for Canada.

CP solves economic engagement with Mexico experience and good relations

Morris, 11 - Regional Vice-President, Western Canada of Haskayne School of Business & Canadian Council for the Americas
(Linda Morris, May 26, 2011, Doing Business in Latin America: Are You There Yet?, Canada of Haskayne School of Business, http://www.edc.ca/EN/AboutUs/News-Room/Speeches/Pages/doing-business-latin-america.aspx)//GP Ladies and gentlemen -- Good Evening, Bonsoir, Buenas Noches and Boa Noite. Thank you to the Haskayne School of Business and the Canadian Council for the Americas-Alberta for this speaking invitation. Trying to cover business opportunities in Latin America is a little like being asked how to do business in all of North America. Its a huge topic and each of the coun tries in Latin America is unique. Differences aside,

three key developments are making trade and investment in many parts of Latin America hardor foolhardy-- to resist anymore: Many Latin American countries are more stable, growing faster and ranked higher for ease of doing business than ever before in their history. And the growth rates, this year and next, of key markets, like Brazil, Panama, Mexico and Peru, are forecast to do much better than the U.S. or Canadas. Canadian exports and direct investment in many key parts of Latin America have increased steadily over the past decade--except for a blip in recessionary 2009. Compared to five years ago, for instance, Canadas exports to the region as a whole jumped 25 per cent. Latin America has several concrete trade advantages over emerging giants like China and India. We have 5 free trade agreements with key Latin American countries, either in force or near completion, eliminating burdensome tariffs and making direct investment more secure. The regions relative proximity also gives exporters delivery speed and cost savings. Today, Ill focus on 5 key Latin American markets, where EDC has seen the biggest boom in bilateral trade : Brazil, Mexico , Chile, the Andean Region, and key markets in Central America and the Caribbean. EDCs experience in these markets serves as a good reflection of what Canadian exporters and investors are doing in genera l. Indeed, its no coincidence that EDC has representations in all these regions, including two locations in Mexico and Brazil. We celebrated a decade in those markets in 2010. And we opened in Santiago (Chile); Lima (Peru); and Panama in each of the past three years. EDC Overview
and Role in Latin America For those who dont know EDC well: We are a Crown corporation whose purpose is to develop and expand Canadas international trade. To give you a flavor of the growth in Latin America through the EDC lens, EDC helped Canadian

companies do more than $10 billion worth of business in 2010: Thats nearly 40 per cent more than 10 years ago. We served close to 1,500 customers in the region, 60 per cent more than a decade ago. And our business volume in the region represents about 40 per cent of EDCs total emerging market volumemore than for any other broad emerging region. So Latin America is clearly growing as THE place for Canadians to diversify their customer base beyond the United States. If you want further proof,
take a look at Canadian exports and investments at large: They reached record highs in Latin America in 2008--before the effects of the credit crunch hit most markets-- and have picked up encouragingly in 2010. Canadian merchandise exports rose 20 per cent between 2009 and 2010, to some $11 billion. These

exports are especially strong in mining, oil and gas, infrastructure and resource sectors. By 2008, most Canadian direct investment in emerging markets--more than 40 per cent--went to Latin America; and their value more
than doubled since 2003, to nearly US$ 40 billion. Investment advisors too are bullish about Latin America: According to a Santander Global Banking survey of 750 top investment

managers, more than half will increase investments in Latin America this year, compared to about 15 per cent in Asia. Brazil is the favourite market, followed by Mexico, Peru, Argentina &
Colombia. And the World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index ranks Mexico, Peru & Colombia as the Top 3 countries in Latin America; the index is a composite rating of the ease or complexity of such factors as starting up a business, getting permits, paying taxes and enforcing contracts. Economic Environment Is

anything changing in the coming year? Before looking at some of the regions top markets, Ill touch on the broad economic landscape -fresh from our Chief Economists latest Global Export Forecast. Growth in many of the hottest Latin American markets is expected to moderate this year. It should still be well-above industrialized markets and a little higher than the world averagewhich is forecast
to exceed 4 per cent. The strongest growth will continue to be in Peru, Panama, Chile, Argentina and Brazil, with Mexico close behind. These results will be supported by strong domestic consumer demand and high commodity prices. On the more challenging side, many governments, in even the best markets of the region, still put up stumbling blocks in the form of highly bureaucratic or weak institutions, tie-ups between federal, provincial and municipal bodies, complex tax structures and layers of regulations. Many Latin American countries recognize they will need to strengthen their state institutions and mechanisms to address these concerns by investors and local communities alike. The timeline for such changes is of course harder to predict. Development projects are also coming under greater public scrutiny in all countries. Today too, the

majority of reputable lenders increasingly require that project

sponsors not only mitigate the environmental risks of major projects, but also engage with the community, to respect social and human rights. This requires the joint efforts of the company, community and local governmentto monitor and apply commitments that are made.

Theres a precedent and a means for bilateral security cooperation

Ventura and Allen 12 Undersecretary for North America in Mexico; assistant deputy minister for the Americas at the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade in Canada (Julin Ventura; Jon Allen, February 2012, The Evolution of Government Relations, Canada Amon g Nations, 2011-2012: Canada and Mexicos Unfinished Agenda)//KP Protecting Our Citizens Security

co-operation is rapidly becoming a key feature of Canada and Mexicos bilateral relationship today, as part of a strong bilateral commitment to address transnational threats. A
Consultation Mechanism on New and Traditional Security Issues and a Mexico-Canada Security Working Group were established in 2007 to complement the Canada-Mexico Political-Military Talks. Other institutional contacts on security issues of mutual concern include those between Public Safety Canada and Mexico's Centre for Investigation and National Security (CISEN) and Secretariat for Public Safety. The regrouping departments and agencies involved i n the broad eld of security, are

Security Consultations, an umbrella mechanism at the centre of our co-operation. Held annually, the Security Consultations enable the departments and agencies to share information on their activities with a view to promoting coherence and identifying new areas for potential collaboration. This mechanism is complemented by various working groups that aim to enhance co-operation in law-enforcement, border administration, emergency management, and critical infrastructure protection. In 2008 Mexico undertook far-reaching and ambitious reforms of its judicial system and police forces. Canada's Anti- Crime Capacity Building Program (ACCBP), created in 2009, is the main channel of co-operation for supporting this effort to enhance capacity-building against transnational organized crime. Thus far, Canada has committed over $4.1 million in direct bilateral projects with Mexico To date, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has provided law enforcement training to 1500 Mexican federal investigative police officers, 250 mid-level federal police officers, and 45 federal police commanders. In terms of judicial reform, the ACCBP contributed to the harmonization of criminal procedures between jurisdictions, professionalization of prosecutors and defence counsels, and training of judges. In 2010-11, over 400 Mexican judicial officials participated in 18 activities organized by the Canadian Department of Justice. In other
priority areas of corrections and crime prevention, Canadian and Mexican partners are strengthening co-operation through visits and seminars and jointly preparing specic proposals. Among other programs, Canada's

Counter Terrorism Capacity Building Program (CTCBP) supports bilateral and regional projects in the areas of border and transportation security, critical infrastructure protection, and bioterrorism response. Through the Global Partnership Program, a G8-led initiative, Canada, the United States, and Mexico
are working together to convert a Mexican research reactor from highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium fuel, as an expression of their rm commitment to global nuclear security. Defence relations are centred on two initiatives: the Military Training and Cooperation Program (MTCP) and the Canada- Mexico Political Military Talks. Since 2004, Canada has offered training opportunities to Mexico under the MTCP. The political-military talks are co-chaired by each countrys respective foreign and defence ministries and advance dialogue and co-operation on foreign policy, defence, and security matters. In May 2011, the countries held the rst military-level staff talks between Canada Command and the Mexican secretariats of National Defence and the Navy to provide a framework for advancing direct military-to-military collaboration.

Canada is in a position to engage Mexico

FAIT, 2/14/13 Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of Canada (14 February 2013, Baird to Travel to Latin America: Promoting and
Protecting Canadian Interests and Values, http://www.international.gc.ca/wet30-1/aff/news-communiques/2013/02/13a.aspx?lang=eng)//KP

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today announced that he will travel to six Latin American countries from February 14 to 22, 2013. In Mexico, Peru, Panama and the Dominican Republic, the focus will be on expanding cooperation in a variety of areas. In Cuba and Venezuela, Baird will focus especially on democracy, human rights and economic liberalization. Our government is focused on creating jobs, growth and economic prosperity, said Baird. As part of our principled foreign policy, we will also deliver strong messages on economic reforms and greater respect for human rights and democracy as appropriate. Baird added: Our government is committed to ensuring we exercise Canadian leadership in key areas affecting our hemisphere from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Baird will begin his trip in Mexico City, where he will meet Jos Antonio Meade Kuribrea, Mexico's new Secretary of Foreign Relations. This will be the first meeting between the two men and a chance to expand relations with this key partner. In Mexico and later in Peru, Baird will be engaging like-minded partners, and pursuing the steps needed for membership in the very promising

Pacific Alliance. (Canada became an official observer at the Pacific Alliance in November 2012. Alliance members are working to facilitate the free
movement of goods, services, capital and people among themselves, while also strengthening trade and investment ties with Asia. The Alliance's founding membersChile, Colombia, Mexico and Peruare four of Latin America's fastest-growing economies.) In meetings in Panama and the Dominican Republic, Baird will seek new ways to create opportunities for long-term economic prosperity, while also promoting our shared values regionally and globally.

Mexico wants engagement with Canada absent U.S. intervention

Clark, 6/17/13 Foreign affairs reporter for The Globe and Mail (Campbell Clark, 17 June 2013, Mexico pushes for direct ties with Canada, ap art from U.S.
influence, The Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/campbell -clark)//KP New Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto

wants ties with Canada to be a priority in the countrys foreign policy, rather than the on-again, off-again interest of two countries distracted by relations with the United States, Mexicos ambassador says. Ambassador Francisco Suarez Davila arrived in Ottawa a week ago with a mandate to pursue a new deepening of relations between the two countries not just for dealing with the U.S., but also as direct trading partners, and potential diplomatic allies on the world stage. I think I have arrived at a very opportune time. The political stars are aligned, Mr. Suarez said in an interview with The Globe
and Mail. Thats the indication I have received from President Pena, to go beyond the rhetoric to really establish that Canada is a priority for Mexicos foreign policy. Its a real priority: Canada, itself, apart from the North American *regional dynamic+. It is a simp le but important signal in Canada-Mexico relations: that the two countries should see each other as important for more than just what that means in dealing with the United States. They have been trade partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement since 1993, and from time to time expressed a desire for stronger ties. But the

interest has blown hot and cold. Both countries perspectives on North America are, of course, dominated by relations with the U.S.
Its a fact of life that we have this big elephant in between. Its there. But we dont at all like the idea of an off and on approach, Mr. Suarez said. Sort of, you know, oh now Mexico is important, but until that time, no, its more important for us just to have a relationship with the Un ited States. The political stars that Mr. Suarez refers to is that changes in both capitals are coming at the same time as Ottawa tries to re-focus Canadian foreign policy around major emerging markets, and Mr. Pena is signalling new interest in Canada. Mr. Suarez, an economist who has served as Mexicos envoy to the International Monetary Fund and to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, noted the

two countries are already important to each other in

economic terms, as each others third-largest trading partners. He noted that Mexico and Canada joined together to fight protectionist U.S. meat-labelling rules, known by the acronym COOL, by challenging them at the World Trade Organization, winning a decision from a trade tribun al. We acted together with the WTO. Weve got the decision. And were ready to act, taking possible reprisals if they dont fulfill the WTO. Common vision and common action, Mr. Suarez said. He said that Mexico and Canada can strike a similar alliance in 12-nation talks for the TransPacific Partnership, to ensure that the talks stay focused on economics and trade, and that it is not used by the U.S. to jockey with China for political influence. Within North America, Canada and Mexico have common interests in integrating the continents three economies, by pushing for better-aligned infrastructure notably railways and oil-and-gas pipelines across the continent. That, and cheap energy from the U.S. shale-gas revolution, and extensive oil and gas in both Canada and Mexico, can lead to a revival of North American manufacturing if its combined with integrated infrastructure and better transportation costs, he argues, leading to the re-industrialization of these countries.

AT environment DA
Canadian Investment in Latin America high now mining industry
CIDP, 11 - The objective of this dataset is to give an overview of the reach and size of the Canadian mining industry in Latin America. This data is part of
ongoing work at The North-South Institute. (Canadian International Development Platform, Canadian Mining Investments in Latin America, http://cidpnsi.ca/blog/portfolio/canadian-mining-investments-inlatin-america/#sthash.7pSikW9S.dpuf)//GP

Growing global demand for various metals and minerals has sparked an unprecedented global mining rush. As part of this trend, Canadian companies have rapidly acquired hundreds of new properties in Latin America for exploration and extraction. Canadian companies now operate 66 mining projects in the region and have 20 more in construction. Accompanying that, extraordinary revenues have been accrued by these mining firms. This dashboard allows you to explore active, Canadian owned mines in Latin America. You can explore by company, country, and the year that the mine was acquired. The aim of this project is to track the economic impact of these mining investments from Canadian firms, looking at their tax contributions, local employment practices and contracting of local or national companies in host countries. Our estimate for the total revenue (mine production per commodity x international price of commodity) of Canadian mining investments in the region is approx. US$18.7 billion. The vast majority of which or about US$16.5 billion, accrues in 5 countries: Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Brazil. 7 Canadian companies are dominant in terms of mining revenue from the region: Barrick Gold, Yamana Gold, Goldcorp, Teck, Kinross Gold, Pan American Silver and Sherrit International. The project contributes to ongoing debates in Canada and Latin America regarding the direct economic effect of these projects on communities and host countries in which they operate.

oil drilling

Canada should drill instead of US, safety

Oilweek 10 (Should the U.S. Give Canada the Oil-Drilling Business, 6/28/10. http://www.actio.net/default/index.cfm/actio -blog/should-the-us-give-canadathe-oildrilling-business/)//Modermatt Today, BP spending on the Gulf oil spill has hit $100 million per day (source: James Heron, Wall Street Journal). AP reports the total oil spill price-tag so far: $2.65 billion. See overview article on the Gulf Oil Spill. An article in the July Oilweek Magazine simultaneously suggests that Canada

might be best suited to take over oil and gas exploration. The article says that Worker Safety is the thing that Canadian oil exploration has that other countries have not yet mastered. And that the investment pays off when you start looking at the price-tag that less-than-spectacular Safety Procedures can bring. "The EH&S stool has
three legs," McKenzie-Brown writes: "customs and social attitudes; regulatory and industrial codes; technical skills and operating environments. If the legs arent the same length, the stool wobbles. Since the three legs of the

Canadian stool are level and strong, there are good reasons to encourage the industry to reach out to new operating environments." "People [doing safety turnarounds at gas plants] now have fall-arrest equipment. They dont do anything without fire protection and breathing air equipment . A friend of mine tells me that at the plant he works at, the safety bill used to be $20,000. Now its like $300,000 to $400,000. Every time someone goes into a
vessel, someone has to be there to watch. They may need to have specialized safety equipment or even specially trained personnel to watch that person in the vessel."

His point is that this investment pays off in a relatively safe and accident-less history of oil and gas incidents. With oil leaking in the Gulf of Mexico, Canada is well-positioned to deal with the heightened risks and reap the bountiful rewardsof frontier exploration, says Peter McKenzie-Brown. He argues that Canada has Environmental, Health & Safety -- or EH&S -- so embedded in its policies and the fabric of its business culture that Canada is in prime position to pick up the slack in oil drilling that the U.S. may be unable to handle.

demo/hr/rule of law/natural disasters

Canadian engagement can solve democracy promotion, human rights, rule of law assistance and natural disaster relief.
Brickman, 08 Barry, President, North West International Ltd., WESTERN CANADA AND LATIN AMERICA EXISTING AND POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS, August 1, 2008, http://www.wd.gc.ca/images/cont/11103-eng.pdf)//A-Berg During a February 2008 speech to CCA-BC, then International Trade Minister David Emerson indicated that "To help our businesses and investors succeed in Latin American and Caribbean markets the Government of Canada is putting a new focus on getting more Canadian Trade Commissioners on the ground throughout the Americas".24 Three key objectives

that form the basis of Canadas engagement in the Americas, including the Latin America and Caribbean region, include25: To strengthen and promote our foundational values of freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law. To build strong, sustainable economies through increased trade and investment linkages, as well as mutual commitment to expanding opportunity to all citizens. To meet new security challenges, as well as natural disasters and health pandemics. Through an integrated commerce agenda, Canada hopes to build prosperity, generate economic activity, and fuel corporate social investments and commitments that will create jobs, wealth, and opportunities, both domestically and throughout the LAC region. DFAIT's top country priorities in LAC are Brazil, CARICOM, Colombia, Chile, Haiti and Peru. DFAIT recognizes that commercial re-engagement with LAC will raise important policy considerations for Canada. Sound policy formulation and delivery will be needed to address numerous issues linked to the promotion of sustainable growth. These include energy security, sustainable environmental practices, corporate social responsibility (CSR), human capital development needs, and finding creative approaches to the issue of labour mobility. DFAIT's Science and Technology Division has led development of the Global Innovation Strategy (GIS) that seeks to relate the Government of Canada's domestic Science and Technology Strategy with its Global Commerce Strategy in a manner that is consistent, deliberate, and results-oriented. Priority countries in LAC identified in the GIS include Brazil and Chile. Priority sectors are environmental science and technologies, natural resources and energy, health and related life sciences, and information and communication technologies.

fdi - resources

Canadian FDI solves resource extraction --- companies are already in place.
Randall, 10 - PhD (Toronto), professor of history at University of Calgary, Fellow with the Canadian International Council, was director of the University of
Calgary Institute for United States Policy Research in the School of Public Policy, fellow with the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute (Stephen J., Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America: Trade, Investment and Political Challenges, August 2010 http://www.opencanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Canada-theCaribbean-and-Latin-America_-Trade-Investment-and-Political-Challenges-Stephen-J.-Randall.pdf)//A-Berg

Canadian direct investment in the Caribbean and Latin America has become increasingly diversified, but there is still a concentration in extractive industries and the service sector. A relatively new area of Canadian investment in the region has been
global delivery or call centres. Sitel of Canada, for instance, has operations in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Panama.47 Chile was the major recipient of Canadian FDI. Between 1974 and mid-2007, Canadian interests accounted for 16.4 percent of foreign investment in Chile. Canadian companies

and their business practices enjoy a favourable reputation in the region, partly because they tend to hire local management and offer the possibility of rising within the corporate structure. Nonetheless, any concentration of FDI in the natural resource sector carries with it certain political problems. ECLAC notes that resource-seeking FDI has contributed to higher exports and has generated employment and fiscal revenue. TNCs [transnational corporations] in the natural-resource
sector often continue to operate as enclaves in isolation from the domestic economy, however, with very limited local processing operations and high risks in terms of pollution and environmental degradation.48 Canadian

direct investment in the mining sector in Latin America is one of the most significant areas of Canadian economic activity in the region; it is also the most controversial, with a significant impact on local populations and the environment. By the early twenty-first century, seven Canadian mining companies ranked among the top 20 mining companies with operations in Latin America.49 The main Canadian mining companies investing in Latin America and the Caribbean and their locations are: In precious metals: B2Gold Corp, a Vancouver-based gold mining company with two mines in Nicaragua and development projects in Colombia and Costa Rica50; Goldcorp (Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico); Yamana Gold (Argentina, Brazil, Honduras, and Nicaragua);
Barrick Gold (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and the Dominican Republic); IAM Gold (Guyana and Surinam); Kinross Gold (Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador); Peak Gold (Brazil). Greystar Resources, the Angostura gold-silver operation near Bucaramanga. In common metals: Teck Cominco (Chile, Mexico, Panama, and Peru); Sherritt (Cuba); PotashCorp (Brazil and Chile); This paper does not explore the details of each companys operations but rather focuses on Canadian and regional criticism of their operations and the policy implications of that criticism. Those who radically oppose the operation of foreign mining companies would like to prevent it altogether; governments and the companies themselves have tended to focus on self-regulation with a preference for increasing the commitment of companies to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Ostensibly the latter approach results in more attention to the environmental and human impact of mining operations. Some of the more critical Canadian analyses of the impact of Canadian mining in Latin America have been advanced by Todd Gordon and Jeffery Webber, and by Liisa North and T.D. Clark, the latter in an edited collection of papers that were part of a conference at York Universitys Centre for Research on Latin America and the Caribbean (CERLAC). Detailed analyses of Canadian corporate activity in the Caribbean and Latin America are still relatively rare. There has been some Canadian media attention to the impact of Canadian mining in the region. Writing in Macleans magazine in 2006, Colin Campbell was particularly critical of CIDAs work with the Canadian Energy Research Institute in the late 1990s to assist Colombia in developing a new mining code. The code has been criticized for being too liberal in providing access to foreign investment without adequate protection for local labour and the environment.51 What Campbell and other critics fail to note is that the terms of the code reflect Colombian, not Canadian, policy and law. Whether

or not CIDA should be involved in assisting Latin American countries to develop regulatory policies in the natural resource sector has become a contentious issue in recent years, in spite of the fact that CIDA has a long and very positive record of contributing to good governance in this
area. Colombia has been a focus of attention not only because of the debate over the free trade agreement but also because of rapid expansion of foreign investment in the mining sector. Between 2006 and 2008, an estimated 40 foreign companies expressed interest in developing Colombian gold and other mineral resources.52 Mining and other extractive operations in Colombia frequently occur in areas that have been affected by armed conflict and narcotics trafficking, making it difficult for mining operators to avoid getting caught up in problems of security. Colombias Semana magazine noted in an article in July 2009 that the Colombian government, under its policy of democratic security, had been giving special protection to foreign companies in s ensitive areas and that local small mining interests and labour leaders had suffered negative consequences. Even more critical of both the liberalization of investment regulations, the role of Canadian enterprise in the mining sector, and the role of CIDA and CERI in the revision of the Colombian mining code was a 2003 report of the Colombian miners union, Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Empresa Nacional de Minas Minercol.53 The most systematic analysis to date of Canadian involvement in the mining sector in Latin America came out of a conference held at York Universitys Centre for Research on Latin America and the Caribbean in 2002, entitled Canadian Mining Companies in Latin America: Community Rights and Corporate Responsibility. It was sponsored by the Internat ional Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Canadian Auto Workers, and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. This was one of the first efforts to draw together current research by Canadians and Latin Americans on the issues. The conference featured papers on a range of mining operations where there have been challenges: the Tambogrande in Peru; petroleum exploration in Ecuador; mining investment in Mexico; Canadian gold mining companies in La Libertad and Bonanza, Nicaragua; environmental conflicts in Chilean mining; Bolivias Amayapampa and Capasirca mines in which Da Capo Resources Ltd. has invested; and Canadian investment in Colombian mining. The principal themes that emerged from a discussion of these and other cases were the role of the state, the tension between corporate self-regulation and the priorities of the communities in which they operate, and the potential role for civil society to promote social and ecological sustainability in mineral extraction operations.54 The

