Is "coke" an acceptable answer?

More seriously, it takes two to tango [1]. Maybe Brazil and Argentina don't want to dance. I've been a proponent for a while that we should be encouraging deeper relationships with Argentina, encouraging immigration, etc. because they've got an up and coming language with a decent middle-classish educated population that I believe would be very compatible with Canada.

[1] a strangely appropriate expression in this context.

And soccer teams with the coolest names on the planet.

Huh. I'd had a vague perception that Columbia was a place where human rights were improving, where the government was fairly elected in spite of tough conditions there, etc.

I'd say, I favour trading with people when we think they're making honest efforts at moving towards liberal conditions; when they're thumbing their noses at that stuff, I favour putting the screws to them. My (vague) impression about Uribe was that he was the former rather than the latter.

Embargoes are useful tools -- is one called for in this case? I didn't think so, but I'm willing (as ever) to be convinced otherwise.

Picking up from Ben's comments, Harper should have done a better job of explaining why Colombia is a good candidate vs. the approach he took with China. It could be either of the reasons Alan postulated and my impression was the same as Ben's. Harper is being lazy by not responding to the question in full.

As for what the benefits of free trade with Colombia might be, I would guess it would relate more to exporting to them rather than importing from them. Again, though, I'm not really up on the political economy of Colombia.

But you're getting ahead of yourselves. Negotiating and signing are not remotely similar to signing a treaty. Why should Harper (or anyone) invest political capital in explaining a deal that may never happen and of which the details are not known? He gave a basic explanation of why negotiators are sitting a table together; if a deal is reached, that's the time to start selling it.

Errr...because his "political capital" is my national policy? He better sell me and the millions of swing voters or his stay is going to be brief. It does little good to get in, screw around making idealist changes and then not explaining why. Political capital, like all capital, is only useful when put to work. When treated like a saving account, aside from the fact that it screams about ones understanding of captia, it provides no greater return.

Isn't it fair for us, the Canadian citizenry, to know who our government is pursuing close economic relations with and why? Sure, sell the deal after its done, but can't we be given a general explanation of why or why not talking to the Colombians is a good idea? In the next breath, Harper could tell us (generally) about our intentions (if any) with Brazil and/or Argentina.

This is one of Harper's problems. He does not explain things which are very easily explained.

Columbia.. ugh. Why can we not have free trade with corporations instead of nations. There is nothing in Columbia I want.. whoops. The anti-globalization folks are now walking up and down in front of my offices.. time to heat up the oil.

How many things do you think the Canadian government is pursuing? What do you want: the PM up there 24/7 at a microphone stand explaining things that might be happening a couple years from now if certain other things happen contingent on the agreement of other parties. Or is it just when CBC news reports on it?

<blockquote>
<p>
I’m very pleased to be the first Canadian Prime Minister to make an official visit to Colombia since we established diplomatic relations 50 years ago.

<p>
President Uribe and I have just completed cordial and productive discussions. We talked about the political and economic situation in Colombia, and the full range of Canadian engagement here.

<p>
I underlined Canada’s commitment to support Colombia’s efforts to achieve domestic peace and security and protect human rights. I advised the President that Canada will be increasing its support for peace-building, justice and national reconciliation this year.

<p>
We also discussed Canada’s leadership role in the protection of children affected by violence and conflict, and in responding to Colombia’s continuing problem of landmines.

<p>
The President and I are pleased with the start of free trade negotiations, we’ve also agreed to negotiations on a double-taxation agreement. We anticipate mutually beneficial agreements that will strengthen the partnership between our countries.

<p>
Our countries have enjoyed very strong growth in bilateral trade and investment. Canadian expertise compliments Colombian economic strength in areas such as mining, engineering, and oil and gas.

<p>
We believe greater economic integration through trade and investment will help alleviate poverty and create new wealth and employment opportunities for Colombians and Canadians.

<p>
I am