Canadian governments response to concerns in Latin America has been to encourage the development of a voluntary corporate social responsibility strategy by the private sector, inspired by the increasingly global reach of Canadian incorporated companies. In March 2009, the Canadian government produced a
report entitled Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector.55 The report

noted that as of 2008 over 75

percent of the worlds exploration and mining companies were headquartered in Canada. The report added that Prime Minister Harper indicated that the government expects and encourages Canadian companies to meet high standards of
corporate social responsibility, during a speech delivered in Tanzania inn 2007. He added that the government understood that Canadian companies often faced extremely complex circumstances abroad. The report noted that the Canadian government supported the development of an online Sustainability Reporting Toolkit in 2003 and provided national training workshops on CSR for Canadian companies. The government also supported reviews of the reporting performances of Canadian companies, not only in the extractive sector, in 2001, 2003, and 2005. Since 2005, Canada has also supported the work of the UN Secretary-Generals Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, through the Global Peace and Security Fund. As well, in 2008 the EDC outlined principles under which human rights factors would be taken into consideration in projects it supported. The EDCs Statement on Human Rights recognizes the sensitivity of natural resource extraction in developing countries that have experienced a history of conflict. The guidelines adopted by the Harper government stress the importance of the extractive sectors contribution to reducing poverty reduction and protecting human rights in developing countries where Cana dian companies operate. The Canadian governments approach to policy on CSR is designed to be consistent with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Implementation of policy has involved several initiatives. One was to establish a contact point in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for CSR issues. A second was DFAITs allocation of funds to assist Canadian offices abroad to engage in CSR -related activities. A third was the 2007 decision to endorse the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which deals with transparency in financial operations. The EITI insists on the full publication and verification of company payments made to governments and of government revenues received from oil, gas, and mining activities. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) reports that Canada

participates in the EITI in recognition of the potential development benefits it can bring to resource-rich developing countries, and because of the importance Canadians attach to transparency. The EITI involves a requirement that participating governments work with the private sector and civil society. Since the
system is still voluntary, host countries still have to commit to implement EITI. If a host country does so, then the company is expected to implement the initiative through the reporting of payments to the host government, using approved templates. For EITI reporting to be effective, it must be implemented by all extractive industry companies (including international, national, and state-owned companies) operating in that country. Among the Canadian

companies that have committed to the system are Goldcorp of Vancouver, which is involved in the Peasquito Mine in Mexico; Talisman Energy of Calgary, which
has operations in Colombia and Trinidad and Tobago; and Barrick Gold, with its head office in Toronto. Barrick has active gold mining operations in Argentina and Peru and has been exploring possibilities in Chile.56 The case studies of progress made under the EITI which NRCan provides on its website relate to Nigeria and Liberia rather than to the Americas. In the same year Export Development Canada became a signatory to the Equator Principles, which are the international benchmark for financial standards. In the specific context of Latin America, both CIDA and NRCan are providing assistance to host countries to enhance their governance capacity in the natural resource sector. CIDA has been mandated to develop an Andean Regional Initiative to strengthen the capacity of regional and local governments to implement sustainable development projects. CSR issues were included in the discussions with Colombia and Peru during the free trade negotiations, with the result that there are provisions in both agreements encouraging the respective parties to promote CSR in their business communities. Again, the approach is voluntary and no penalties are imposed on the parties for failure to be proactive or on the private sector for failure to implement voluntary CSR strategies. Clearly, even companies that are not direct signatories to international agreements have been very proactive in support of local community initiatives in the countries where they operate. Bombardier, for instance, which has major manufacturing facilities in Quertaro, Mexico, became a long-term supporter of the Sierra Gorda World Biosphere Reserve in Quertaro, in October 2008. The company reports that its assistance with three environmental and economic development projects will benefit the reserves 23,000 residents directly and the more than 90,000 people in the region indir ectly.57

energy

Chavezs death only helps reset Canada-Venezuelan Relations

Wood, 4/16 - a reporter at the Toronto Star and Kingston Whig-Standard. I have a degree in history and political studies from Queen's University, where I
spent most of my time at the campus newspaper, the Journal. I've also spent two summers working in the federal public service. (Michael Woods, 4/16/2013, Canada News, http://o.canada.com/2013/03/05/hugo-chavezs-death-could-lead-to-warmer-canada-venezuela-relations-experts-say/)//GP OTTAWA Venezuelan

President Hugo Chavezs death on Tuesday prompted uncertainty about what Canadas relations with the Latin American state will look like without the socialist strongman in charge. According to some experts, Chavezs absence could lead to an eventual warming in Canadas relations with the socialist state . The Venezuelan rulers heir apparent, Vice-President Nicolas Maduro, announced the 58-year-olds death after battling cancer on Tuesday, creating immediate uncertainty about the countrys political future. Canada will likely wait and see how the politics unfold as Venezuelans face the prospect of snap elections to choose Chavezs successor, experts said. Chavez publicly anointed Maduro as his heir, and the countrys elections have been heavily criticized in the past. This is an opportunity to see whether the Venezuelan system can function democratically in the absence of Chavez, said University of British Columbia political studies professor Maxwell Cameron, who specializes in comparative politics in Latin America. Canadas relations with Venezuela have been particularly chilly of late. The government viewed
Chavez as a destabilizing presence and a threat to Canadian interests in the region. In addition to clamping down on human rights and democracy in Venezuela, Chavez funded guerrilla groups and allied with Iran, and worked closely with Cuba to spread a socialist economic model throughout Latin America. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was to stop there last month, but Venezuela cancelled his visit. In a statement, Prime

Minister Stephen Harper offered

condolences to the Venezuelan people and said he looks forward to working with Chavezs successor and other leaders in the region to build a hemisphere that is more prosperous, secure and democratic . At this key juncture, I hope the people of Venezuela can now build for themselves a better, brighter future based on the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. In the longer term, Cameron said, Chavezs absence could create a chance to press the reset button and improve diplomatic relations with Venezuela.

venezuela ccs Increased Canada-Venezuela coop increases CCS tech development in Venezuela UNFCC, 12 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (9/02, Clean Development Mechanism and Carbon Capture and Storage
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Development_Mechanism_and_Carbon_Capture_and_Storage)//GP *CDM: Clean Development Mechanism

Canada's October 2007 submission called CCS "a critical bridge towards a low-carbon world, given the forecasted global dependency in fossil fuel use in the near future." Canada further called CCS "critical to maximizing GHG [greenhouse gas] mitigation opportunities worldwide" and "an important element in furthering the transfer of CCS technology and expertise to developing countries." The submission added, "Considerable work undertaken by Canada and other countries over years concludes that geological storage of CO2 is secure." Like Japan, Canada suggested "post-project closure monitoring and remediation liability ... rest with the host country." [7] Norway's September 2007 supported CCS, "under the right site conditions
... for project activities under the CDM." Its submission noted that "CCS technology related to CO2 storage in geological formations is available and has been proven under full scale operational conditions for more than 10 years," including at the Sleipner Field in the North Sea. Norway flagged responsibility for long-term monitoring and liability for later problems as questions that need to be resolved. [7] Portugal's October 2007 submission on behalf of the European Union stated, "The EU does not support CCS projects involving the direct injection of CO2 into the water column because of high levels of uncertainty about levels of CO2 retention and the negative effects on ecosystems." However, the EU supported "environmentally and health safe CCS involving geological storage as a possible mitigation option ... provided that the necessary technical, economic and regulatory framework exists to provide maximum environmental integrity and ensure that any seepage is avoided." At the same time, the EU submission called joint CCS projects a "capacity building exercise" and noted an EU-China agreement "to develop and demonstrate near zero emissions coal (NZEC) technology through carbon capture and storage by 2020," along with the involvement of some EU member countries in the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. [7] Korea's November 2007 submission expressed some support for CCS but cautioned, "there is not enough data on CCS technology to quantitatively evaluate its risks and effectiveness. Therefore, efforts should be made to further develop different forms of CCS technology and to strengthen international cooperation so as to accumulate more knowledge." Korea suggested "joint responsibility," if a CCS project later required repairs to stop carbon leakage. For long-term project monitoring, Korea supported establishing an "independent monitoring agency under the CDM Executive Board." [8] Environmental Groups Position on CCS The Climate Action Network has argued that CCS should not be included in the Clean Development on a number of grounds. Firstly, it states that the Marrakech accords setting out the rules for the Clean Developmernt Mechanism require that projects be environmentally "safe and sound". "Many concerns surround CCS, i.e. leakage, liability and monitoring, and unless such issues are resolved, inclusion in the CDM is not appropriate," CAN states. CAN also argued that, as the purpose e of the CDM was to assist non Annex 1 countries acheive sustainable development, the mechanism should "help developing countries 'leapfrog' an unsustainable fossil fuel economy. However, if CCS a risky and potentially expensive technology were to be included in the CDM, it could divert much needed investments from renewables and energy efficiency as well as the many longterm benefits that accompany these energy strategies. In this context, CCS could easily serve as a dangerous distraction in efforts to deploy sustainable solutions that protect our climate." Nor did CAN support the suggestion by the European Union that CCS pilot projects designed to gain experience with the technology be included. "Countries advocating for CCS should seek to gain practical experience in their own countries before exporting it," CAN responded.[9] They also argued that "requirements needed to assure proper site selection, operating practices to guarantee permanent retention of injected carbon dioxide, monitoring, measurement and verification provisions, and responsibility for leakage of injected gas should be developed before any decision is taken on whether CCS should be a part of the CDM."[9] In its submission to the UNFCCC, WWF

expressed its in-principle support for the development of CCS but opposed its inclusion in the CDM. "CCS if proven to be safe needs to be implemented both in developed and developing nations as soon as possible to reduce CO2 emissions but this is distinctively different from CCS in the CDM," it submitted. It argued that "the
unresolved issues of including CCS in the CDM pose higher risks to the environmental integrity and effectiveness of the Kyoto compliance and post-2012 climate regime than the perceived advantages of including CCS."[10] Industry Submissions In its May 2007 submission to the UNFCCC, the World Coal Institute implied that CCS technology was already well established, albeit more expensive. The WCI stated that there is already a "wide body of expertise developed through operational experience from; industrial-scale CCS projects, underground injection of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, and the use of analogous technologies such as acid gas injection and natural gas storage. These practical experiences are complemented by numerous research-scale CCS projects, research programmes, stakeholder networks and partnerships." While acknowledging that CCS technologies "add to the cost of supplying energy services" it argued that "incentives and policies are needed that address these additional costs thereby enabling CCS to be deployed."[11] "Allowing CCS activities to be eligible to receive revenues generated by the CDM is an important step for the worldwide deployment of this vital mitigation technology, permitting developing countries to meet their development goals in an environmentally sustainable manner," it argued.[11] In June 2008 the International Chamber of Commerce made a submission to the SBSTA of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change arguing that the as yet unproven Carbon Capture and Storage technology should be included in the Clean Development Mechanism. In its submission, the ICC argued that "should CCS fail to qualify as a recognised emissions reduction option under the CDM, the cost of achieving the required emissions reductions will increase and the chances of meeting climate change goals would likely fall as a result."[12] It also noted that "in practice it is a relatively costly, energy and capital intensive technology, albeit with the potential for future cost reduction. The adoption of CCS by the private sector will depend on the incentives provided by the carbon market and other emissions reduction policies that overcome the additional cost of CCS development and deployment."[12] While acknowledging the technology would be expensive, the ICC signalled its clear intention that governments would underwrite its initial funding. "It

is expected that most of the near-term CCS plants will be commissioned in Annex 1 countries and will receive the support that is required from host governments of those countries.
However, it is also important that CCS obtains recognition as a valid abatement option in non-Annex 1 countries so that the legitimacy of the technology is established and that financial support measures are available at an early date," the ICC argued.[12] In June 2008 submission to the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) argued in favour of the inclusion of CCS projects in the Clean Development Mechanism as "the primary method for incentivising low-carbon projects in the developing world."[13] It argued that

"the threat of climate change cannot be addressed without CCS the scale is too great and the window of time in which action is required, is closing fast. Each year of delay in bringing CCS to deployment represents an increase in million tonnes of CO2. Climate change is a global challenge, therefore both developed and developing countries must apply CCS as part of the solution ... This is particularly important in China and India where massive economic
development is already resulting in escalating energy consumption, the majority of which is being met by fossil fuels."[13] While noting that "CCS has yet to be deployed at a widespread, large scale commercial level and first-mover projects are needed to demonstrate costs and technology, to enable learning-by-doing" they argued that "CDM is currently the only method to provide such incentives in developing countries" to overcome the costs of developing the first CCS projects.[13] In its submission the

International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) argued that "delaying its use risks large GHG emissions to the atmosphere that could have been captured and stored, thereby reducing our ability to tackle global climate change" and that "CCS is a proven technology. The oil and gas industry has gained considerable experience over several decades relating to the capture, transport and storage of CO2 and the monitoring of CO2 injected in geological formations".[14] The International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA), was more matter of fact in its submission, simply stating that carbon dioxide capture and storage has been used to enhance oil recovery in some oil and gas fields and that over "the past several decades have stored roughly half a billion tonnes of CO2 in oil reservoirs." This experience, it stated, was relevant to consideration of risks of leakage, the operation of reservoirs and other potential environmental risks.[15] In a May 2007 submission, the International Risk Governance Council stated general support for the inclusion of CCS in the CDM "provided
appropriate modalities and procedures for considering CCS projects are established. However, questions arise about whether the emission reductions as a consequence of CCS are measurable and predictable with sufficient certainty. Although there are remaining unknowns, the level of existing knowledge in the field of site selection and characterization, risk assessment and management, and monitoring techniques is substantial, and should not be downplayed. Bringing CCS under the CDM should be done in a careful manner, and the approval processes should be designed in such a way as to allow for flexibility of improvements as the knowledge and experience on CCS increase."[16] While noting the potential of CCS to store large volumes of carbon dioxide over long periods of time, it acknowledged that the financial issues arising from it for developing countries were substantial. The high cost of CCS projects, it stated, "are beyond the ability of many developing countries - potentially requiring a different CDM budget to attract new types of industry participation and enable independent technical assistance to referee licensing and site assessment", that the costs of long-term monitoring may need to be borne by the developer and that there could be the need to "remove risk from the developing country" by way of "novel forms of long-term financial bond, or insurance, from the project developer."[16] Negotiations at COP14 and Beyond CCS at the December 2008 COP14 meeting At the COP14 meeting in Poznan, Poland in December 2008 ,

a number of countries were strongly pushing for the inclusion of CCS within the CDM. At the outset of COP14, the Umbrella Group argued in its
opening statements to theSubsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 29), that there was a need to make progress on methodological aspects of including CCS in the CDM.[17] The following day, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the European Union, Japan and others supported including CCS under the CDM.

Jamaica, Venezuela and Micronesia "noted that although CCS has potential, it has not been fully tested or proven. Brazil said CCS is incompatible with the CDM." It also noted that acontact group had been established to canvass the issue further.[18]
Other countries opposing the inclusion of CCS were the Alliance of Small Island States and India.[19] Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported that in discussion on the possible inclusion of CCS in the CDM "delegates considered draft text setting out various options, including an EU proposal for a pilot phase. Some parties supported CCS under the CDM, while others said it should not be included in the current commitment period, but might be considered at a later stage."[20] The following day it was noted by Earth Negotiations Bulletin that "during informal consultations, delegates discussed the various options set out in the Co-Chairs draft text. However, differences remained over including CCS under the CDM. Informal consultations will continue," it reported.[21] At a LWG-LCA Workshop on Research and Development of Technology, the Australian government proclaimed its work on the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute and the Asia-Pacific Partnership as examples of how it was taking action on CCS while Norway highlighted CCS as an option to allow a "climate-friendly transition to a low carbon society.[22] Despite the lobbying for the inclusion of CCS, the opposition remained steadfast. By December 10, the lobbying push for CCS had made little progress, with ENB reporting that "informal consultations on this issue ended without agreement on draft decision text, which remained bracketed. Delegates then considered whether to forward the bracketed text to the COP/MOP or to SBSTA 31. However, they were unable to agree on where to forward the text."[23] In its concluding statement, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) simply noted that they had "considered the conclusions and the draft decision proposed by the Chair. However, it did not agree to adopt these conclusions and therefore could not conclude its consideration of this issue."[24] At the conclusion of COP14, Earth Negotiations Bulletin noted that the discussion would be taken up again at the next SBSTA meeting. It also reported that "The EU, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Norway and Japan expressed regret that agreement had not been reached. Jamaica noted that CCS technology is not ready for use in an offset mechanism such as the CDM. Brazil highlighted concerns relating to long-term permanence and host-country liabilities."[25] Earth Negotiations Bulletin also reported that supporters of the inclusion of Carbon Capture and Storage projects in the Clean Development Mechanism gained agreement for the matter to be referred to the Executive Board of CDM who would "report back to COP/MOP 5." ENB

also noted that in the final plenary meeting "Venezuela proposed that the Board set up a working group to study the technical and legal aspects of CCS, and delegates agreed to reflect Venezuelas statement in the meetings record."[26]

democracy

Canadian engagement promotes democratization

Donnelly 2009 - energy securities lawyer in Calgary with Burstall-Winger LLP (Patrick June 22, 2009, Canadian Engagement in Latin America can counter
Chavez Mischief http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadian-engagement-in-latin-america-can-counter-chavez-mischief/)A-Berg Not only are Canadian

companies perceived as safer and more stable than their Latin American counterpartsand somewhat removed

from local corruptionthey are also viewed as Not American. Accurate or not and fair or not, Latin America enjoys, at best, a schizophrenic relationship with the United States. Despite the significant Hispanic demographic in the United States, too much American interest in the region is greeted with suspicion of imperialism and shouts of Yankee, Go Home (as President Bush was confronted on his 2007 tour). Wh en America appears preoccupied with other areas of the world, as has happened since 9-11, Latin America accuses the United States of indifference. Therein

lays an opportunity for Canada. We are well-positioned to mentor the regions growth as it develops its vast potential. Aside from private investment, Canada can best assist Latin Americas development through enhanced support of democratic regimes and encouragement of good governance. We can do this through government-togovernment contacts and the promotion of free trade with Latin America, either through the now-moribund Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), or by negotiating separate bilateral trade agreements with individual countries
(as we have with Chile). The FTAA talks were derailed in 2003 by a combination of disinterest from participating countries and fierce opposition by Hugo Chavez and anti-globalists who viewed the FTAA as an American-imperialist plot. Latin America is at a cross-road. Canadas neighbor, through our own indifference, to slip into the destructive orbit of Hugo Chavez. By engaging with

government must not allow this close Latin America on all fronts, Prime Minister Harper will provide healthy alternatives to Venezuelas easy money. We can assist with elimination of the corruption, cronyism, human rights abuses and bad economics that have held the region back for too long. Simon Bolivar would approve.

Canada solves democracy in Latin America

Cameron 13 - Ph.D., California, Berkeley, 1989, specializes in comparative politics and international political economy, (Maxwell, Camero n: What should
Canadas top foreign policy priority be in 2013? January 7, 2013, http://opencanada.org/rapid -response-group/cameron-what-should-canadas-top-foreign-policypriority-be-in-2013/)//A-Berg Im not sure what Canadas

top foreign policy priority should be, at least on a global level. I work on the Western Hemisphere, and would make be to deliver on the promise of greater engagement with Latin America especially with respect to democracy assistance. A few years back a whole-of-government approach to re-engagement with Latin America was
the case that a priority should announced. Democracy promotion was a major theme, and a democracy hub formally called the Andean Unit for Democratic Governance was created in Lima, Peru. This has since been disbanded, inexplicably, as far as I can tell, and re-engagement seems to have floundered. Weve seen no evidence of the creation of a democracy assistance agency. We

dont seem to have a clear foreign policy direction in Latin America, and the fact that we vote consistently with the U.S. on issues like Cuba and drugs does not help us to build bridges. A widely shared perception in Latin America is that Canada is disoriented. The illness of Venezuelas Chavez, and hence pro spect of new elections, is going to make Venezuela the focus of much of the attention of the world over the next while. We need to work with the OAS and our allies in the region to provide a supportive context to ensure that democracy is not undermined by instability in that country, but also in Paraguay, Honduras and elsewhere.

environmental

Canada has the tech and expertise for environmental protection

Brickman, 08 Barry, President, North West International Ltd., WESTERN CANADA AND LATIN AMERICA EXISTING AND POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS, August 1, 2008, http://www.wd.gc.ca/images/cont/11103-eng.pdf)//A-Berg The Canadian

environmental industry is a global leader in hydrogen and fuel cell technology . Many Canadian companies specialize in environmental management for major resource industries such as oil and gas, mining, and pulp and paper. Canadas environmental industry is comparable in size to pharmaceutical and aerospace in dustries and equally sophisticated in its products and services offerings. The market for environmental goods and services in Latin America presents a prime opportunity for Canadian investment and trade. Latin America's larger, faster-developing economies are turning their attention and growing resources to environmental reforms. Strong economic growth and market-oriented reforms in Latin America, such as extensive privatization and hemispheric trade liberalization, have increased awareness of environmental problems and have generated pressure to solve them. Some key Latin American nations have begun to
strengthen outmoded or weak environmental regulations. Increased environmental awareness throughout Latin America is being matched, in many cases, by additional resources to deal with environmental problems.

Answers to:

at: u.s. framework key

Canadian-Mexican partnership spills-over globally
Jeffs 12 President of the Canadian International Counicl, Ph.D. in International Political Economy from the University of Toronto (Jennifer Jeffs, February 2012,
A Partnership Approach to Development and Global Challenges, Canada Among Nations, 2011-2012: Canada and Mexicos Unfinished Agenda)//KP The World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva (w1Po), a specialized agency of the

United Nations, was established to develop an intemational climate change, health, and food security as the three major global challenges to human survival and has recently set up a section to look specically at work being done globally in these areas. The urgent and global nature of these issues demands collaborative efforts and the leveraging of limited resources. Less developed countries will suffer disproportionately from challenges related to climate change, health, and food security, and their suffering will have an effect on richer nations . Thus, in addition to the ethical imperatives of addressing inequalities, partnerships between rich and poor nations make good practical sense. Collaborations between countries at disparate levels of development that share a continent make particularly good sense, since they share regional, as well as global, concerns. By addressing global issues in partnership, Canada and Mexico could serve as an example to the rest of the world.
intellectual property system to stimulate innovation and contribute to economic development. The organization has dened

at: us key

Ideological differences prevent effective U.S. engagement- Canadian bilateralism is key

Donnelly, 9 energy securities lawyer with Burstall Winger, Bachelor of Laws from the University of Western Ontario (Patrick Donnelly, 22 June 2009,
Canadian Engagement in Latin America can counter Chavez Mischief, C2C Journal, http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/canadian -engagement-in-latin-america-cancounter-chavez-mischief/)//KP Not only are Canadian

companies perceived as safer and more stable than their Latin American counterpartsand somewhat removed from local corruptionthey are also viewed as Not American. Accurate or not and fair or not, Latin America enjoys, at best, a schizophrenic relationship with the United States. Despite the significant Hispanic demographic in the United States, too much American interest in the region is greeted with suspicion of imperialism and shouts of Yankee, Go Home (as President Bush was confronted on his 2007 tour). When America appears preoccupied with other areas of the world, as has happened since 9-11, Latin America -accuses the United States of indifference. Therein lays an opportunity for Canada. We are well-positioned to mentor the regions growth as it develops its vast potential. Aside from private investment, Canada can best assist Latin Americas development through enhanced support of democratic regimes and encouragement of good governance. We can do this through government-to-government contacts and the promotion of free trade with Latin America, either through the now-moribund Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), or by negotiating separate bilateral trade agreements with individual countries (as we have with Chile). The FTAA talks were derailed in 2003 by
a combination of disinterest from participating countries and fierce opposition by Hugo Chavez and anti-globalists who viewed the FTAA as an American-imperialist plot. Latin

America is at a cross-road. Canadas government must not allow this close neighbor, through our own indifference, to slip into the engaging with Latin America on all fronts, Prime Minister Harper will provide healthy alternatives to Venezuelas easy money. We can assist with elimination of the corruption, cronyism, human rights abuses and bad economics that have held the region back for too long. Simon Bolivar would approve.
destructive orbit of Hugo Chavez. By

The U.S. lacks necessary understanding of the region Canadian action can set the example Jeffs, 12 President of the Canadian International Council, Ph.D. in International Political Economy from the University of Toronto (Jennifer Jeffs, 22 March 2012,
Latin America: Land of Opportunity, Canadian International Council, http://opencanada.org/features/blogs/dispatch/latin -america-land-of-opportunity/)//KP The rise of Brazil as a global power is promoting Colombias regional influence. The

Chinese appetite for natural resources that are found in abundance in the hemisphere, and their gifts of bridges and soccer stadiums to several Latin American countries, are trends that U.S. students and policymakers should be watching and pondering, as should Canadians. Given the substantial investment that Canadian mining companies and at least one major Canadian bank have made in the region, on top of the Canadian governments recent focus on the hemisphere via its Americas Strategy, the short-sightedness of U.S. policymakers that Sabatini laments is, in fact, an opportunity for Canada. As Sabatini points out, while the U.S. lacks sufficient interest in, and understanding of, the rapidly changing geopolitical dynamics of Latin America, Canada can fill that void by taking seriously the actions of Latin Americas increasingly potent (and competitive) regional and global players. Informed Canadian engagement with countries in the region will be mutually beneficial, and could also influence U.S. policymakers, encouraging them to think about Latin America in terms of 2012 geopolitical realities. The recent Republican debates in the U.S. have demonstrated a staggering lack of understanding of Latin America. While fears of criminal networks becoming sufficiently internationalized to encompass and accommodate the jihadist threat are understandable in a
post-9/11 world, the strong historic economic and social ties between Latin America and the United States should surely translate into a deeper understanding and support of the trends developing in these vibrant and often resource-rich countries. As Sabatini points out, A

little realism would go a long way. But perhaps the historic legacy of U.S. activity in the region is too strong, and resentments too enduring. Meanwhile, Canada is ideally positioned to deepen its relations with its hemispheric neighbours. Canadas experience of democratic institution-building including its support for the development of judicial, educational, and policing systems in the region and, in contrast to the U.S., its historical record of no military intervention in the

region, show potential for mutually beneficial exchange and engagement with Latin American countries . Collaboration with Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, for example, in the development of fossil fuels and biofuels as alternative energy sources would further integrate the hemispheres economy while de-emphasizing the importance of Venezuelas oil. While Mexicos security threats are an obvious concern, Canada could take the lead in partnering with Mexican researchers in areas that would provide entry for Mexicos massive youth population into the knowledge-based economy. (In addition to clean energy, this could include areas such as biotechnology, aerospace, and health care for developing regions.) By

fostering these relations, Canada would pave the way for other hemispheric partnerships, setting an example for the U.S. in its efforts to tackle governance, resource management, and environmental issues through regional investment and partnerships. Given the U.S.s
preoccupation with security, transnational crime and its potential links to the jihadist threat might be a good place to start. But security is only one aspect of the global challenges facing the hemisphere, and cannot be addressed in isolation. Latin

America needs partnerships in its naturalresource and associated sectors, in education and health-care research initiatives, and in bracing for climate change. Canada should fill that need, engaging with Latin America in a spectrum of areas that the U.S. and China have largely neglected.

at: chavezs death

Chavezs death only helps reset Canada-Venezuelan Relations

Wood, 4/16 - a reporter at the Toronto Star and Kingston Whig-Standard. I have a degree in history and political studies from Queen's University, where I
spent most of my time at the campus newspaper, the Journal. I've also spent two summers working in the federal public service. (Michael Woods, 4/16/2013, Canada News, http://o.canada.com/2013/03/05/hugo-chavezs-death-could-lead-to-warmer-canada-venezuela-relations-experts-say/)//GP OTTAWA Venezuelan

President Hugo Chavezs death on Tuesday prompted uncertainty about what Canadas relations with the Latin American state will look like without the socialist strongman in charge. According to some experts, Chavezs absence could lead to an eventual warming in Canadas relations with the socialist state . The Venezuelan rulers heir apparent, Vice-President Nicolas Maduro, announced the 58-year-olds death after battling cancer on Tuesday, creating immediate uncertainty about the countrys political future. Canada will likely wait and see how the politics unfold as Venezuelans face the prospect of snap elections to choose Chavezs successor, experts said. Chavez publicly anointed Maduro as his heir, and the countrys elections have been heavily criticized in the past. This is an opportunity to see whether the Venezuelan system can function democratically in the absence of Chavez, said University of British Columbia political studies professor Maxwell Cameron, who specializes in comparative politics in Latin America. Canadas relations with Venezuela have been particularly chilly of late. The government viewed
Chavez as a destabilizing presence and a threat to Canadian interests in the region. In addition to clamping down on human rights and democracy in Venezuela, Chavez funded guerrilla groups and allied with Iran, and worked closely with Cuba to spread a socialist economic model throughout Latin America. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was to stop there last month, but Venezuela cancelled his visit. In a statement, Prime

Minister Stephen Harper offered

condolences to the Venezuelan people and said he looks forward to working with Chavezs successor and other leaders in the region to build a hemisphere that is more prosperous, secure and democratic . At this key juncture, I hope the people of Venezuela can now build for themselves a better, brighter future based on the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. In the longer term, Cameron said, Chavezs absence could create a chance to press the reset button and improve diplomatic relations with Venezuela.

nb: soft power ext.

uniqueness

Canadian soft power is set to decline --- closure of CIDA

Johnston, 13 - journalist (Geoffrey, Scrapping CIDA may sap Canadas soft power, March 28, 2013 http://www.thewhig.com/2013/03/28/scrapping-cidamay-sap-canadas-soft-power)//A-Berg For many decades, Canada has wielded considerable influence, thanks, in large part, to this countrys altruistic commitment t o reducing extreme poverty and suffering around the globe. However, a bureaucratic

restructuring of the federal government could sap Canadas hard-earned soft power. Last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered a rather bland budget, with one notable exception: he announced the demise of the Canadian International Development Agency. Immediately after Flahertys speech, International Cooperation
Minister and CIDA boss Julian Fantino explained the restructuring in a written statement. To enhance coordination of interna tional assistance with broader Canadian values and objectives, and to put development on equal footing with trade and diplomacy, the Canadian International Development Agency will

amalgamate with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade," Fantino declared. CIDAs international development and humanitarian assistance mandate will now be exercised by the new Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Established in 1968 by then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau, CIDA was a stand-alone institution tasked with alleviating extreme poverty around the globe. In recent years, the agency tended to focus on three
main themes: boosting food security; the advancement of child health and education; and promoting sustainable economic growth . According to Fantino, the priority of international development and humanitarian assistance will, for the first time ever, be enshrined into law. That is a positive development, says Anthony Scoggins, the executive director of Oxfam, which has partnered with CIDA since the mid-1970s. The amalgamation isnt necessarily a bad thing, according to Scoggins. He points out that international development programs are successfully run by Scandinavian foreign affairs departments, which allocate up to 0.7% of the country's Gross National Products to foreign aid. However, Scoggins doubts

that the development branch will have an equal partnership with the traditional foreign affairs section of the Canadian government. Itll be very much a secondary, if not subservient, relationship. And he wonders whether poverty reduction and human rights will be
priorities when there are multiple other political and economic concerns and self-interests of the larger ministry. Even though contributions from CIDA make up only 5% of World Vision Canadas total budget, the Christian NGO, which delivers b oth humanitarian assistance and long-term development aid around the globe, is worried about the amalgamation. Were concerned about this direction, which seems to highlight development assistance being used for advancing Canadas prosperity rather than focusing on the needs and aspirations of the poor as an objective in its own right, says Elly Vandenber, a director of policy and advocacy at World Vision. And she warns that voices that prioritize the poor risk being lost. For us, the devil will be in the details of actually how this is going to be done, and how its all structured, says Jim Cornelius, executive director of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. The N GO is one of the main vehicles for the delivery of the Canadian governments funding for food a ssistance. Two years ago, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank and the Harper government entered into a fiveyear funding arrangement that will channel $125 million in food assistance to the developing world. And the NGO doesnt expec t that arrangement to change. According to Cornelius, cooperation with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank has enabled CIDA to have outreach to some of the most desperate parts of the world. Similarly, Scoggins says that Oxfam brings significant expertise and capacity in a whole range of d evelopment activity; and most particularly, those that are focused on the very poor and on humanitarian efforts. And Oxfam hopes that Ottawa will continue to consider NGOs active partners in this process. Under the new regime, there is a danger that development policy will become increasingly focused on trade. However, it need not be the outcome, says Cornelius. To protect the integrity of development assistance programs, he says Ottawa should establish clear parameters to ensure that the aid mandate is protected and doesnt simply become a junior partner to other foreign policy issues. For the record, Scoggins doesnt see anything wrong with Ottawas efforts to advance Canadian economic or corporate interests. However, he says that such initiatives

should just not be framed as poverty reduction. China has been investing heavily in Africa in recent years, building roads, rail lines and other infrastructure. But
Beijings foreign aid expenditures arent motivated by an altruistic desire to help al leviate extreme poverty in Africa. On the contrary, China targets a select group of mineral- and oil-rich African countries. And that aid should be viewed as an investment in the establishment of a reliable supply chain that will feed the growth of Chinas massive economy and superpower aspirations. It is no coincidence that newly minted Chinese President Xi Jinping has been touring Africa this week, with stops in mineral-rich Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and South Africa. However, there is growing resentme nt that the Communist regimes policies are retarding Africas development. By pursuing an international development assistance strategy more closely linked to Canadas commercial interests, Ottawa risks becoming indistinguishable from Beijing in the eyes of some Africans. Canadas international reputation has already taken a hit on the worlds poorest continent. In 2009, the Harper government launched the aid effectiveness agenda, reducing the number of count ries receiving Canadian development assistance. There can be little doubt that it undermined African support for Canadas ill -fated 2010 bid for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Canada soft power still high but dropping

Nevil Gibson 13- writer for the National Business Review (Despite Hobbit, NZ falls off global Top 20 'Soft Power' list, January 2013, http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/hobbits-hold-nz-loses-soft-power-grip-ng-134311)//Modermatt Gangnam style, Brazils burgeoning status and Turkeys increasing global outreach have all combined to push New Zealand out of a new ranking of the worlds top 20 soft powers. Each

year, London-based trendy globalist magazine Monocle measures countries influence based on their values, culture, policies and institutions. In 2011, New Zealand ranked 17th largely on the basis of two things
rugby and Hobbits. This year, the ranking has dropped to 21st, with only the Hobbits featuring: New Zealand milks JRR Tolkiens sagas for all theyre worththe countrys mint has even produced special Hobbit coins, Monocle says, adding that New Zealand also plays an important diplomatic role in the South Pacific." The

UK displaces the US from the top slot, mainly due to the successful London Olympics. In particular, Monocle describes Danny B oyles three-hour Games opening ceremony as a brilliant advert shown for free in pretty much every country (which even included the briefest lesbian kiss, something that may have come as a surprise to some viewers in Saudi Arabia). The US drops to second due to its continued dependence on hard power while Germany has reached its highest ranking yet at the expense of France with its economic uncertainty and stumbling president. Others to rise are Sweden (fift h), Japan (sixth) and Denmark (seventh). Going

down are Australia (ninth behind unchanged Switzerland) and Canada (10th). The latter is ranked highly for its tolerant immigration policy in contrast with Australias failings in that area, according to Monocle.

Canadian soft power lowlaundry list

Hirst 9- Jeremy, Canadian International Council Administrator( Canada's global influence wanes Winnipeg Free Press, June 4
http://www.canadianinternationalcouncil.org/blogs/opeds/canadasglo)//Modermatt A projection by Jim O'Neill, head of Global Economics Research for Goldman Sachs International in London, shows that by 2050, China's

economy will be more than twice as large as that of the United States. He stresses that the international American-based bank is not saying that's how the world will be, but it could be. Predictions are notoriously unreliable and the further forward the predictions are, the less reliable they are. What is undeniable, however, are the shifts in world economic power that have happened already. Eight years
ago, O'Neill gained fame in economic circles for coining the acronym "BRIC". It stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. O'Neill suggested that these four countries were the powerhouses of the future. In some ways, they already are. In a presentation to the Vancouver branch of the Canadian International Council last week, O'Neill suggested that within four years the economies of the four BRIC countries together would exceed that of the United States and that it was those countries that were leading the world out of recession. The world economic order is changing very quickly. At the same conference, Debra Steger, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said the economic world was "at a really transformational point in history." World financial institutions, however, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, summit meetings of rich nations, are all constructed on what used to be: a world economic order ruled by the United States, Europe and Japan with Canada as a minor, but still significant player. According

to the Goldman Sachs 2050 projections, Canada will rank 16th in world economic output: still important, but less so than today. Economic power and diplomatic influence, however, are not the same thing. Canada has traditionally pulled above its weight in world affairs. The concern of ex-diplomats, former politicians and some academics now is that as the world changes, Canada is less engaged than it used to be and is losing influence at a crucial time. Jeremy Kinsman, one of Canada's foremost diplomats, former ambassador to Russia and high commissioner in London, spoke to the Vancouver conference of Canada's international record of "objectivity and helpfulness." No longer. "No one in Ottawa is trying," he said. "There are virtually no relationships." The Harper government has increased military spending, but reduced spending on foreign affairs and aid. "Why the
double standard?" asked former Progressive Conservative prime minister Joe Clark. "Why are we prepared to accept more of our share of the military burden than we are of the diplomatic and development burdens?" At times at the two-day conference, it felt as though many academics, former politicians and diplomats were acting like a foreign service in exile, despairing of a government that with the exception of Arctic sovereignty and Afghanistan has turned inward. Clark and Kinsman both spoke of how Canada was losing what had become a precious national asset: its outgoing foreign affairs policies. Kinsman complained that the reduction

in money for arts groups to travel abroad was spoiling Canada's image; Clark of a failure to lead the kind of initiatives against land-mines and blood diamonds this country had pursued in the past. Others spoke of Canada's dismal performance on cutting greenhouse gases; and how its failure to live up to the Kyoto protocol had damaged our credibility. All of this cannot be laid at the door of the Harper government. What the former politicians, diplomats and academics are saying is that the lack of international engagement of the present government has reduced rather than improved our standing. Canada is emerging from the present economic crisis far stronger than most. Our
banking system is the envy of the world, but our influence in bringing about change to the world financial regulatory system and to world economic institutions is not nearly as strong as it could be. In the World Trade Organization, where Canada had for years been a voice or calm and reason, Canada's place has been taken by Australia. As

the world economic summits have moved from the influence of the old group of rich countries, the G8, to the broader G20 group, which includes the BRIC countries, Canada's influence has waned.

Canadian soft power slipping

Andrew Cohen, 02- Professor of Journalism at Carleton University and Norman Patersn o School of International Affairs (Canada's new 'soft power' weapon, 27/7/02, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/384148948)//Modermatt But even if Ms. Wallin can take Manhattan, what of Canada in the rest of America? In

terms of visibility, we are slipping off the radar screen. The special relationship is less special these days, and it is Mexico, not Canada, that has become America's most favoured nation. Economically,
Canada remains the biggest trading partner of the United States. But Mexico threatens. Between 1994 and 1999, U.S. exports to Mexico rose by 70 per cent and to Canada by 45 per cent; imports from Mexico increased 121 per cent and from Canada by 54 per cent. Politically,

geography and history are

against Canada in Washington. The amiability between George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox neatly reflects the shift in the centre
of political gravity from the Northeast, where Canada is known, to the Southwest, where it is not. The Mexicans have opened 47 consulates and offices. Many handle immigration, but they serve a growing electoral constituency. For its part, Canada has its embassy and 15 offices, which is fewer than 10 years ago.

Militarily, Canada is so weak Americans call our forces "irrelevant." Diplomatically, Canada has alienated Washington with its support for the ban on land mines, the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court. In each case, Canada was right. Like a weak military, however, independent diplomacy comes at a cost. Canadian diplomats in Washington insist that Mr. Bush has nothing personal against Canada. But there seems to be no rapport between the leaders and, as former Canadian ambassador Allan Gotlieb argues, it is a mistake to think that personal relations don't matter. They do. The neglect has never been more benign. When Lester Pearson sent peacekeepers to Cyprus in 1964, a grateful Lyndon Johnson asked how he could return the favour. Today, Canada sends troops to Afghanistan and the favour is tariffs and quotas. Restoring our stature in the United States -- if it matters to Canada, and maybe a low profile is ultimately preferable when you have a trade surplus -- will not happen overnight. It will take a real military, a creative public diplomacy, more trade offices and more trade missions, and a recasting of our image. It will also take a few more Pamela Wallins . Andrew Cohen, a former
Washington correspondent with The Globe and Mail, teaches at the School of Journalism and the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.

i/L

Soft power key ext.

Canadian Soft power key to soft power convention

Axworthy, 1998 - Minister of Foreign Affairs (Lloyd Why `soft power' is the right policy for Canada: [Final Edition], 4/25/98,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/240146828)//Modermatt I was interested in the April 23 article, "Foreign policy for wimps," by Prof. Kim Richard Nossal on Canadian foreign policy. Unfortunately, it shows just how out of touch some members of our academic community are in understanding the changing world forces that face Canada. Mr. Nossal seems to be exercised that I use the term "soft power" coined a few years back by an American thinker, Joseph Nye, in reference to U.S. foreign policy. I suppose this means that Mr. Nossal does not read the views of American, British, Russian, Brazilian or other foreign writers to garner the best thought available. It is too bad that such isolationist tendencies cut him off from international thought. It must be said, though, that in reading the views of Mr. Nossal I detect a strong whiff of Hans Morgenthau, the American advocate of hardline power politics. More serious is his misinterpretation of what is meant by the term

"soft power" in the Canadian context. The reason I use this phrase in my speeches is that it exemplifies the Canadian talent for drawing upon our skills in negotiating, building coalitions and presenting diplomatic initiatives; in other words, for influencing the behaviour of other nations not through military intimidation but through a variety of diplomatic and political tools. The author grossly misrepresents my remarks when he

claims this is foreign policy on the cheap, and does not require improved peacekeeping, political or developmental resources. Quite the opposite is true.

We are pursuing an active foreign policy in resolving conflicts in such places as Haiti, Central Africa and Bosnia, using our skilled peacekeepers. We have developed a peace-building strategy, with a separate fund attached. We deployed our military resources as part of the UN coalition on Iraq, and we are actively participating in developing a security network in Southeast Asia -- all of which Mr. Nossal ignores.
-- matters that directly affect individual Canadians.

Worse, he appears to be completely unaware of our efforts to deal with emerging human security issues. Unlike the Cold War approach that is the template of Mr. Nossal's thinking, foreign policy now involves tackling global problems such as drugs, terrorism, human- rights abuses and child labour

To address these issues we need new international co-operation,

covenants, rules and collective behaviour . This is where much of our foreign policy is being directed: witness our role in the land-mine treaty, in developing a drug strategy for the hemisphere, in initiating protection for exploited children, in working on international anti-terrorism efforts, in negotiating for an International Criminal Court, or in countering American extra- territorial laws such as HelmsBurton . These efforts put a premium on "soft power" techniques, the very ones that are decried in
Mr. Nossal's article. Far from being wimps, we are in fact very robust in our defence of Canadian interests, and in the re-shaping of international norms and institutions. What is clear from Mr. Nossal's remarks is that many academics, like generals, are still fighting old wars on old issues, not those of the present or the future.

Canadas soft power prevents Sino-Japan war---it goes nuclear.

FATDC 12 Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Stopping the Free-Fall Implications of SinoJapanese Rivalry for Regional Stability and Canadian
Interests, 2012-09-14 http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-recherche/intl_securitysecurite_int/yuan2007/section1a.aspx?lang=eng)//A-Berg This report discusses developments in Sino-Japanese

relations since the end of the Cold War and analyses some of the underlining causes of mistrust, misunderstanding, hostility, and emerging rivalry between these two major Asia powers . It presents a
preliminary assessment of the key issues and controversies ranging from Chinese views on the evolving U.S.-Japan military alliance, Japan's aspiration to become a normal state and its pursuit of greater international role and enhancement of military capabilities, to historical legacies and rising nationalism in both countries, unresolved territorial disputes and competition for resources, and growing Japan-Taiwan ties. The report argues that the end of the Cold War, the changing international security environment in East Asia, domestic politics and leadership transition in both China and Japan, especially China's rise as a major power, present serious challenges for the regional balance of power and the need for adaptation and adjustments to the power shift and transformation. This dramatic shift in the power balance also leads to worst-case interpretations by both Beijing and Tokyo of the other's intentions and behavior. Under such circumstances, the old wounds of history are further aggravated by new nationalism, personality, and changing domestic foreign policy making processes where societal pressures impose significant constraints on conciliatory gestures and "new thinking" on managing bilateral relations. The report also reviews and evaluates the validity of limited confidence building measures and security dialogue between Beijing and Tokyo and concludes that their utility is constrained by the overall political relationship between the two countries. At the same time, the report also notes that growing economic interdependence, the recognition that continued deterioration of relations serves neither side's interests; consequently, the resolve of Chinese and Japanese leaders in the post-Koizumi era to mend fences and promote common interests at least for now have prevented the free fall in Asia's most important bilateral relationship. Sino-Japanese

relations have important

implications for Canada's interests. Canada has long maintained good relationships with both China and Japan for economic and politico-security reasons. Japan has been a traditional trading partner of Canada while China's
phenomenal growth over the last quarter century has drawn significant interest from Canadian businesses. Ottawa made significant efforts in promoting its ties with Asian Pacific countries in the 1990s, as well as participated in and introduced multilateral security institution-building. In this context, the

continuing free fall of the Sino-Japanese relationship could seriously affect Canadian interests in the region. Canada remains a "stakeholder" in the future developments in Sino-Japanese relations for at least three reasons: China's rise and its future direction affect both regional peace and stability and the geo-strategic landscape at the global level. China has become an important trading partner for Canada and Canadian "soft power" in engaging and encouraging China to adopt a multilateral approach to regional security and good governance has achieved important results. Ottawa should continue to play an active role in engaging Beijing to promote a disarmament agenda and encourage military transparency so that China's emergence could be better integrated into the existing international norms and frameworks, values a middle power such as Canada
holds dear. Japan and Canada share many common values and interests. Both are members of the G-8 and OECD, and are concerned with emerging non-traditional security challenges, human security, and international peacekeeping. However, Ottawa and Tokyo have placed different emphasis and have different priorities due to their respective threat perceptions, geography and alliance commitments. Continued Sino-Japanese rivalry has serious implications for Canadian interests. Prolonged instability and deteriorating security in that region would negatively affect Canada's interests. Intensified

disputes leading to militarized conflicts between China and Japan could result in a number of negative developments. There is the potential for an arms race. Japan strives for greater military capabilities, including nuclear and missile capabilities as Tokyo's confidence in U.S. nuclear umbrella and the alliance protection wanes.

Canada soft power key to check China

Axworthy, 03-Thomas, senior fellow at both the Munk School of Global Affairs and Massey College at the University of Toronto. 9/24/ (Eastern Instablity,
www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/9/24_1.html)

Asia is the most dangerous place in the world. With Americans dying daily in Iraq; the Bush road map for Israel and Palestine in tatters;
and the ghostly visage of Osama bin Laden broadcast to the world by al-Jazeera on the second anniversary of Sept. 11, threatening all of us with even worse horrors; it may be difficult to fathom that the greatest threats to peace and security reside outside the Middle East. But in this league of infamy, Asia leads the first division. The six-nation talks with North Korea, for example, have ended with nodiscernible progress and North Korea moving at full speed to expand its nuclear arsenal.

in North Korea: There a rogue regime has starved hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, attacked its neighbours, built a nuclear bomb, and trafficked with terrorists. North Korea is the world's most deadly problem. Right behind is the situation in Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligence service helped invent the Taliban; Islamists are honeycombed within the intelligence service and the armed forces. Pakistan has also developed nuclear weapons to protect itself in the 50-year conflict with India
Everything that George Bush went to war to prevent in Iraq is occurring irrefutably over Kashmir. Terrorists can either spark outrages in India hoping to bring about Armageddon in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or Islamists could promote a coup in Pakistan itself, putting a Taliban-style regime in power in Islamabad. The regime of President Pervez Musharraf presides over one of the world's most turbulent countries, and if you thought the Taliban in Afghanistan was a problem, what about if a similarly motivated group had its thumb on a nuclear trigger? In

this Asian cauldron of animosity, one optimistic possibility is the emergence of a peaceful, engaged China. The Middle Kingdom has been the dominant player in Asia for 5,000 years, and in our time it has been a key ally of both North Korea and
Pakistan. We are witnessing in the early years of the 21st century a China that is systematically turning away from the isolation and madness of the cultural revolution of Mao towards an engagement with its neighbours. This engagement is primarily economic. China's ascension to the World Trade Organization is of the utmost importance, but it is also strategic with China participating in the six-nation negotiations with North Korea. Encouraging

China to take a constructive role in its own region is in the interests of us all. Canada might be able to play a small part in this engagement strategy. The National Post has recently run a foreign policy series with much debate about the utility of "hard views" and "soft power." Of course, you need both, and we need to invest more in both elements of power if we are to play a role in the world. With China, Canada does have some unique soft power assets.

impacts

sino-japan War ext.

Military conflict will occur by the end of the year and will escalate to great power war
White 12 professor of strategic studies at Australians National University, visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute (Hugh White, 26 December
2012, Caught in a bind that threatens an Asian war nobody wants, The Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/caught-in-a-bind-that-threatens-an-asian-war-nobody-wants-201212252bv38.html#ixzz2GAKA8VUy)//KP

This is how wars usually start: with a steadily escalating stand-off over something intrinsically worthless. So don't be too surprised if the US and Japan go to war with China next year over the uninhabited rocks that Japan calls the Senkakus and China calls the Diaoyu islands. And don't assume the war would be contained and short. Of course we should all hope that common sense prevails. It seems almost laughably unthinkable that the world's
three richest countries - two of them nuclear-armed - would go to war over something so trivial. But that is to confuse what starts a war with what causes it. The Greek historian Thucydides first explained the difference almost 2500 years ago. He wrote that the catastrophic Peloponnesian War started from a spat between Athens and one of Sparta's allies over a relatively insignificant dispute. But what caused the war was something much graver: the growing wealth and power of Athens, and the fear this caused in Sparta. The analogy with Asia today is uncomfortably close and not at all reassuring. No one in 431BC really wanted a war, but when Athens threatened one of Sparta's allies over a disputed colony, the Spartans felt they had to intervene. They feared that to step back in the face of Athens' growing power would fatally compromise Sparta's position in the Greek world, and concede supremacy to Athens. The

Senkakus issue is likewise a symptom of tensions whose cause lies elsewhere, in China's growing challenge to America's longstanding leadership in Asia, and America's response. In the past few years China has become both markedly stronger and notably more assertive. America has countered with the strategic pivot to Asia. Now, China is pushing back against President Barack Obama's pivot by targeting Japan in the Senkakus. The Japanese themselves genuinely fear
that China will become even more overbearing as its strength grows, and they depend on America to protect them. But they also worry whether they can rely on Washington as China becomes more formidable. China's ratcheting pressure over the Senkakus strikes at both these anxieties. The push and shove over the islands has been escalating for months. Just before Japan's recent election, China flew surveillance aircraft over the islands for the first time, and since the election both sides have reiterated their tough talk. Where will it end? The risk is that,

without a clear circuit-breaker, the escalation will continue until at some point shots are exchanged, and a spiral to war begins that no one can stop. Neither side could win such a war, and it would be devastating not just for them but for the rest of us. No one wants this, but the crisis will not stop by itself. One side or other, or both, will have to take positive steps to break the cycle of action and reaction. This will be difficult, because any concession by either side would so easily be seen as a backdown, with huge domestic political costs and international implications. It would therefore need real political strength and skill, which is in short supply all round - especially in Tokyo and Beijing, which both have new and untested leaders. And each side apparently hopes that they will not have to face this test, because they expect the other side will back down first. Beijing apparently believes that if it keeps
pushing, Washington will persuade Tokyo to make concessions over the disputed islands in order to avoid being dragged into a war with China, which would be a big win for them. Tokyo on the other hand fervently hopes that, faced with firm US support for Japan, China will have no choice but to back down. And in Washington, too, most people seem to think China will back off. They argue that China needs America more than America needs China, and that Beijing will back down rather than risk a break with the US which would devastate China's economy. Unfortunately, the

Chinese seem to see things differently. They believe America will not risk a break with China because America's economy would suffer so much. These mutual misconceptions carry the seeds of a terrible miscalculation, as each side underestimates how much is at stake for the other. For Japan, bowing to
Chinese pressure would feel like acknowledging China's right to push them around, and accepting that America can't help them. For Washington, not supporting Tokyo would not only fatally damage the alliance with Japan, it would amount to an acknowledgment America is no longer Asia's leading power, and that the ''pivot'' is just posturing. And for Beijing, a backdown would mean that instead of proving its growing power, its foray into the Senkakus would simply have demonstrated America's continued primacy. So for all of them, the

largest issues of power and status are at stake. These are exactly the kind of issues that great powers have often gone to war over.

It goes nuclear --- tensions escalate.

Anokhin 09 Pravda.Ru columnist, (Vladimir, Nuclear war to break out in South Asia, 12.05.2009 http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/12 -05-2009/107537nuclear_war-0/)//A-Berg

The danger of a nuclear war in the world will remain even if Russia and the United States agree to reduce their strategic offensive arms. Asias nuclear powers - India and Pakistan do not intend to follow the example of the two superpowers. The

ongoing standoff in South Asia may lead to catastrophic consequences for the whole world. The conflict
between India and Pakistan lasts for over 60 years already. Their confrontation became especially dangerous after 1998, when both India and Pakistan conducted a series of nuclear tests and showed the world their ability to build nuclear weapons. India has never concealed an intention to possess nuclear weapons. The nuclear doctrine was approved in the nation in 2001. It is worthy of note that India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Indian government believes that it has a full right to possess nuclear arms just like Russia, the USA, China, France and Great Britain. In accordance with th e nuclear doctrine, India s nuclear arsenal will have the air, the ground and the sea constituents. The countrys Air Force already has nuclear -capable Mirage-2000, MiG-27 and Jaguar aircraft. It also has ground-based ballistic missiles. India does not have nuclear submarines yet, but it may become a reality very soon. Pakistan

is Indias primary potential enemy. China can also be a threat to one of Asias largest nations. The Indian nuclear program of the 1960s was a response to its own defeat, which the nation suffered as a result of the border war with China in 1962. Several dozens of nuclear warheads will be enough for India to contain Pakistan. Even if Pakistan launches a massive attack against Indias vast territory, it w ill be impossible to destroy most of the Indian strategic nuclear arms. Quite on the contrary: Indias nuclear retaliation with the use of 15-20 nukes will cause much bigger damage to Pakistan, which is a lot smaller in size. India has 115 nukes at the moment. About 80 warheads will be enough to destroy Pakistan entirely. However, India will not be able to attack China afterwards. The latter has 410 nuclear warheads. Therefore, India will most likely try to enlarge its nuclear potential. Unlike India,
Pakistan does not have its nuclear doctrine officially documented. There is not enough information about the details and the structure of the nuclear forces of this country either. Official spokesmen for the Pakistani authorities say that the development of the nations nuclear forces will fully depend on the actions of the Indian government. Pakistan possesses nuclear arms as a nuclear deterrent against a possible attack from India. In addition, Pakistan aims to reduce India s predominance in other arms. Pakistan has all chances to build 40-45 nuclear warheads. The country has ballistic missiles too A

nuclear blow in South Asia can result in a global catastrophe. The population of India and Pakistan totals over one billion people. The two countries do not have any means of protection against a nuclear attack. Even a minor nuclear explosion will kill millions of people and trigger a humanitarian catastrophe.

Disputes ensure nuclear escalation

Weitz, 10 - director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, (Richard, South Asias Nuclear War Risk, July 12,
2010, http://thediplomat.com/2010/07/12/south-asia%E2%80%99s-nuclear-war-risk/?all=true But theres more to the Chasma reactor dispute than the question of equity between India and Pakistanthe deal goes to the heart of concerns

over civilian nuclear cooperation and proliferation in Asia. Chinese assertions of the need to maintain a nuclear balance between Pakistan and India reflect the interconnected nature of these three countries nuclear programmes. After the Sino-Soviet split of the late 1950s, the Chinese Communists redoubled their efforts to acquire nuclear
weapons to counter the USSRs superiority in nuclear and conventional force. Chinas successful development of an atomic bomb in 1964 in turn persuaded Indian leaders to pursue nuclear weapons. After India detonated a non-deliverable fission device in May 1974 at its Pokhran testing site, China increased its sharing of nuclear material and technology with Pakistan, allowing Islamabad to respond quickly when India finally detonated several deliverable nuclear warheads in May 1998. Indian policymakers cited Chinas actions, including its growing nuclear weapons capacity and Beijings transfer of nuc lear weapons and ballistic missile technologies to Pakistan, as the reasons for their tests (and in the process implied that New Delhi was seeking the capacity to target China with nuclear weapons). But whats perhaps the most fundamental point about the dispute with Pakistan is that it could so easily apply to many other Asian

countries that might plausibly seek nuclear weaponsafter all, its successful acquisition of an expanding nuclear force encourages other governments to believe they too could acquire a nuclear arsenal and overcome the resulting international opprobrium. Thats not all. Nuclear proliferation anywhere increases the risk that a non-rational actor, whether a leader of a state or a terrorist group, will acquire nuclear weapons. Everything being equal, the risk of nuclear accidents or nuclear weapons diversion to non-state actors rises with the
increase in the number of nuclear weapons states. Both these considerations also apply to India, North Korea, Iran and other potential new nuclear weapons states. In addition, Pakistans sometimes acute political instability raises the risk of regime coll apse followed by the transfer of Pakistani nuclear weapons to a less moderate government, domestic extremists, or foreign countries or non-state actors such as an international terrorist group or transnational criminal organization. The larger Pakistans nuclear arsenal, the more difficult it becomes for Islamabad to secure all its weapons adequately. But it wouldnt even take r egime collapse for extremists to possibly gain control of a Pakistani nuclear weapon. In its 2008 report, the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism describes Pakistan as the geographic crossroads for terrorism and weapons of mass destruction given the presence of so many Islamist extremists, with suspected sympathizers in the government and armed forces, in a country with a rapidly growing arsenal of nuclear weapons. Yet even setting aside the question of nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands, nuclear competition between India and Pakistan is especially dangerous. Active

(and ongoing) political disputes between the two countries have resulted in three past wars as well as numerous proxy conflicts. Pakistani leaders in particular have concluded that their nuclear arsenal has deterred India from again using its conventional forces to attack
Pakistani territory. As a result, Pakistans implicit nuclear doctrine presumes the possible first use of nuclear weapons. The risks of su ch tensions are compounded by the physical proximity of the two countries, as well as their reliance on ballistic missiles as delivery vehicles, which means that early warning times might be as little as five to ten minutes. Although it remains unclear whether India or Pakistan have combined its nuclear warheads with their assigned delivery systems, such a

precarious stance would increase the risks of both accidental and catalytic war (a nuclear conflict between both governments precipitated by a third party, such as a terrorist group). Throw China into the mix, with Pakistan at risk of viewing its own nuclear programme as increasingly inadequate as India seeks to achieve mutual deterrence with China, and the picture becomes more complicated. And

add in the risk of widespread political disorder in either India or Pakistan, which could see a dangerous political adventurism as political leaders look to rally domestic support, and the peculiar challenges posed by the region become clearer. The fact is South Asia is particularly prone to a destabilizing arms race. And perhaps nuclear war.

Nuclear war
Tatlow 12 - International Herald Tribune- (Didi K., Rising Tension and Stakes in Japan-China Island Dispute, September 14, 2012,
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/rising-tension-and-stakes-in-japan-china-island-dispute/)//A-Berg

BEIJING It has all the ingredients of a future tragedy, peppered with grim farce. A collapsing Japanese ambassador. A noodle soup attack. A

nuclear war threat. Music concerts canceled along with tens of thousands of private vacations and major friendship celebrations. An 81year-old national trauma revived. And underneath all that, the shopping continues. Welcome to Chinese-Japanese relations in
2012. In China, the state-run media were so angry on Friday over the Japanese governments purchase earlier in the week of some of the Diaoyu islands, which the two nations both claim Japan calls them the Senkakus that the word purchase appears only in quotation marks in stories, as if it didnt happen. (It did.) Early on Friday morning, six Chinese navy surveillance vessels arrived at the newly nationalized islands, bought from a Japanese family, prompting a protest from the Japanese government. So far so normal, perhaps, in this long running,

acrimonious dispute between these love-hate neighbors over a clutch of small, craggy islands in the East China Sea (for background on the issue, see this post by my colleague Mark McDonald.) Yet this round of fury in China may prove worse than previous ones. This week, in a startling, apparently one-time call, the state-run Beijing Evening News suggested China should use nuclear weapons in the dispute, claiming it would be simpler. Just skip to the main course and drop an atomic bomb. Simpler,
the newspaper posted on its Weibo account, provoking both critical and supportive responses from readers. Continuing the perhaps unusual food and war metaphor, early on Friday, a user writing in Chinese under the name izhangzhe mocked the newspaper: Did you explode the bomb? Did it taste good? Other Chinese commentators pointed out that it was one thing for angry ne tizens to make extreme calls, but quite another for an official newspaper to do so(this link is in Chinese). The Peoples Daily on Friday carried a furiously worded article demanding that Japan return to reason, with the headline on its online news page blaring (in Chinese): Is Japan prepared for the consequences of its odious acts? In Tokyo, the new Japanese ambassador to Beijing, Shinichi Nishimiya, appointed just two days before, collapsed on the street near his home and was taken to hospital unconscious, Japanese media reported. He has since recovered somewhat but Japan will choose a new ambassador, China News Service said. His predecessor was recalled after a Japanese national flag was plucked off the ambassadorial car on a Beijing highway recently, apparently by Chinese nationalist hotheads. On Thursday in Shanghai, a bowl of hot noodle soup was thrown in the face of a Japanese, the Kyodo news agency reported, in a first recorded attack on a Japanese person since the islands dispute flared after Japan purchased three islands on Tuesday from the family that owned them, for about $26 million. Photographs circulating online purport to show a burning Japanese-made car in Shanghai, apparently set on fire by its owner, with anti-Japanese banners in the background. Relations

are

almost certain to worsen. Next Tuesday is the anniversary of the 1931 Mukden Incident, the trigger for the Japanese seizure of
Manchuria in northeast China, and for many Chinese the beginning of 14 years of vicious subjugation by Japan that ended only when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to a Japanese surrender in World War II. 9.18, as its known by its dates, is on peoples minds here. Marching in Tokyo yesterday, Chinese men held a handwritten cardboard sign proclaiming: New scores and old scores will be settled together, in this photograph on the Peoples Daily Web site. Celebrities are getting in on the act, with the Chinese actress Li Bingbing canceling a trip to Japan, The Beijing News reported. Friendship events planned for the end of the month to mark the 40th anniversary of the resumption of Chinese-Japanese ties are falling like ninepins. A report in the Asahi Shimbun outlined many other cancellations. Hong Kongs South China Morning Post presented a dark picture of the situation, writing: Ten Chinese generals issued

a joint statement yesterday warning that the Peoples Liberation Army is ready to take Japan on , and citing an
editor of a Communist Party-run magazine, the Central Party Schools Study Times, Deng Yuwen, that there was a chance of armed clashes after the partys 18th congress, which will probably be held next month. The government is believed to want a peaceful meeting at all costs, since it is when an heir to the party general-secretary, President Hu Jintao, will be announced. While all this is very disquieting in this region, what does it mean to the world? Nuclear war talk makes everyone nervous. And then theres the importance of global trade and a weak global economy. In a new twist, Chinas deputy minister of commerce, Jiang Zengwei, said on Thursday that economic and trade ties cou ld be affected by the dispute, Reuters reported.

at: no war
Lack of communication means accidental war and escalation is probable
Wittmeyer 3/19/13 Assistant Editor at Foreign Policy Magazine (Alicia P.Q. Wittmeyer, 19 March 2013, Why Japan and China could accidentally end up at war, Foreign Policy, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/19/china_japan_accidental_war_islands)//KP Great. At a time when Chinese authorities seem to be making efforts to dial down tensions with Japan over disputed islands, could

a war between East Asian superpowers be sparked by accident -- by some frigate commander gone rogue? That nuclear war could come about in just such a scenario was, of course, a major concern during the Cold War. But decades of tension, as well as apocalyptic visions of global annihilation as a result of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. locking horns, produced carefully designed systems to minimize the damage any one rogue actor could inflict (only the president can access the nuclear codes), and to minimize misunderstandings from more minor incidents (the Kremlin-White House hotline). But East Asia -- relatively free of military buildup until recently -- doesn't have these same systems in place. A soon-to-be-released report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies highlights the danger that emerges when a region's military systems develop faster than its communication mechanisms, and finds that accidental war in East Asia is a real possibility: Across East Asia, advanced military systems such as anti-ship missiles, new submarines, advanced combat aircraft are proliferating in a region lacking security mechanisms that could defuse crises. Bilateral military-to-military ties are often only embryonic. There is a tangible risk of accidental conflict and escalation, particularly in the absence of
a strong tradition of military confidence-building measures."

at: no escalation
Any conflict in the region escalates
Sutton 4/3/13 Ph.D., visiting fellow at the World Trade Organization Research Center, former assistant professor of International
Relations (Michael Sutton, 3 April 2013, War with China is not inevitable, so tread carefully, The Japan Times, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/04/03/commentary/war-with-china-is-not-inevitable-so-tread-carefully/#.UdSgl_m1Fsk)

There are dangers for the United States and Japan in underestimating or confronting China. The Abe
governments interest in changing the postwar Japanese Constitution threatens relations not only with China but also with the U.S. Despite the optimists, military

conflict in the region would be uncontainable. Any form of confrontation involving China would likely spiral out of control and engulf the entire region, if not the world. Since the Liberal
Democratic Party was last in power, the world has profoundly changed. The first noticeable change is that the U.S. is in serious, perhaps irretrievable trouble. Much has been said about how the Chinese giant awoke and arose, but much less has been said about what happens when the U.S. giant stumbles and falls. The decline of the U.S. has sent shock waves around the world, and even Americas enemies shudder.

The cumulative effects of poor financial decisions, social fragmentation, national debt and overseas conflict have taken their toll, injecting a profound and deleterious sense of uncertainty. The second noticeable change is the immaturity of Chinese ambition. China has risen during a time of peace. U.S.sanctioned free trade underpinned this success. Instead, Beijing talks of islands, oceans, and territories in terms of rights to ownership. This reflects an immature China that coexists alongside a confident, globaloriented China. Politically, Chinese leadership is dysfunctional. China has effectively dominated the global economy, but it seems obsessed with a few islands of minimal value in the East and South China Seas. Both the uncertain path ahead for the U.S. and the immature ambitions of China threaten the future of Japan. Changing the
Constitution would inject further uncertainty into an already tense region.

turns narcoterror

Canadian soft power is key to prevent narco-terror

Axworthy, 98 - Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ottawa, (Lloyd, Why `soft power' is the right policy for Canada, Apr 25, 1998, ProQuest)//A -Berg
Worse, he appears to be completely unaware of our efforts to deal with emerging human security issues. Unlike the Cold War approach that is the template of Mr. Nossal's thinking, foreign

policy now involves tackling global problems such as drugs, terrorism, humanrights abuses and child labour -- matters that directly affect individual Canadians. To address these issues we need new international co-operation, covenants, rules and collective behaviour. This is where much of our foreign policy is being directed: witness our role in the land-mine treaty, in developing a drug strategy for the hemisphere, in initiating protection for exploited children, in working on international anti-terrorism efforts, in negotiating for an International Criminal Court, or in countering American extra- territorial laws such as Helms-Burton. These efforts put a premium on "soft power" techniques, the very ones that are decried in Mr. Nossal's article.

turns militarism

Canadian soft power provides a key check against US militarism

Mulligan, 02 (Thomas, Toronto Star, Embracing 'soft power' ; Canada's muscle lies in the realm of ideas, culture: *Ontario Edition+, 09 Sep 2002,
ProQuest)//A-Berg

transformations come, as Stein says, through "soft power"- the power to influence through ideas, culture and example. has been a champion of soft power. Ours is a civil, literate nation with a long history of international co-operation. Even our military has a tradition of policing and peacekeeping. But now, U.S. President George W. Bush is twisting arms and pressuring
Military generals scorch the Earth; leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King build on it. Historically, Canada

The great

nb 2: canada econ

2nc i/L
The CP boosts Canadas economy
Dade, 13 - Senior Fellow at the School for International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa, served for five years as Executive
Director of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas, (Carlo, Why Canada Needs the Pacific Alliance, May 22, 2 013 http://opencanada.org/features/the-thinktank/comments/why-canada-needs-the-pacific-alliance/)//A-Berg

The Pacific Alliance, a common market comprised of Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico, is the most important new economic opportunity facing Canada as it seeks to grow and diversify its trade. Joining the Pacific Alliance will position Canadian companies ahead of their competitors in a market composed of the fastest growing, richest, most dynamic, and like-minded countries in the Americas that together form the fifth BRIC power.
Chile, Peru, Columbia, and Mexico are in the process of seamlessly linking their economies to better trade with each other and Asia. These countries have a combined GDP of just under US$3 trillion, average per capita GDP of close to US$12,000 and average above 5 per cent annual growth compared to 1.7 per cent in the U.S. and negative rates in most of Europe. The block has over one third of Latin Americas population and would be the worlds ninth largest economy it is essentially the fifth BRIC but without the political negatives and risks of India, Russia, and China. Pacific

Alliance countries are among the most attractive markets with sound macro-economic fundamentals and mature democracies they all rank
in the top 25 per cent of the World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index. Chile and Mexico are members of the OECD while Colombia will likely join soon. As other trade blocs such as the EU, Mercosur and NAFTA have faltered or gone backwards, the

Pacific Alliance has progressed due to a pragmatic focus on competitiveness issues, not politics. The bloc is implementing a platinum standard agenda of regulatory reforms and economic liberalization that should make it among the most competitive trading areas globally. The blocs stronger long-term political and macroeconomic environment makes it attractive for
Canadian firms to build or join regional supply chains and as a second platform, in addition to North America, for trade with Asia. Canadas major competitors in the region Spain in banking, Australia in mining and mining equipment, and the United States in everything also have trade agreements with Pacific Alliance countries. Joining

the Alliance will give Canadian companies important advantages over their main

competitors. As an example, the Alliance countries have linked their stock markets creating a unified exchange; joining will bring unique new opportunities
for the TSX and Canada. Being a member, as opposed to an observer, will also give Canada a say in rules for how the Alliance is structured and a seat in negotiations with other blocs and countries, especially in Asia. Entering the Pacific Alliance is as important for Canada as finalizing a new trade agreement with the European Union but for different reasons. The Pacific Alliance offers a new set of opportunities for Canada to diversify its trade. A trade agreement with the EU is crucial to protect Canada from losing market share to American firms once the U.S. signs its own agreement, but in the end, Canada will still be only one of several countries with a trade agreement with the EU. Full membership in the Pacific Alliance will give Canada a second NAFTA a market in which its companies enjoy privileges and access beyond those available to through simple trade agree ments. This would include things such as regulatory harmonization and an Alliance Beyond the Border type agreement for facilitating trade and eliminating non-tariff barriers. Devoting energy to negotiating with the Pacific Alliance should not detract from progress on other negotiations. Since Canada already has trade agreements with all Pacific Alliance countries, the hard work has been done. Negotiations will be limited to those things that the Pacific Alliance has recently undertaken and will yield immediate benefits as Canada will be joining a process that is underway and already producing results. The rapid pace of liberalization in the Pacific Alliance is in marked contrast to dealings with the U.S. on issues like Beyond the Border, which have stalled due to political dysfunction in Washington. No such dysfunction exists with the Pacific Alliance; in fact just the opposite is the case. It is true that to join the Pacific Alliance, Canada will eventually have to make concessions on agricultural and dairy price supports, but not immediately. The Pacific Alliance is establishing an aggressive agenda to reduce all tariffs within the block to zero. But Canada has already, or is in the process of making, concessions in its trade agreement with the EU. The U.S., Australia, and New Zealand have made it clear that Canadian dairy and agricultural price supports will be on the chopping block with the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations; cutting tariffs with Pacific Alliance countries will be easier on Canadian producers than with the EU or the TPP. Liberalizing these sectors within the Alliance will be a useful, less painful, first adjustment for Canadian producers. The cost of joining for Canada will be minimal and will require similar types of resources as required for working with the U.S. on the full range of North American issues. This will mean designating personnel in ministries beyond International Trade to take part in technical working groups. It will require the prime minister to attend an annual summit and the trade and other ministers to attend annual or bi-annual meetings. It will also require education and outreach to Canadian businesses beyond those currently operating in these markets. The fact that the Canadian private sector has to be educated about the markets of the Pacific Alliance should not be a deterrent to negotiations. An underwhelming U.S. recovery and negative growth in Europe are forcing Canadian companies to look beyond those markets. As the Pacific Alliance grows more Canadian companies, but also their competitors, will become interested. The

government can move now while the entry cost is low and Canada has a privileged position thanks to its history, since 2007, as an observer with the Alliance and its predecessor. This has
positioned the country ahead of its principle competitors in the region who are also seeking entry.

Trade diversification key to Canadas economy Marowits, 4/16/13 analyst for the Huffington Post: Canada (Ross Marowits, 04/16/2013 Canadian Exports Decline: Coun try Needs New Trade
Partners, CIBC Says, The Canadian Press, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/16/exports-canada-new-markets_n_3089941.html)//GP

Companies need to take more risks in emerging markets so Canada doesn't experience another lost decade for exports, says CIBC's senior economist. Despite nine free trade agreements, the volume of Canadian exports has receded back to about the same level it was a decade ago. That's because

exports to countries outside the U.S. have hardly increased over the past four years and in recent quarters, volume has actually dropped. Benjamin Tal said part of the reason is that Canadian exporters have been squarely focused on China and the United States for growth. While global trade has surged 70 per cent and imports have increased by 45 per cent since 2002, the volume of exports has hardly changed over the same time, he said. "That's basically a lost decade. Now for a small open economy that relies heavily on exports, that's not a very positive trajectory," he said after releasing the report titled "Stuck in Neutral." Tal said the stagnant growth can't solely be blamed on the strength of the loonie, but also other factors, including the struggling U.S. economy and heightened competition from emerging markets. Tal said Canadian companies need to look beyond its two largest trading partners, which promise only slow and unreliable economic growth in the near term, and focus more on emerging countries such as Brazil, India and Indonesia. "I think it's more a
problem of attitude, it's more a problem of taking risks and I think that it's doable because we have proven that we can do it," he said. Export Development Canada chief economist Peter Hall said the report doesn't reflect the efforts by Canadian companies to expand trade outside China. "To say it's a lost decade is more true of the world than it is for Canada in isolation," he said. "I think it's important to put this in a context of a world that has seen incredible duress in the last four to five years." Hall said the high Canadian dollar has had a bigger impact on exports than the report captures. Canadian exports to almost all countries but China got pummelled in the downturn. Using 2009 as a reference year would reveal growth in emerging countries such as Brazil, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Russia that are on par with China, he said. Hall doesn't dispute the general thrust of the report, adding Canada can do a better job of boosting trade with South Korea, India and the Middle East. "A very strong growth trend was resumed post-crisis," he said. "It's just that trade was affected in most nations in the crisis year."

Lakehead University economics professor Livio di Matteo agreed that trading diversification has stalled even though Canada has become less reliant on the U.S. Canada has traditionally been a "monogamist trade country" first focused largely on Britain and after the Second World War, on the United States and then China. Di Matteo said Canada can accelerate its ties with emerging countries by increasing international business student exchanges. "Let them learn about the country and when they come back of course you'll have all these automatic human capital resources that will help you grow your trade," he said from Thunder Bay, Ont. Meanwhile, Tal said diversifying Canada's trading partners will create employment, economic growth and the standard of living at home. "In the past, diversification out of the U.S. was a nice thing to do, today for many companies it's a question of survival," he added.

Canada increasing investment in Latin America now key to investment diversification

ROBERTSON, 11 - (COLIN ROBERTSON, Nov 3, 2011 Diplomacy: Canada's New Policies Toward Latin America
http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/3039)

In August, on his fourth official visit to Latin America, Prime Minister Stephen Harper set out to reboot Canadas on-and-off-again relationship with the region. In the first stop on a four-country tour that took him to Brazil, Colombia,
Costa Rica, and Honduras, Harper declared in So Paulo that during too long a time we neglected relations*+too much grass grows in the cracks o n the road. It is time, he added, for increased ambition. Ambition is important. But so is perseverance. Canadian efforts in t he Americas are characterized by quixotic spasms of tango-like embrace: joining the Organization of American States (1990); negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, 19931994); and committing to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (1994) all nearly 20 years ago. But this rush of engagement was followed by a long siesta until 2007, when the Harper government announced its Strategy of Engagement in the Americas, which emphasized democratic governance, prosperity and security. The plan is only now taking shape. It does take two to tango, and Latin American governments share equal responsibility for failing to take advantage of Canadian interest and opportunities. So what makes Harpers newest effort different? First, there

is the economic malaise in the United States and the recognition that Canadians really do need options to the U.S. market. Agree or not with Standard & Poors reevaluation of American creditworthiness, there is no disagreement with its analysis that the effectiveness, stability and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened. For Canadians, the U.S. market and the bilateral relationship will always remain primordial, but as the U.S. hunkers down and the administration focuses on a jobs agenda, there is a likelihood of renewed protectionismwhich could affect the huge CanadaU.S. resource trade in everything from
lumber to fish. Notwithstanding President Barack Obamas promise to export his way out of the economic malaise, certain Democrats and Tea Party Republicans equate free trade with the outsourcing of jobs. And that may impede further efforts to broaden the opportunities for Canada under NAFTA. While Canadian and U.S. negotiators are in discussions to ease border access for people and goods, these steps alone will not strengthen the Canadian market. Canada must look to new opportunities to hedge its bets. That (FTA) with

is being done slowly in Latin America. On August 15, a free-trade agreement Colombiaan economy equal to the state of Connecticutwent into effect, and new implementing legislation for the CanadaPanama Free Trade Agreement (similar in economic weight to Vermont) is

being introduced in Parliament this fall. Canada also has FTAs with Costa Rica, Peru and Chile. Beyond FTAs, Latin American countries are making it easier for Canada to invest and do business in the region. A decade-long
dose of the Washington Consensus, whatever its faults, has rinsed away the previous attachment to the Prebisch-inspired statism that stigmatized earlier efforts at boosting investment and terms of trade.

Mexico is a prime example.

The World Bank and International Finance CorporationsDoing Business 2011

report declared this NAFTA partner as the easiest place in Latin America to run a company. The

International Monetary Fund says Mexicos economic growth will eclipse that of the U.S. and Canada from now until 2015, and Goldman Sachs predicts that in 40 years Mexico will be the worlds fifth-largest economybigger than Russia, Japan or Germany. Third, Canadian business is prepared for risk, recognizing that the options are either grow or get absorbed. Twenty years of freer trade have
given Canadian companies, especially the larger ones, the confidence that they can compete internationally and the experience of operations on the global stage. CTV network anchor Andrea Mandel-Campbell notes in Why Mexicans Dont Drink Molson that Canadian companies are historically timid about venturing into international markets, but Mexicans ride on Bombardier-constructed subways and Scotiabank is the sixth-largest retail bank in Mexico. Where

once Canadas business associations focused almost exclusively on the U.S., their membership is now encouraging them to look beyond its neighbor to the south. Fourth, the renewed Canadian approach melds trade objectives
with development aspirations. Attitudes toward aid are changing with the increasing recognition that a job is the best form of development assistance. A key feature of the rebooted relationship with Brazil is a CEO Forum, staffed by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry. This business-to-business dimension promises real gains, especially if Brazilians and Canadians can agree on a set of practical objectives such as increasing direct flights and identifying business impediments that can be addressed by working with governments. CEO forums should be included in every FTA negotiation and built into the existing relationships with Mexico and Chile .

To sustain the opening with Brazil and to move the

relationships with key partners like Mexico and Chile to the next level will require a series of focused blueprints . These will have to address critical questions such as how to attract more Latin American investment in Canada and what barriersespecially those specific to Latin Americacan be addressed by Canadian initiatives. The Canadian business community is engaged and should be a driving force for taking the relationship to the
next level. In every case, there needs to be a systematic plan of engagement starting at the most senior political level. For one, the prime minister needs to block at least one week a year for visits to the region. To provide the needed intellectual capital, Canadians also need to actively support the work of think tanks and improve existing synergies among organizations. The demise for lack of funding in September of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL) research center, after 21 years of advancing Canadian interests, is a setback because it consistently provided useful intellectual heft and intelligent trend-spotting. FOCAL had been largely dependent on Canadian government funding after it was created by an act of cabinet under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (19841993). In its next iteration it should look more like the Inter-American Dialogue or Americas Society/Council of the Americas, with strong private-sector involvement and a focus on investment and trade as the best means of generating development and creating long-term relationships. The current Canadian government is not the first to promise a new look at the region, but all too often action never followed rhetoric. If

the Americas are truly a priority, and Harpers promise to be ambitious is more than just repetition of the old rhetoric, the prime ministers continued attention to the region will be necessary. Unless the CanadaLatin America relationship is given a place of priority on the agenda and moves from aspiration to pragmatic results, the grass will grow back in the cracks.

Decrease in oil exports leads to Canadian economic collapse now is key

Gray, 3/13 - is the former editor of Oilweek magazine and author of seven books about Canadas petroleum industry. (Earle Gray, Mar 13 2013 Collapse of
oilsands boom will scramble Canadian economy, The Canada Star, http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/03/13/collapse_of_oilsands_boom_will_scramble_canadian_economy.html)//GP

Slower growth in world oil demand, increasing energy efficiency, alternative fuels and possible caps on carbon dioxide emissions will negatively affect Albertas oilsands. The shale revolution, which releases oil and natural gas from buried shale rocks, promises a fivefold increase in the worlds known recoverable oil, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency, and double known gas reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The shale revolution has enormously increased the volume and dramatically slashed the price of natural gas in North America. Shale oil production is increasing almost as dramatically. Other factors weighing against the oilsands include slower growth in world oil demand, increasing energy efficiency, alternative fuels and possible caps on global warming emissions of carbon dioxide. BP sees world oil demand growth slowing to a rate of less than 1 per cent a year, but still increasing 2030 requirements by 16 million barrels a day. China is expected to account for fully half the increased demand. It will soon pass the United States to become the worlds l argest oil importer. But the
ability of high-cost synthetic oilsands production to crack that market at a time of ample world oil supplies is no slam dunk. Increasing efficiency in energy use will continue to reduce the U.S. need for oil. So will growing alternative fuels, such as ethane and fuels that come as a by-product of natural gas production. As

for

caps on CO2 emission, if they were implemented worldwide, the Canadian bitumen production (from the oilsands) becomes essentially nonviable, according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Plans to increase Alberta oil sales to Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have been mooted. That would likely require an expanded version of the long forgotten National Oil Policy, which prohibited the use of imported oil and refined
products west of Ottawa from 1961 to 1971. Ontario paid an average $3.46 per barrel for Alberta and Saskatchewan oil, while Quebec paid $2.65 for imported oil. The difference cost Ontario consumers a calculated $527 million billions in todays money. The program ran for 11 years before collapsing in 1972. A new, expanded National Oil Policy does not seem likely. Under any plausible scenario, the

oilsands prop of the Canadian economy seems

likely to collapse. Too bad the government has leaned so heavily on it.

BMD impact

Econ Uniqueness
Low economy leads to budget cuts military acquisition programs next to cut
CBC News, 12 (Canadian News, National defence cuts could tally $2.5B, Oct 1, 2012, The Canadian Press,
https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=mm#inbox)//GP Defence Minister Peter MacKay announces the new Canadian Forces Leopard 2A4 tank at CFB Gagetown in Oromocto, N.B., on Thursday, September 13. An

independent analysis has concluded the waves of federal budget cuts washing over National Defence will run deeper and likely be more painful than advertised by the Harper government. While it won't exactly be a return to the "decade of darkness" the Conservatives attribute to the Liberal years, the reductions will be significant and are expected to cut into the military's "readiness" or ability to respond quickly to a crisis. The days of soldiers rationing their training ammunition, fuel and money used to make equipment operationally ready may be about to return, the report warned. The research paper, written for the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University, estimates the cumulative effect of the Harper government's strategic review and the overlapping deficit reduction action plan will carve up to $2.5 billion out of the nearly $21 billion National Defence budget by 2014-15. The 27-page report, penned by defence expert Dave Perry, is believed to be the first comprehensive snapshot on the post-war military of the impact of the federal government's dual-tracked deficit reduction plan and spending freezes. " With the economy once again the government's top priority, the Canadian Forces will need to adjust to a new fiscal climate, one which will reduce its budget by at least 11 per cent over the next three years," said the research report, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press. "At the same time, the military's
ability to make budgetary adjustments has been tightly constrained by the decision to retain its front-line military capabilities. As a result, the Operations and Maintenance budget will bear the brunt of these budget cuts." Expeditionary role may be reduced The Harper government has repeatedly said it wants Canada playing a leading role internationally alongside allies, but the report warns, the way the cuts are shaking out, the military will be strained almost as badly as in the 1990s. "As a result, it will be very difficult for the military to play the same expeditionary role that it has in recent years," said the report. "While the pursuit of influence may not be over, with less funding available for operational readiness, the prospects of making influential military contributions abroad will be greatly reduced." The government's mantra of being defenders of the military will be sorely tested over the next few years. "They're cutting it quite hard, but no harder than any other government would in the same position," said Perry, who is also a researcher for the Conference of Defence Associations. "DND is a huge chunk of discretionary spending and if you want to cutback on overall federal outlays, no matter how much you like to support the military, you've got to cut defence." But a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the government has increased spending on the military by $1 billion per year since coming to office, including a guarantee of annual operating increases. "Following the combat mission in Afghanistan, and in conjunction with all government departments, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces need to ensure taxpayers are getting value for their tax dollars and that, in turn, makes the Canadian Forces more efficient and, ultimately, more effective," said Jay Paxton. Little room to manoeuvre But Perry argues that unlike past budget cutting exercises, defence has less room to manoeuvre because of a change in accounting policy and the reluctance to give up specific capabilities, such as submarines or transports. When they've wanted to reduce money to the military past governments have simply cancelled equipment purchases outright. But the system of accrual accounting, where purchases are amortized over their lifetime, means such cuts will not produce large, immediate savings. The Harper government's strategic review mandates a direct defence budget cut of $1 billion by 2014-15, but at the same time it overlaps with a planned 7.4 per cent, or $1.12 billion, reduction under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan. In 2008, the Conservatives made political hay out of the promise to give the military stable and predictable funding, with planned operating budget increases over 20 years. Perry says the $344 million extra the department gets as a result of the Canada First Defence Strategy is being more than chewed up by increased costs associated with the government's 2010 freeze on departmental spending, which came at the same time as negotiated wage hikes. "Thus, the wage measure has effectively negated any increase DND would have otherwise received under the CFDS spending plan," he wrote. The

only place left to cut would be in what's known as national procurement funding, which is money used to make equipment operationally ready. "Accounting for roughly 40 per cent of readiness spending, National Procurement encompasses the acquisition of spare parts, contracts for maintenance, repair and overhaul, technical support, and the ammunition used in training," said the report. It suggests the recent merging of commands will not save
the government very much and a suggestion in the Leslie report to axe outside contractors will hurt the air force, which relies extensively on them to keep aircraft maintained.

Economic downturn leading to defense budget cuts now Geddes, 3/14 political writer for Macleans Canada (John Geddes, March 14, 2013, Combat cutbacks: Conservatives target the military budget, Daily Mail and Globe, http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/14/cutting-where-it-hurts-most/)//GP
Back when Canadas military was deploying waves of combat troops to Afghanistan, top officers would often talk about the demanding operational tempo. In those days, the tempo of political events designed to highlight enthusiastic Conservative support for the troops was pretty brisk, too. Soon after winning power in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood before soldiers mustered on the air field in Kandahar to pledge that cutting and running is not my way. In 2008, Harper used a Halifax drill hall as the backdrop for unveiling his 20-year, $490billion Canada First Defence Strategy, promising, among other things, new ships, helicopters, planes and armoured vehicles. In 2010, Defence

Minister Peter MacKay climbed into a model of a Lockheed Martin F-35 in Ottawa to announce the governments commitment to buy 65 of the advanced fighter jets. But the once heady atmosphere around Canadas expanding military has turned subdued and anxious. The troops withdrew from combat in Kandahar in 2011, and their follow-up mission to train the Afghan army is slated to wrap up next year, with Afghanistans stability still in grave doubt. The buoyant years of rapidly ramping up spending ended when

the 2012 budget imposed three years of cuts; another squeeze is among the most anticipated items in the 2013 budget expected late this month. As for all that new hardware, not only is the widely criticized F-35 buy being reconsidered, much of the
program to upgrade equipment is plagued by delays and questions about the real costs. Asked by Macleans how the Tories hope to maintain their image as unswervingly pro-military, MacKay suggested the investments of those former years outweigh the current and coming restraint. I would put it this wayweve put a lot in the bag, he said. Indeed, the Harper government hiked annual Department of National Defence spending to $22.8 billion for 2011-12, up from $15 billion when it took office in 2005-06. As the additional billions flowed, backing the forces became a pillar of Conservative election messaging. Along with spending heavily, the Tories made strategic symbolic moves, notably by bringing back the word royal as in Royal Canadian Air Forcefour decades after the adjective binding Canadas military heritage to British tradition was erased by the Liberal government of the day. Even that nostalgia play, though, might not inoculate the Conservatives against criticism. David Perry, a doctoral fellow at Carleton Universitys Centre for Security and Defence Studies, has analyzed the cuts and says they are already biting deeper than is widely understood. And he says the next round of decisions about where to find even more savings is bound to put new stress on military and bureaucratic planners. Perrys

fine-grained analysis starts by setting aside the major parts of defence spending that are, at least in theory, protected from cuts. Last years fiscal plan called for more than $1 billion a year to be cut from the defence departments overall budget of more than $20 billion by 2014-15. That doesnt seem so tough. But the Conservatives pledged to do that while keeping up the troop strength of the Canadian Forces, at about 68,000 regular members and 27,000 in the reserves, and also protecting most planned capital spending. According to Perry, that means about $12 billion a year was deemed uncuttableleaving all the reductions to be found somehow in the remaining $8 billion that is spent on the civilian workforce and on military operations, maintenance and readiness. How hard is it to achieve those savings? The clearest indication so far came from Lt.-Gen. Peter
Devlin, the commander of the army, in surprising testimony he gave late last year before a Senate committee. Devlin said his land forces operating budget has been shrunk by an eye-popping 22 per centa figure that doesnt show up anywhere in publicly available defence documents. As you would expect, Devlin said with classic officer-class understatement, that has an effect on people, infrastructure and training. And he took pains to counter any suggestion that the army should be eliminating desk jobs to save field assets, stressing that administrative and head-office functions occupy only four per cent of his workforce. But thats just the army itself. Tough questions about National Defences multi-layered Ottawa operations could dominate the next round of debate about cuts. The department employs about 20,000 in the capital, from senior brass down through ordinary bureaucrats. Last June 15, Harper wrote to MacKay, in a private letter reported on by the Canadian Press and later obtained by Macleans, instructing him to find savings in administration. The Prime Ministers letter said that only about 44 per cent of the defence budget is attributable to the ready force, and the rest to management, institutional support and services. Harper called that a serious imbalance in our current defence organization. He instructed MacKay to present detailed proposals that critically examine corporate and institutional overhead with a view to avoiding budgetary reductions that impact on operational capabilities, the part-time reserves, training within Canada, and the promotion and protection of our national sovereignty. Harpers letter echoed the thrust of Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslies 2011 transformation report. Leslie, who has since retired, conducted an extensive study of defence spending and concluded that the department must ruthlessly focus on reducing its spending on outside consultants and private contractors, with the aim of redistributing resources to military units. He delivered his report two years ago. Yet the latest figures available show that the defence departments spending on professional services and consultants continued to climb to $3.25 billion in 2011-12 from $2.77 billion in 2009-10. And that increase came after a period when head-office growth outstripped the expansion of the fighting forces. According to Leslies report, headquarters personnel numbers grew 40 per cent from 2004 to 2010, while the regular forces grew by just 11 per cent. As the military struggles to absorb cuts in its operations, high-profile procurements are coming under more intense scrutiny. Doubts are growing about the defence departments capacity to simultaneously manage all the major projects called for in the Conservatives ambitious 2008 strategy. As well, Perry

argues that the credibility of the blueprint for re-equipping the forces is undermined by inadequate funding. There isnt actually enough money in the capital program both to buy everything thats on the list and then to maintain it once its in service, he says. That view gained a prominent piece of supporting evidence recently, when Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer whose tenure as a spending watchdog ends this month, released a detailed report that looks closely at just one multibillion-dollar projectthe planned acquisition of new naval supply ships. The project goes back to 2004, when the then-Liberal government earmarked $2.1 billion to design, develop and acquire three new supply vessels. By 2009, the Conservatives realized that wasnt nearly enough, and scaled down that project to buying just two ships, while boosting its budget to $2.6 billion. However, Pages report, released late last month, estimated a more realistic cost for two ships of $3.3 billion. Worse, he said that, given the uncertainties surrounding this sort of military purchase, the U.S. governments best practice policy suggests Ottawa should more prudently budget at least $4.1 billion for the supply shipsor about 60 per cent more than the amount currently budgeted. Why

the huge gap? Page said his best guess is that the government is sticking with a low number to avoid confronting hard truths. You make the requirements fit within the budget constraint , he said.
Controversy about administrative overhead costs, complaints that cuts are already hampering troop training and readiness, doubts about the credibility of procurement plansits a messy combination. Despite any misgivings, though, prominent Conservatives continue to tout their pro-military bona fides in the run-up to the 2013 budget. In a key speech to Conservatives in Ottawa earlier this month, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney capped a summing-up of what the party stands forfrom law and order to entrepreneurshipby touting pride in our Canadian armed forces and our history of military sacrifice and glory. With

the glory and sacrifice of the Kandahar mission fading into memory, the militarys new chapter is dominated by cost-cutting and recrimination. For the Harper government, saving money might turn out to be easier than safeguarding such a critical part of their political brand.

Increased budget cuts now readiness at all time low

Rennie, 3/18/13 analyst for the Canadian Press (Steve Rennie, Federal Budget 2013: Gen. Thomas Lawson Says Military Has No Fat
Left To Cut, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/18/canada--budget-military_n_2902963.html)//gpastor OTTAWA - Canada's

top soldier says the armed forces have no fat left to cut ahead of this week's austerity budget. But Gen. Thomas Lawson told the Senate security and defence committee he understands that militaries around the world are being forced to operate with less money. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget on Thursday is widely expected to make substantial cuts across government, and the Defence Department and Canadian Forces won't escape unscathed. Lawson, who took over last year as chief of defence staff, said the military already runs a lean operation. "I would like to think that there was fat in the armed forces," he said Monday. "I don't think there is." "What we find as we squeeze (is) that there is very little fat," he added later. Still, the governing Conservatives will be looking to shave off a little more . A leaked army planning document, obtained by The Canadian Press, says land forces are bracing for a big hit on operating and maintenance on top of existing budget cuts. Those cuts will slice into the army's ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains. The document, dated Jan. 31 and written by Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, says funding for full-time reservists will have to be further reduced, and unused cash in the budget for part-time soldiers may have to be raided in order to keep full-timers. Lawson acknowledged more reservists
many of whom signed up for full-time service during the Afghanistan mission will likely go from being full-time to part-time soldiers. "Really, we relied on them to keep the home fires burning within the headquarters as we had more and more head off into operational service," he said. "The numbers will remain the same. ... What we'll see is that we'll have far fewer full-time members of the reserve, and back to a more traditional ... part-time reserve." He also says he expects fewer outside companies will be contracted as more jobs are brought back in-house.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay last June that initial budget cut proposals did not go deep enough on the administrative side of the department. Lawson's remarks came on the heels of a paper that says the Defence Department has struggled to spend billions of dollars allocated to it in past budgets. The Conference of Defence Associations Institute puts unspent and carried-over funding over the last six years at nearly $8 billion mostly in the areas of capital equipment and infrastructure. But the problem, as defence analyst David Perry sees it, is that sections of the department that seem to find themselves with more budget dollars than they can spend are not be the ones facing reductions. Instead, he says it is areas such as operations and maintenance which have no trouble spending their allocated money that will feel the brunt of the budget cuts. "It is therefore not the case that the funds being cut would not have been spent in any event," Perry writes. "Rather, DND faces the dual pressures of funding reductions in some budget areas, and a loss of purchasing power in others." DND could lose more than $500 million worth of purchasing power, he estimates. Perry based that calculation on what he says is nearly $8 billion in unspent and carried-over budget money over the last six
years. "As Defence Specific Inflation (DSI) averages seven per cent annually, the cumulative impact of under-spending capital funds is consequential," the report says. "Assuming that these measures represent only a series of financial shifts from one fiscal year to the next, the impact of the annual seven per cent DSI applied to a total of $7.94 billion not spent in the year intended could mean a loss of $556 million worth of purchasing power." Perry also notes that while defence funding has steadily increased since 2004, there's still a big gap between the Canada First Defence Strategy's investment plan and the money allocated to implement it. The

department faces a "significant fiscal challenge," he concludes. "The existing (Canada First Defence Strategy) plan was insufficiently

resourced to finance its planned capital acquisitions, and an inability to spend money on capital acquisition in the year intended, will reduce DND's purchasing power as a result of inflation," the report says. "Both of these
measures mean that not all of the CFDS acquisitions are affordable. Three successive budgets have reduced DND's funding allocations, largely directed towards (operations and maintenance) spending.

"As a result, the Canadian Forces' readiness has been

reduced significantly."

Billions of dollars for defense spending being cut now

Clark, 12 (CAMPBELL CLARK, Mar. 29 2012, Deep cuts to military mark reversal for Harper, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/deep-cuts-to-military-mark-reversal-forharper/article4097823/)//GP The regular increases in defence spending that Stephen Harper promised to lift the Canadian military from a decade of neglect are over. For the first time, his government is not just slowing growth in military budgets but scaling them back with years of cuts. It means that by 2014-15, $1.1-billion will be slashed from the roughly $20-billion defence budget just over 5 per cent. In addition, the government will delay the purchase of $3.5-billion in equipment for seven years , allowing it to trim hundreds of millions of dollars more each year. For Mr. Harper, a Prime Minister who has centred so much of his political persona around building a Canadian military thats not only able to deploy, but will, the budget marks a reversal. Defence budgets are now going down, and combined with a $1-billion cut to spending growth announced two years ago, the military faces years of scaling back. The effect of the two rounds of budget trims amount to roughly a 10-per-cent cut from planned spending, more than $2-billion, said David Perry, a defence analyst with the CDA Institute. This is going to have a really significant impact on their ability to deploy and conduct missions, he said. The details of what will be cut were not revealed. The budget said the Department of National Defence will do things like streamline its contracting process and centralize its management of property and human resources, but its not clear what other cuts will be made. The amount the Defence Department has to trim would be equivalent to chopping the departments entire civilian staff of 29,000, Mr. Perry said. But he said he believes a big chunk will have to be come from what the military terms readiness training to fly planes, operate ships, and conduct operations that prepare the troops to go on missions. The cuts to the annual budget will get deeper in each of the next three years, starting with a $327-million reduction in the coming year and reaching $1.1-billion by 2014-15. The government is also backing off its target of increasing the size of the Canadian Forces to a regular force of 70,000 and 30,000 reserves, but the budget committed to maintaining the current, slightly smaller force of 68,000 regulars and 27,000 reserves. Some savings will come from delaying $3.5-billion in capital spending that had been planned for the next seven years the money used to buy planes, ships, tanks, trucks, and weapons. The government didnt identify what purchases it would delay, but will book savings of $500 -million this year and $1.3-billion next year from pushing off purchases. If those delayed purchases do go ahead later, the spending will have to be booked in budgets by future governments over a period of years at a time when, according to the governments defence plans, Ottawa will also be paying for multibillion-dollar purchases of new fighters and ships that will take up big chunks of the defence budget. Plans to buy the controversial F-35 fighter jets were not affected by the current budget, because costs from the purchase will not show up on government books until at least 2016. The budget said only that the government will buy an affordable replacement for the current CF-18 fighter fleet. In all, the defence budget for the rest of Mr. Harpers term will be billions less than the $21.2-billion spent last year. The cuts wont bring the defence budget back to the level it was at when Mr. Harper took office,

Mr. Perry noted, but they will undo a significant part of the increases. Its not clear, however, precisely how much that defence budget sum will be, because the government refused to provide a figure for the total defence budget in the coming year or future years affected by the budget. Before the budget, the Defence Department reported in government estimates that it would spend $19.8-billion in the 201213 fiscal year, and a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that amount will now be reduced to $19.5-billion. But because the estimates use a different accounting method from the budget, that figure doesnt include the $500-million the government says it will save that year from delaying capital spending. Based on figures from the previous budgets, the cuts would bring the defence budget to roughly $19-billion, less than it is now, in 2014-15.

BMD Uniqueness
Increased defense industry key to BMD
McDonough, 6/06/13 - is a SSHRC post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia and a research
fellow at Dalhousie Universitys Centre for Foreign Policy Studies. He is a recipient of the SSHRC Canadian Graduate Scholarship (2006 9), the SDF Dr Ronald Baker Doctoral Scholarship (200910), and Killam Doctoral Scholarships (200811). He has published widely on Canadian defence and international security, in International Journal, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, RUSI Journal, Strategic Survey, Adelphi Papers, On Track, Orbis, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Canadian Naval Review, Strategic Datalink, Third World Quarterly, Vanguard, Calgary Paper in Military and Strategic Studies (forthcoming), and Comparative Strategy (forthcoming). He is the editor of Canadas National Security in the Post -9/11 World: Strategy, Interests, and Threats (David S. McDonough, 6/06, Back to the Future: Debating Missile Defence in Canada Again, CDFAI, http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Debating%20Missile%20Defence%20in%20Canada%20Again.pdf)//GP The last point brings up another consideration, one that is closely tied to the degree of Canadas input, confidence over i ts protection, and indeed nature of its participation and that

is the question of cost. Some commentators seem to assume that Canadas participation would not entail much in the way of substantial costs, without specifying what benefit the United States would gain or why it would then choose to be open to Canadian input. More astute observers have pointed to an asymmetrical or in-kind contribution by Canada. Yet it is important to recognize that this might not come cheaply. One cannot assume that Canada could simply incorporate its existing satellite and landbased tracking facilities into Ballistic Missile Defence. 17 Canada has no land-based tracking facilities to speak of, and its recently launched military satellite (Project Sapphire) is already a component of the US Space Surveillance Network that feeds information to both NORAD and the GMD system, sharply reducing its capacity to leverage this asset to play a role in missile defence. At most, by contributing to NORADs early warning and tracking functions, Project Sapphire could potentially help safeguard the commands aerospace role and even this outcome is not guaranteed.18 Perhaps for this reason, there are reports that Canada is now looking at revising earlier plans for a ground-based xband radar at Goose Bay, Newfoundland. Such a facility would provide important tracking and cueing capabilities and additional radar coverage against an Iranian ballistic missile, especially if the United States moves ahead with constructing a third interceptor site. Defence officials seem confident that Canada would only need to supply territory and services for a total cost of $500 million, with the remainder (including the radar itself) to be supplied by the United States.19 Nevertheless, such an assumption also seems premature, at least if Ottawa hopes to translate such a contribution into input in the interception planning process itself. Indeed, with the onset of sequestration, the United States is expected to make some very sizable defence cuts over the next ten years totaling nearly $1 trillion, if one includes the initial spending caps brought in by the Budget Control Act. Even Obamas recent decision to deploy an additional 14 GBIs is expected to cost an additional $1 billion, which was only partially offset by delaying (and potentially cancelling) the development of a more advanced Standard Missile (SM-3 Block IIB) for its Aegis ships. The cost of a third interceptor site on the East coast would be even steeper. Canada could then find itself confronted with requests for additional contributions that would be difficult to ignore, whether taking a greater share of the cost of a radar site on Canadian territory or contributing funds for a third GBI site. Even Americas recent overture for Canadas participation, if reports prove accurate, could arise from Washingtons growing interest to offset some of the cost burden of this system. Canada needs a better sense of what participation entails and what costs might result from such a
decision. Proponents like Paul Chapin have criticized the previous Liberal government for rejecting the draft MOU that could provide the necessary flow of information.20 Yet there is also reason for caution. Yes, Canada would finally receive greater information on missile defe nce. But it would come at the price of having less room to refuse American preferences, even

if it discovers that the costs are higher than expected.

Increased coop over BMD now

McDonough, 6/6/13 - is a SSHRC post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia and a research
fellow at Dalhousie Universitys Centre for Foreign Policy Studies. He is a recipient of the SSHRC Canadian Graduate Schola rship (2006 9), the SDF Dr Ronald Baker Doctoral Scholarship (200910), and Killam Doctoral Scholarships (200811). He has published widely on Canadian defence and international security, in International Journal, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, RUSI Journal, Strategic Survey, Adelphi Papers, On Track, Orbis, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Canadian Naval Review, Strategic Datalink, Third World Quarterly, Vanguard, Calgary Paper in Military and Strategic Studies (forthcoming), and Comparative Strategy (forthcoming). He is the editor of Canadas National Security in the Post -9/11 World: Strategy, Interests, and Threats (David S. McDonough, 6/06, Back to the Future: Debating Missile Defence in Canada Again, CDFAI, http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Debating%20Missile%20Defence%20in%20Canada%20Again.pdf)//GPastor

President Barack Obama recently agreed to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely, Alaska by 2017, in response to growing bellicosity coming from Pyongyang . This would bring the end strength of Americas ground-based midcourse defence (GMD) system to 44 GBIs, designed primarily to undertake multiple intercept attempts against missiles from North Korea under the shoot-look-shoot doctrine, with a single-shot capacity against Iranian missiles. In so doing, the United States has shown some willingness to reconsider the value of GMD in protecting North America, even as it moves forward on theatre systems designed to counter shorter-range threats. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has even assented to an environmental assessment of a possible third interceptor site on the East Coast. Obamas recent plans have also had one unintended consequence it has reignited debate in this country on whether Canada should finally take part in the GMD system that covers North America, which was effectively closed with Prime Minister Paul Martins decision against formal participation in 2005. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has little appetite to revisit his predecessors decision even after achieving a majority Conservative government in 2011, as shown by his refusal to consider a memorandum on possible missile defence options prepared by Ministers of Foreign Affairs and National Defence John Baird and Peter MacKay in the summer of 2012.1 Yet this fact may soon change. Soon after Obamas announcement, commentators in this country began to question the wisdom of staying outside of GMD. Former diplomat Colin Robertson, for example, points to North Korea as a principal reason why Canada should now reconsider its decision.2 Others emphasize how missile defence failed to result in either space
weaponization or strategic instability, pointing out how Canadian concerns on this matter were misplaced. 3 Reports even indicate that the United States requested Canadas participation, which was just as quickly denied by the Pentagon. But the governm ent remains coy on this issue, with Peter MacKay stating how Canadas security policies were being consistently reviewed and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews calling for a broader discussion on missile defence. 4

I/L
Increase in BMD coop is the only possibility of reducing the threat of nuclear attack
Burney and Hampson, 5/21 Derek H. Burney is senior strategic adviser for Norton Rose Canada LLP and a former Canadian ambassador to the
United States (19891993). Fen Osler Hampson is director of global security at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and Chancellor s Professor at Carleton University. (Derek Burney and Fen Olser Hampson, Lets put missile defence back in our arsenal, May 21, 2013 MISSILE THREAT: A Project of the George C. Marshall and Claremont Institutes, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/lets-put-missile-defence-back-in-our-arsenal/article12003778/)//GP In a turbulent and uncertain world where nationalism and religious zealotry are on the rise, Canada

needs to consider actions that will safeguard and advance its national interests. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of nuclear proliferation, as states such as North Korea and Iran develop these weapons and, with them, a longrange missile delivery capability. A good place to start would be to relaunch discussions with the U.S. for a partnership role in ballistic missile defence. The most obvious threat is from the erratic regime in Pyongyang, which is desperately pursuing its ambition to deploy a missile capacity capable of striking the U.S. homeland. One may discount the wild rhetoric and clumsy tests, but theres little doubt that North Korea is determined to acquire a capability to threaten North America and hold our cities hostage, however perverse or irrational such a goal might seem to be. Conventional analyses simply do not apply on anything emanating from a government about which so little is known. Like it or not, given the uncertainties about North Koreas technological prowess, Canada would be as vulnerable as the United States. We would almost certainly be on the flight path of any missile the North Koreans decided to fire at the U.S., should that day come. And theres no guarantee that a missile directed at Washington or New York, or even Seattle or Los Angeles, wouldnt inadvertently land on Toronto or Vancouver. It would be prudent for us to act accordingly and begin to deal with this security challenge now. The infamous Kim dynasty has ruined the lives
of millions of its own people, most of whom, apart from a privileged military and civilian elite, live in brutal gulag-style conditions denied even the most basic means of livelihood. What little wealth North Korea generates, mostly through illicit drug and arms sales, is squandered on military muscle and advanced weapons technology. What the newest Kim intends to do with North Koreas nuclear arsenal, assuming hes really in control, is as unp redictable as it is destabilizing. Even China, its closest neighbour and ally, is increasingly wary about spontaneous combustion on the Korean Peninsula. The humanitarian and economic fallout would be devastating, and not just in the immediate vicinity. Canada came very close to signing a ballistic missile defence agreement with the U.S. in 2004 but backed away at the last minute, ostensibly to avoid a renewal of the arms race but more likely because of domestic political allergies about doing anything on security with the George W. Bush administration. At that time, the Liberal government of Paul Martin seemed to want a say in what was planned but was reluctant t o make any kind of hard commitment to participate. As a result, were on the outside looking in at what had the potential of refitt ing NORAD to a 21st-century threat. (The initial purpose of NORAD was for a different threat in a different age.) By standing down, we simply became irrelevant. A

priority for any government is the preservation of national security and, if anything, the risk of nuclear proliferation is greater today than it was a decade ago and not just from North Korea but also from countries such as Iran that appear intent on acquiring such capabilities. Initiatives are under way to quash the threat from terrorists, including the homegrown variety. Even more lethal are looming missile threats against which Canada has no practical defence other than to hope that our neighbour will act in its own interest and defend us against an attack, accidental or otherwise. Thats simply not good enough . The best antidote to the antics of North Korea is, as political economist Nicholas Eberstadt contended in The Wall Street Journal recently, a threat reduction strategy a combination of sustained military and civilian actions, and not a repeat of offers of dialogue in the face of bait and switch extortion demands from North Korea trying to gain rewards for bad behaviour from all-too-gullible Western powers. A serious effort by Canada to join in ballistic missile defence could be a constructive and prudent part of this strategy, complementing our continued support for strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation treaty regime, and would provide us with both a say and a role against missiles from other regimes as well. The time to act in our own security interest is now, and a partnership in ballistic missile defence should be the obvious priority .

Threat of Nuclear attack real nations without missile defense in danger now
Calabresi, 2/12 (Massimo Calabresi, Feb. 12, 2013, Is Iran a Bigger Threat than North Korea?, Time Magazine,
http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/12/why-a-nuclear-iran-worries-obama-more-than-north-korea/)//GP

President Barack Obama has committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, by military force if necessary. Last year, he told Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, As President of the United States, I dont bluff. But why should anyone believe him when North Korea has gone nuclear with impunity? Its an uncomfortable question for the Administration, at a particularly bad moment. North Koreas third nuclear test, confirmed overnight by its KCNA news agency, comes just as the U.S. is entering a new round of diplomacy with Iran. Talks are scheduled between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency this week; negotiations between Iran, the U.S. and other world powers will take place on Feb. 26 in Kazakhstan. Expectations are low for both talks, but at the least the Administration is hoping to push back further into the future any possible military action against the Iranian nuclear program. A harder line by Tehran in the wake of the North Korean test could move things in the wrong direction. But current and former Administration officials argue the two situations are different and that Iran would be making a mistake to see strength in North Koreas defiance of international sanctions and its abandonment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Administration officials admit that they have adopted a policy of containing a nuclear North Korea, even as they say Pyongyangs program is unacceptable, but they say theres no way they would cave in to containing Iran if Tehran went nuclear. They explain their position like this: First, containing a nuclear North Korea, as the U.S. contained Russia in the Cold War, is possible. Containing a nuclear Iran is not . Japan and South Korea accept the U.S. nuclear umbrella to protect them, thereby preventing a regional arms race that could lead to nukes all over Asia. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are unlikely to accept U.S. guarantees of protection against a nuclear Iran, so would pursue their own programs. That would mean a region that is already prone to conflict suddenly awash in nukes. The risk of having a crisis [in a nuclear Middle East] that moves very quickly, and not controllably, increases geometrically the prospect of a nuclear war, says a former senior Administration official familiar with Obamas thinking on Iran. Second, say former and current Administration officials, the
North Korea situation was inherited: North Korea kicked out nuclear watchdogs and tested its first nuclear weapon before Obama came into office, so Pyongyang was already nuclear and was already being contained. Rather than preventing the North from going nuclear, Obama would have ha d to disarm the country. Then youre talking about a rollback strategy, says another former senior Administration official, which is harder than hitting a program like Irans before it has a nuclear weapon stashed away for its defense. Third, the Administration says, even if it wanted to take out the North Korean nuclear sites, it cant: it doesnt know where many of them are. Nobody has any idea where the North Korean stuff is, says another former senior Administration official. There are facilit ies that can be hit, but in terms of the reprocessed plutonium and aspects of the uranium-enrichment program, we have much less of an idea, compared with Iran. Last, the regional politics are different. In

the Middle East, Israel has made it clear publicly and privately that it will take military action to stop Iran from going nuclear. If it did, the U.S. likely would be drawn into a war regardless. In
Asia, a U.S. attack on North Korea, nominally an ally of China, would be more destabilizing than the current approach of trying to contain Pyongyang, the Administration argues. Ultimately, the U.S. hopes China will pressure North Kore a to stop the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Chinas response to North Koreas test was firm, but noncommittal. The Administration is pursuing further sanctions against the North at the U.N. today, and is looking for Chinese support.

Increase in BMD tech is the only way to protect Canada from nuclear attack
ROBERTSON, 4/02/13 - A former diplomat, Colin Robertson is vice president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and a senior
strategic advisor to McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP. (COLIN ROBERTSON, Apr. 03 2013, North Korea s threats show that Canada needs to be part of U.S. missile defence pact http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/north-koreas-threats-show-that-canada-needs-to-be-part-of-us-missile-defencepact/article10713612/)//GP

Kim Jong-Un is the third in his family to lead the Hermit Kingdom, and this month has all but declared war including threats to target North America. Normally, sabre rattling by tinpot dictators can be managed or contained. But not when the sabres are ballistic missiles. Nuclear threats are not a game, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned on Tuesday: Aggressive rhetoric and military posturing only result in counter-actions, and fuel fear and instability. Coupled with the improvements that Iran is making to its own ballistic missile capacity, the threat to North America is now clear and present. The United States has moved aircraft and warships to the area and announced that it will increase its ground-based interceptors in California and Alaska. Canada has a conflicted history when it comes to nuclear weapons and domestic defence from them. Though we were present at the creation nuclear-energy research during the Second World War in Canada was vital we eschewed the development of nuclear arms for ourselves. Instead, we opted to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes through the CANDU
reactor. (We were later deceived by the Indians, who developed their own nuclear weaponry using plutonium derived from a research reactor provided by Canada.) Placement of nuclear warheads on Canadian soil, as part of our alliance commitment, tormented John Diefenbaker and the resultingBOMARC controversy contributed to his governments undoing. Lester B. Pearson, who succeeded Mr. Diefenbaker as prime minister, faced similar di ssent but concluded

that our obligations to NORAD and NATO required participation. Mr. Pearson, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize over the Suez crisis, was derisively labelled the defrocked prince of peace by a young Pierre Trudeau. Two decades later, prim e minister Trudeau faced similar divisions in his own cabinet over testing of cruise missiles on Canadian soil. Mr. Trudeau allowed the testing, arguing that it is hardly fair to rely on the A mericans to protect the West, but to refuse to lend them a hand when the going gets rough. In good company (with Australia, France et al), prime minister Brian Mulroney rejected participation in the U.S. Star Wars missile-defence program because Canada would not be able to call the shots. When

Ballistic Missile Defence was developed under George W. Bush, prime minister Paul Martin opted out, to the confusion of his new defence chief and ambassador to the United States, both of whom thought that he was going to sign on. A divided Liberal caucus, especially the opposition from Quebec, had helped change Mr. Martins mind.
Mr. Bush was advised that newly-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper would not welcome a renewed request. Mr. Bush found this puzzling, reportedly asking what would happen if a North Korean missile, aimed at Los Angeles or Seattle, wound up heading towards Vancouver or Calgary. The rest of the alliance, as well as Australia, Japan and South Korea, have signed onto missile defence. The Israelis Iron Dome recently demonstrated the defensi ve worth of anti-missile technology. Critics see Ballistic Missile Defence as a latter-day Maginot Line costly, unreliable, and provocative. If you want to detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States you would not send it by missile. NORAD, they argue, provides sufficient defence. But continental defence has been integral to Canadian national security since MacKenzie King and Franklin Rooseveltparleyed at Kingston in 1938. We were architects of NATO because ofour belief in collective security. The

U.S. defence umbrella has guaranteed the peace since 1945, and has coincided with the greatest growth in trade in world history. Canada has been a principal beneficiary, with marginal premiums. Some Canadians, wrote Mr. Trudeau during the cruise missile debate, are eager to take refuge under the U.S. umbrella, but dont want to help hold it. Membership in the alliance entails obligations. But it also brings great benefits that serve our national interests. Incorporating our satellite and land-based tracking facilities into Ballistic Missile Defence could make a difference in shielding Canadians should the missiles be launched. A Senate report in 2006 concluded that an effective BMD could save hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives. Protecting Canadians
(and Americans) was the logic of the original DEW line and NORAD, our bi-national aerospace defence agreement that has served us since 1958 and now includes aspects of maritime defence. Last summer, ministers John Baird and Peter McKay prepared a memorandum for Mr. Harper presenting Ballistic Missile Defence options. The

Prime Minister decided the timing was not right. Circumstances have changed. BMD should now be incorporated into our Canada First defence strategy.

Impact
Nuclear War leads to extinction
Shultz et al, 2007 - A conference organized by Mr. Shultz and Sidney D. Drell was held at Hoover to reconsider the vision that Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev
brought to Reykjavik. In addition to Messrs. Shultz and Drell, the following participants also endorse the view in this statement: Martin Anderson, Steve Andreasen, Michael Armacost, William Crowe, James Goodby, Thomas Graham Jr., Thomas Henriksen, David Holloway, Max Kampelman, Jack Matlock, John McLaughlin, Don Oberdorfer, Rozanne Ridgway, Henry Rowen, Roald Sagdeev and Abraham Sofaer. (George Shultz, January 4 2007, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Wall Street Journal By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn0, The Wall Street Journal January 4, 2007; http://fcnl.org/issues/nuclear/world_free_of_nuclear_weapons/)//GP Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective. North

Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium -- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges. Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old
Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The

United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War? * * * Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace" address to the United Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged
America's "determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." John F. Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear disarmament, said,

"The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution." Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed, " Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it on our planet earth . We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness."
Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which had also been expressed by previous American presidents. Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in turning the arms race on its head. They initiated steps leading to significant reductions in deployed long- and intermediate-range nuclear forces, including the elimination of an entire class of threatening missiles. What will it take to rekindle the vision shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the challenge posed by these two questions. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of all nuclear weapons. It provides (a) that states that did not possess nuclear weapons as of 1967 agree not to obtain them, and (b) that states that do possess them agree to divest themselves of these weapons over time. Every president of both parties since Richard Nixon has reaffirmed these treaty obligations, but non-nuclear weapon states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear powers. Strong nonproliferation efforts are under way. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Additional Protocols are innovative approaches that provide powerful new tools for detecting activities that violate the NPT and endanger world security. They deserve full implementation.

The negotiations on proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea and Iran, involving all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Japan, are crucially important. They must be energetically pursued. But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger. Reagan and General Secretary
Gorbachev aspired to accomplish more at their meeting in Reykjavik 20 years ago -- the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, but galvanized the hopes of people around the world. The leaders of the two countries with the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the abolition of their most powerful weapons. * * * What should be done? Can the promise of the NPT and the possibilities envisioned at Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We

believe that a major effort should be launched by the United States to produce a positive answer through concrete stages. First and foremost is intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of
nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way

to avoid the emergence of a nuclear-armed

North Korea and Iran.

The program on which agreements should be sought would constitute a series of agreed and urgent steps that would lay the

groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat. Steps would include: Changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and thereby reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon. Continuing to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them. Eliminating short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward-deployed. Initiating a bipartisan process with the Senate, including understandings to increase confidence and provide for periodic review, to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of recent technical advances, and working to secure ratification by other key states. Providing the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world. Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the guarantee that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a reasonable price, first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and then from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international reserves. It will also be necessary to deal with proliferation issues presented by spent fuel from reactors producing electricity. Halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research facilities around the world and rendering the materials safe. Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers. Achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will also require effective measures to impede or counter any nuclear-related conduct that is potentially threatening to the security of any state or peoples. Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage

. The effort could have a

profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal, beginning with the measures outlined above.

north korea impact

I/L
The US Will get involved in any attack on its allies
Associated Press, 03/11/13 (North Korea nuclear threats hyperbolic and bellicose rhetoric, but U.S. will protect allies if need be: White House,
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/11/north-korea-nuclear-threats-hyperbolic-and-bellicose-rhetoric-but-u-s-will-protect-allies-if-need-be-white-house/)//GP WASHINGTON President

Barack Obamas spokesman says the White House is concerned by war threats coming from North Korea. North Korean state media said Monday that Pyongyang was cancelling the 60-year-old armistice that ended the Korean War. White House press secretary Jay Carney responded that Pyongyang will achieve nothing with threats. But he said the White House is concerned by North Koreas bellicose rhetoric. Obama National Security adviser Tom Donilon told a meeting of the Asia Society in New York the claims may be hyperbolic. He said the United States will protect its allies if Pyongyang uses any weapons of mass destruction or transfers nuclear materials. Donilon also said Obama will
meet with newly inaugurated South Korean President Park Geun-hye at the White House in May. North and South Korea staged dueling war games Monday as threatening rhetoric from the rivals rose to the highest level since North Korea rained artillery shells on a South Kor ean island in 2010. Enraged over the Souths joint military drills with the United States and recent UN sanctions, Pyongyang has piled threat on top of threat, including vows to launch a nuclear strike on the U.S. and to scrap the nearly 60-year-old armistice that ended the Korean War. Seoul has responded with tough talk of its own and has placed its troops on high alert. North Koreas main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, reported that the armistice was nullified Monday as Pyongyang had earlier announ ced. The North followed through on another promise Monday, shutting down a Red Cross hotline that the North and South used for general communication and to discuss aid shipments and separated families reunions. The 11-day military drills that started Monday involve 10,000 South Korean and about 3,000 American troops. Those coincide with two months of separate U.S.-South Korean field exercises that began March 1. Also continuing are large-scale North Korean drills that Seoul says involve the army, navy and air force. The South Korean defense ministry said there have been no military activities it considers suspicious. The North has threatened to nullify the armistice several times in times of tension with the outside world, and in 1996 the country sent hundreds of armed troops into a border village. The troops later withdrew. Despite the heightened tension, there were signs of business as usual Monday. The two Koreas continue to have at least two working channels of communication between their militaries and aviation authorities. One of those hotlines was used Monday to give hundreds of South Koreans approval to enter North Korea to go to work. Their jobs are at the only remaining operational symbol of joint inter-Korean cooperation, the Kaesong industrial complex. It is operated in North Korea with South Korean money and knowhow and a mostly North Korean work force. The

North Korean rhetoric escalated as the UN Security Council last week approved a new round of sanctions over Pyongyangs latest nuclear weapons test Feb. 12. Analysts said that much of the bellicosity is meant to shore up loyalty among citizens and the military for North Koreas young leader, Kim Jong-un. This is part of their brinksmanship, said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based expert on North Korea with the International Crisis Group think tank. Its an effort to signal their resolve, to show they are willing to take greater risks, with the expectation that everyone else caves in and gives them what they want. Part of what North Korea
wants is a formal peace treaty to end the Korean War, instead of the armistice that leaves the peninsula still technically in a state of war. It also wants security guarantees and other concessions, direct talks with Washington, recognition as a nuclear weapons state and the removal of 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. Pinkston

said there is little chance of fighting breaking out while war games are being conducted, but he added that he expects North Korea to follow through with a somewhat mysterious promise to respond at a time and place of its own choosing. North Korea was responsible for an artillery attack that killed four South Koreans in
2010. A South Korean-led international investigation found that North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship that same year, killing 46 sailors. Pyongyang denies sinking the ship. Among other threats in the past week, North Korea has warned Seoul of a nuclear war on the divided peninsula and said it was cancelling nonaggression pacts. South Korean and U.S. officials have been closely monitoring Pyongyangs actions and parsing its recent rhetoric, which has been more warlike than usual. One analyst said Kaesongs continued operations show that North Koreas cutting of the Red Cross communi cation channel was symbolic. More than 840 South Koreans were set to cross the border Monday to Kaesong, which provides a badly-needed flow of hard currency to a country where many face food shortages, according to Seouls Unification Ministry. If South Koreans dont go to work at Kaesong, North Korea will suffer *financially+, said analyst Hong Hyun -ik at the private Sejong Institute in South Korea. If North Korea really intends to start a war with South Korea, it could have taken South Koreans at Kaesong hostage. Under newly inaugurated President Park Geun-hye, South Koreas Defense Ministry, which often brushes off North Korean threats, has looked to send a message of strength in response to the latest comments from Pyongyang. The

ministry has warned that the Norths government would evaporate from the face of the Earth if it ever used a nuclear weapon. The White House also said the U.S. is fully capable of defending itself against a North Korean ballistic attack. On Monday, Park told a
Cabinet Council meeting that South Korea should strongly respond to any provocation by North Korea. But she also said Seoul should move ahead with her campaign promise to build up trust with the North. North

Korea has said the U.S. mainland is within the range of its long-range missiles, and an army general told a Pyongyang rally last week that the military is ready to fire a long-range nuclear-armed missile to turn Washington into a sea of fire.

US Would strike North Korea off the face of the earth if Canada was attacked
ANTHONY DePALMA, 99 (Anthony DePalma, March 07, 1999, Word for Word/News of the North; How Canadians Stopped Worrying And Laughed at a Journalistic Bomb, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/weekinreview/word-for-word-north-canadians-stopped-worrying-laughed-journalistic-bomb.html)//GP The original report appeared on Feb. 12 in The National Post, the new flagship of the Southam newspaper chain. The article had more prominence on the front page than news of the expected acquittal of President Clinton that day:

U.S. Army officials say they expect Canada would be the first target of a North Korean nuclear attack if tensions were to escalate between the Communist power and the United States. According to a war scenario being developed at the U.S. Army War College, Montreal would be the Canadian city likely to be hit by North Korea, which is suspected of having nuclear weapons. Three Canadian M.P.'s were briefed about the war scenario during a meeting of elected representatives from the 16 NATO countries in Carlisle, Pa., last week, the National Post has learned. U.S. Army officials told the MP's they doubt North Korea would attack the U.S. directly because it would result in massive nuclear retaliation that would wipe the Asian nation off the map. American officials therefore think it more likely for North Korea to hit U.S. interests indirectly by attacking a close ally and a friend -- Canada -that does not have nuclear weapons.

Attack on Canada would be perceived as an attack on the U.S.

Bratt, 06 - teaches political science in the Department of Policy Studies at Mount Royal College. (Duane Bratt, The Politics of Candu Exports, Book)//GP
Eventually Canada did reverse course and began, in 1968, to remove all nuclear weapons systems from its bases. The process of nuclear weapons removal allowed Pierre Trudeau to give his famous nuclear suffocation speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1978. During this speech, Trudeau bragged that Canada was not only the first country with the capability to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first nuclear-armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons. What Trudeau did not mention in his speech was that there were still nuclear weapons in Canada. In fact, it would not be until 1984

Despite having removed U.S. nuclear weapons from its forces and territory, Canada remains firmly under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella. It participates in the nuclear defense of North America not only through its membership in NATO but also through NORAD. And even if Canada were not a member of these alliances, it is likely that Washington would continue to view an attack against its northern neighbor as an attack against the
that Canada was completely free of nuclear weapons.

United States . Thus, it can be argued that American nuclear deterrence would extend to include Canadian territory irregardless of Ottawas nuclear policy. Canadians generally believe in nuclear non-proliferation, and Canada
was the first country capable of building nuclear weapons that decided not to. It has continued to refrain from developing nuclear weapons and, in a precedentsetting move that Ukraine and Kazakhstan later followed, removed all nuclear weapons from its soil. Canada also implemented a policy of not assisting in any countrys production of nuclear weapons through either CANDU or uranium expo rts. However, Canada

continues to accept the protection of the American nuclear umbrella. There is a certain logic to the Canadian position, but one can also understand why countries like India and
Pakistan, which may not live in such a secure environment, view the Canadians as hypocrites for preaching against the development of nuclear weapons while at the same time accepting their protection.

Attack on Canada would be perceived as an attack on the U.S.

Bratt, 06 - teaches political science in the Department of Policy Studies at Mount Royal College. (Duane Bratt, The Politics of Candu Exports, Book)//GP
Eventually Canada did reverse course and began, in 1968, to remove all nuclear weapons systems from its bases. The process of nuclear weapons removal allowed Pierre Trudeau to give his famous nuclear suffocation speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1978. During this speech, Trudeau bragged that Canada was not only the first country with the capability to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first nuclear-armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons. What Trudeau did not mention in his speech was that there were still nuclear weapons in Canada. In fact, it would not be until 1984

Despite having removed U.S. nuclear weapons from its forces and territory, Canada remains firmly under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella. It participates in the nuclear defense of North America not only through its membership in NATO but also through NORAD. And even if Canada were not a member of these alliances, it is likely that Washington would continue to view an attack against its northern neighbor as an attack against the
that Canada was completely free of nuclear weapons.

United States . Thus, it can be argued that American nuclear deterrence would extend to include Canadian territory irregardless of Ottawas nuclear policy. Canadians generally believe in nuclear non-proliferation, and Canada
was the first country capable of building nuclear weapons that decided not to. It has continued to refrain from developing nuclear weapons and, in a precedent-

setting move that Ukraine and Kazakhstan later followed, removed all nuclear weapons from its soil. Canada also implemented a policy of not assisting in any countrys production of nuclear weapons through either CANDU or uranium exports. However, Canada

continues to accept the protection

of the American nuclear umbrella. There is a certain logic to the Canadian position, but one can also understand why countries like India and
Pakistan, which may not live in such a secure environment, view the Canadians as hypocrites for preaching against the development of nuclear weapons while at the same time accepting their protection.

North Korea attacks draws Canada in causes nuclear war

Bratt, 06 - teaches political science in the Department of Policy Studies at Mount Royal College. (Duane Bratt, The Politics of Candu Exports, Book)//GP The death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and the changing of the guard in that unhappy country will be felt around the world , but one defence expert says the potential is there for Canada to launch a military presence there with allied forces, nearly 60 years after the end of the Korean War. With so much uncertainty surrounding the future of North Korea under the rule of Kims youngest son Kim Jong-un Canada likely would play a key role in any international response should the regime collapse, said Christian Leuprecht of Queens University in Kingston, Ont. If there was a conflict on the Korean Peninsula, (Canada) would likely end up getting dragged into it because we consider ourselves a South Korean ally, said Leuprecht, from the department of political studies at Queens. We were there in the early 50s, so chances are we would support them again if there was a conflict. Whatever happens there has direct repercussions for us here in Canada. That prospect is sure to bring a chill to veterans of the brutal 1950-53 Korean War like 78-year-old Harry
Marshall of Peterborough, Ont. He served 18 months in the region in 1952 and 1953; he said he hopes the situation there improves without the need for military action. Marshall

agrees, though, that Canada would help out its allies if tensions boiled over, but he hopes the new leader will take a different approach to governing. I hope to hell it doesnt come to that, said Marshall, who serves as president of a chapter of the Korea Veterans Association of Canada in Peterborough. This one would be a modern (war) with all the nuclear stuff theyve got going around. I dont think Id want to see that happen at all. Once was enough. I think Canada would stand up again to help them out. I think North Korea would have to let off some of those long-range missiles they got. So far, they havent directed them on any positive targets from what I can tell. It would take quite a bit (to motivate military action), but I dont think South Korea will stand for anything. What Ive seen of their army, theyre pretty good, too. Very skillful. On Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Canada has made a firm commitment to ensure peace in the region. It is past due for North Korea to change its ways and for those who lead it to meet the real needs of the North Korean people, Baird said in a statement. Canada remains committed to a secure Korean Peninsula and a peaceful, prosperous broader region; we will work with our allies to those ends. Prime Minister Stephen Harper also weighed in on the issue and said North Korea should close this sad chapter in its history
following the death of leader Kim Jong-il, and use his death as a means to achieve positive change going forward. In a statement, Harper said the legacy of Kim i s far from admirable and that his death brings great opportunities to move ahead in a different direction. Kim Jong -il will be remembered as the leader of a totalitarian regime who violated the basic rights of the North Korean people for nearly two decades, Harper said. We hope his passing brings positive change, allowing the people of North Korea to emerge from six decades of isolation, oppression and misery. L euprecht

said it will be hard to determine how things are playing out in North Korea in the early days of its new leadership. With a lack of
social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook, there is virtually no flow of intelligence coming from people inside the Hermit Kingdom, he said, For about a year, Kim had been trying to secure succession for his youngest son , but it is not clear if he has been able to manage this transition. The whole regime has been built around this personality cult around this family, said Leuprecht. The continuity of the regime hinges on their ability to in stall him as a credible successor to his father. Leuprecht said its widely believed that, since Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke in 2008, North

Koreas military council essentially has been running the country. He said that potential friction between the new leader and military authorities could provide fuel for future
conflict. If the new leader wanted to lay the framework for a different direction for North Korea, Leuprecht said even that wouldnt be easy. Theres a serious generational gap between the senior military leadership which is in their 70s and 80s and him, he said of the man believed to be in his late 20s. Theyre not just going to transfer power to somebody 50 years younger than they are. Im not sure Kim Jong -un would have the legitimacy that he would need and the credibility to institute reforms, even if he wanted to. If he tries to do it in an autocratic way (it would be) splitting the regime and causing only further instability.

impact
Nuclear War leads to extinction
Shultz et al, 2007 - A conference organized by Mr. Shultz and Sidney D. Drell was held at Hoover to reconsider the vision that Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev
brought to Reykjavik. In addition to Messrs. Shultz and Drell, the following participants also endorse the view in this statement: Martin Anderson, Steve Andreasen, Michael Armacost, William Crowe, James Goodby, Thomas Graham Jr., Thomas Henriksen, David Holloway, Max Kampelman, Jack Matlock, John McLaughlin, Don Oberdorfer, Rozanne Ridgway, Henry Rowen, Roald Sagdeev and Abraham Sofaer. (George Shultz, January 4 2007, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Wall Street Journal By George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn0, The Wall Street Journal January 4, 2007; http://fcnl.org/issues/nuclear/world_free_of_nuclear_weapons/)//GP Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective. North

Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium -- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges. Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old
Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The

United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War? * * * Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace" address to the United Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged
America's "determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." John F. Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear disarmament, said,

"The world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution." Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988, appealed, " Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million: the end of life as we know it on our planet earth . We come to the United Nations to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness."
Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which had also been expressed by previous American presidents. Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the goal of an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in turning the arms race on its head. They initiated steps leading to significant reductions in deployed long- and intermediate-range nuclear forces, including the elimination of an entire class of threatening missiles. What will it take to rekindle the vision shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a world-wide consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the challenge posed by these two questions. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of all nuclear weapons. It provides (a) that states that did not possess nuclear weapons as of 1967 agree not to obtain them, and (b) that states that do possess them agree to divest themselves of these weapons over time. Every president of both parties since Richard Nixon has reaffirmed these treaty obligations, but non-nuclear weapon states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear powers. Strong nonproliferation efforts are under way. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Additional Protocols are innovative approaches that provide powerful new tools for detecting activities that violate the NPT and endanger world security. They deserve full implementation.

The negotiations on proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea and Iran, involving all the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Japan, are crucially important. They must be energetically pursued. But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger. Reagan and General Secretary
Gorbachev aspired to accomplish more at their meeting in Reykjavik 20 years ago -- the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, but galvanized the hopes of people around the world. The leaders of the two countries with the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the abolition of their most powerful weapons. * * * What should be done? Can the promise of the NPT and the possibilities envisioned at Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We

believe that a major effort should be launched by the United States to produce a positive answer through concrete stages. First and foremost is intensive work with leaders of the countries in possession of
nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend additional weight to efforts already under way

to avoid the emergence of a nuclear-armed

North Korea and Iran.

The program on which agreements should be sought would constitute a series of agreed and urgent steps that would lay the

groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat. Steps would include: Changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and thereby reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon. Continuing to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them. Eliminating short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward-deployed. Initiating a bipartisan process with the Senate, including understandings to increase confidence and provide for periodic review, to achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of recent technical advances, and working to secure ratification by other key states. Providing the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world. Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the guarantee that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a reasonable price, first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and then from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international reserves. It will also be necessary to deal with proliferation issues presented by spent fuel from reactors producing electricity. Halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research facilities around the world and rendering the materials safe. Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers. Achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will also require effective measures to impede or counter any nuclear-related conduct that is potentially threatening to the security of any state or peoples. Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage

. The effort could have a

profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal, beginning with the measures outlined above.

at: squo solves

Current engagement is insufficient substantial investments are needed
Graham, 10 governance consultant and former Senior Associate with the Institute On Governance (John Graham, first quarter 2010, Canadia n Policy in the
Americas: Between Rhetoric and Reality a Needless Distance, Canada Among nations, 2009-2010: As Others See Us, pages 110-112)//KP THE POLICY: CAN IT WORK? The policy of re-engagement with the Americas is well out of the gate, but it is unlikely to reach its destination without a major adjustment in the governments approach to foreign policy. Misconceptions about the importance of foreign policy delivery systems to vital national interests began with Pierre Trudeau, became entrenched under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, and, more recently, have been exacerbated by Stephen Harper. Such robust initiatives as the International Criminal Court, demining, the responsibility to protect, an d now the Americas

strategy have been advanced, but the machinery necessary to sustain and build Canadian credibility with foreign governments has been allowed to rust. Forget about punching above our weight, although thanks to the skill of some
individuals this still occurs. In more concrete terms, our current condition means that we are less able to compete with our competitors. This diagnosis does not apply solely to the front lines of foreign policy as usually represented by DFAIT and CIDA, but to the need for well coordina ted and well resourced whole of government operations. Go

to the capitals in Latin America and ask the foreign ministry or the office of the president which foreign governments are top in terms of access and influence. In almost all cases, Canada will not be in the top ten, a situation that cannot be laid at the door of the Canadian ambassador. Because public diplomacy has been removed from the Canadian diplomatic toolkit, it is difficult for Canadian representatives to broadcast achievements and the message of serious re-engagement. It is absurd that many key groups in target countries are still largely unaware that their countries have become Canadas third highest foreign policy priority . No wonder there is little reciprocity
of that view. A more general problem is the failure at the political level to understand the importance of relationships of mutual confidence among senior professionals and the value of open dialogue that emerges when shared confidence exists. There are exceptions, but policy development has been stunted by a culture of suspicion. Successive governments have resisted coming to grips with the dynamics and the costs of effective foreign policy. The result has been a decline in image, leverage, and productivity. In 2003, Andrew Cohen wrote that without real resources it is harder for Canada to be taken seriously. Six years later it is much harder. Thomas Friedman (2008) recalls an aphorism by Pentagon planners: A vision without resources is a hallucination. A r ecent survey by the Strategic Council of Canada reports Canadians widespread self-satisfaction with living in the best country in the world. The survey underscores the disconnect between how we see ourselves and how others see us. Canada

will not achieve its Americas policy objectives without changing the core of its policymaking and without substantial investments. This year at a major conference in Kingston on hemispheric security, a
Brazilian general was asked to explain the secret of Brazils remarkable growth over the past decade into a much respected an d influential player on the world stage. The answer was complex, involving growth and good governance. But the key, the general said, was diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy!

at: diversification now

Recent attempts at diversification failed new strategy needed for growth
McKenna 4/4/13 National Business Correspondent for The Globe and Mail (Barrie McKenna, 4 April 2013, For Canadian Trade, a lost decade, The
Globe and Mail, http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/for-canadian-trade-a-lostdecade/article10719450/?service=mobile)//KP

After nine free trade deals, countless trade missions and endless talk of global diversification, Canada remains as wedded as ever to the U.S. market. Efforts to broaden and grow the countrys exports apparently arent working, committing Canada to a lost decade in trade, according to a report Wednesday by CIBC World
Markets Inc. Merchandise trade figures for February, due out Friday, are expected to show that Canada continues to run a small trade deficit, but the gap has been narrowing in recent months thanks to rebounding energy exports and a lower dollar. The CIBC report points out that the

volume of Canadian exports to all countries is back to the same level it was a decade ago. The share of non-U.S. exports peaked at 25 per cent last year and is now falling again. China and Britain accounted for virtually all the recent diversification. In Britains case, the main driver was a 300 per cent rise in the price of gold hardly an inspiring diversification story, argue CIBC economists Benjamin Tal and Andrew Grantham. This uni-diversification is certainly not what the architects of Canadas nine free trade agreements with non-U.S. partners envisioned, Mr. Tal and Mr. Grantham write. This was a lost decade for Canadian exports. And for a small, open economy, this is not a positive trajectory. Canadas share of non-U.S. exports rose to 25 per cent from 13 per cent between 2001 and 2009. But its been stuck at roughly that level since. Despite intensifying efforts, Canadian export diversification is losing momentum the report says. The strength of the Canadian
dollar in the early 2000s is only partly responsible for the poor export performance, according to CIBC. Just as important have been weak U.S. demand, diminishing returns from the North American free trade agreement, competition from emerging markets and cost-cutting by U.S. manufacturers. CIBC cautions that while

the U.S. economy is showing signs of life, it likely wont be a long-term answer for Canadas export woes, due to U.S. fiscal restraint and more cautious consumers. So the promise of trade lies in China and beyond. Mr. Tal and Mr. Grantham conclude that Canadas modest success penetrating the Chinese market suggests that despite a strong currency, Canadian companies can win and compete in a very competitive emerging market environment. Since 2003, China has accounted for half
of the export growth to developing countries.

Diversification isnt necessary and wouldnt solve anything the U.S. economy is fine
Walberg 4/23/13 business author for the Financial Post (Rebecca Walberg, 23 April 2013, Dont write them off just yet: U.S. still critical to Canadian
exporters, Financial Post, http://business.financialpost.com/2013/04/23/dont -write-them-off-just-yet-u-s-still-critical-to-canadian-exporters/)//KP

Calls to diversify Canadian exports beyond American markets intensified in late 2012, as the U.S. approached its fiscal cliff. The push to reduce the dependence of Canadian trade upon the U.S. is nothing new , though, despite the steady increase of other markets as consumers of Canadian goods. I n 1999, 87% of total exports went to the U.S., and in 2012 that number had fallen to 75%. Even with this decrease, government ministers, business spokespeople and economists have in recent months called for diversifying Canadian trade, citing the problems plaguing the U.S. economy and the strength of the Canadian dollar, whose relative weakness traditionally underpinned Canadian exports to the U.S. But is the conventional wisdom right? Peter Hall, chief economist for Export Development Canada, doesnt agree that the American economy is in so precarious a state that Canada should look elsewhere for markets. I challenge the notion that the U.S. isnt doing well, he says. Yes, the aggregate numbers are nothing to write home about. But when you look more closely at the sources of growth and decline in the U.S., there is a clear defining line between those two.
Government spending, which is not yet in full austerity mode, has decreased sharply, and with cuts in pensions and healthcare spending expected in the near future, the government will withdraw from the U.S. economy even more. Growth, however, ranges

from promising in some sectors to booming in others, says Mr. Hall, enough to offset the government contraction, with better to come. New starts in the housing sector, traditionally an indicator of economic strength, are growing by 40% per year, while consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of the U.S. economy, is rising at an inflation-adjusted rate

of 5% without a reduction in savings. Business investment in machinery and equipment is also growing at a very strong pace, says Mr. Hall. American businesses are sitting on US$6.2-trillion of cash or near-cash; thats between 35% and 40% of U.S. GDP. We believe theyre about to start spending that reserve. The capacity gap that opened up in the recession has now been 98% closed, and that means that in order to keep pace with the current business and inflow of orders, theyre going to have to expand, and that means dipping into this well of cash. Were expecting to see about 16% growth in business investment this year. So when youve got 70%
of the economy growing at 5% a year, which might not sound like a lot but is actually extremely strong, and two major sectors growing by 40% for housing and 16% for business investment that sounds like pretty rock-solid recovery to me. The

glum bottom line of the U.S. economy, he says, is due to government spending and increased imports, the latter of which bodes well for Canadian trade, as does the fact business investment will boost imports of machinery and equipment categories that have already recently shown a rise in Canadian exports to the U.S. Nor is the strong dollar a reason to assume Canadian trade with the U.S. will, or should, shrink. To the extent that manufacturers thought being competitive meant being able to sell at a 70 dollar, then yes, we have a problem today, says Jeremy
Leonard, director of industry services at British consultancy Oxford Economics and former research director with the Institute for Research on Public Policy. But there has to be a change in mindset. Truly competitive companies compete at whatever the market says the currency is valued a t. Just as Chinas entry into the WTO, originally heralded as the downfall of U.S. manufacturing, ultimately drove dramatic increases in productivity in manufacturing, logistics and management, so can the stimulus of a consistently strong dollar prompt similar improvements in Canadian industry, Mr. Leonard believes, particularly if competition-friendly government policy creates an environment conducive to that. Finally, diversification

isnt a panacea because its no longer possible to consider trade with any single country in isolation from the international market, says Ari van Assche, professor at HEC Montreal. The rise of global value chains means that more and more Canadian trade involves working together with U.S. companies to build a product that can be sold all around the world, so if theyre working together to sell into Europe or Asia, youre going to see a n increase in trade between the U.S. and Canada as
well, he says.

nb 3: Mexican Climate Coop

Canadian cooperation solves climate change emission restrictions and renewables
Jeffs 12 President of the Canadian International Council, Ph.D. in International Political Economy from the University of Toronto (Jennifer Jeffs, February 2012,
A Partnership Approach to Development and Global Challenges, Canada Among Nations, 2011 -2012: Canada and Mexicos Unfinished Agenda)//KP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND CLIMATE CHANGE Both

Canada and Mexico suffer from disproportionate dependence on their national oil industries for their energy needs and their Gross National Product (GNP). The oil industry provides
extraordinarily rich fodder for research on clean extraction technologies and is an excellent example of an area where universities and industry can work together to create intellectual property related to issues of mutual concern. Canada recently created an intellectual property sharing consortium among oil companies operating in the Canadian oil sands for developing clean and environmentally friendly extraction technologies. It

would be in the best interests of Canada and Mexico to co-operate in the energy area for many reasons. The post-Copenhagen Accord era represents a major challenge to these two countries: both have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet both national economies depend disproportionately on the production and export of hydrocarbons as their main income. This contradiction presents a good opportunity for Canada and Mexico to work together to comply with current low-carbon energy policies while maintaining their roles as leading energy suppliers. The main areas on which they can work together include the implementation of energy-efficient policies and the development of renewable energies through political and technical dialogues (while the relationships around oil and gas still play the most important role) both at federal and
provincial/state levels. Bilateral interaction to date has taken place mostly between Canadian provinces and the Mexican federal government or with the stateowned oil company, Pemex. For example, in 2007, Alberta's and Mexico's energy ministries signed a co-operation agreement which includes the sharing of best practices on regulations of hydrocarbon exploration, development of energy efficiency, and promotion of technical co-operation; RENEWABLE ENERGIES A focal report tells us that Canada has a small installed generation capacity in wind, solid biomass, and photovoltaic energy. Mexico has a similar pro le with an even smaller percentage of wind generation but greater installed capacity in biomass and geothermal energy. Both

countries could further develop

their renewable energy capacities. With the exception of hydro and ocean energy, provincial governments have jurisdiction over renewable resources in Canada. Notably, Mexico could launch a program of co-operation in wind power generation with Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Manitobal Canada, meanwhile, should pay attention to, and invest funds and research into, existing companies and projects developing innovative energy technologies in Mexico. One such company, Canromex, has adopted biogas-to-energy development
projects in Chihuahua, Quintana R00, Atizapan, and San Luis Potosi, and it continues to secure new projects in the State of Mexico with its partner company, Green Point Energy. CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENT Mexicos specic interest in preserving and enhancing sustainable ecosystems stems from the fact that it

is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world. As with any country, Mexico's resilience to the effects of climate change depends on co-operation with its regional neighbours. After the Conference of the Parties (c0P) 16 in, Canada and Mexico agreed to further implement bilateral Cancun initiatives to ght climate change. These include mitigation of methane emissions at oil facilities, energy efficiency, and anaerobic treatment of residuals in the pork industry in Yucatan. So far, the most important outcome of this dialogue is the implementation of a joint model to measure greenhouse gas emissionsm The 2011 initiative, under the Canada-Mexico Partnership, proposes implementing the Canadian model of carbon emissions detection and capture in Mexico. This model also helps prevent soil contamination, res, and other environmental dangers. To implement this model, Canadian experts organized a workshop for Mexican environmental authorities in March 2011. The Canadian govemment should not ignore these precedents for Canadian-Mexican environmental research projects. By sharing and co-producing models for addressing climate change, Canadian and Mexican research commtmities can demonstrate to the rest of the world that climate change research is most productive when collaborative, since countries with vastly different climates share environmental problems that may have common solutions. <insert warming impact>

Warming ext.
A Canadian-Mexican partnership sets an example for action on climate change
Jeffs 12 President of the Canadian International Counicl, Ph.D. in International Political Economy from the University of Toronto (Jennifer Jeffs, February 2012,
A Partnership Approach to Development and Global Challenges, Canada Among Nations, 2011 -2012: Canada and Mexicos Unfinished Agenda)//KP The World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva (w1Po), a specialized agency of the

United Nations, was established to develop an intemational intellectual property system to stimulate innovation and contribute to economic development. The organization has dened climate change, health, and food security as the three major global challenges to human survival and has recently set up a section to look specically at work being done globally in these areas. The urgent and global nature of these issues demands collaborative efforts and the leveraging of limited resources. Less developed countries will suffer disproportionately from challenges related to climate change, health, and food security, and their suffering will have an effect on richer nations. Thus, in addition to the ethical imperatives of addressing inequalities, partnerships between rich and poor nations make good practical sense. Collaborations between countries at disparate levels of development that share a continent make particularly good sense, since they share regional, as well as global, concerns. By addressing global issues in partnership, Canada and Mexico could serve as an example to the rest of the world.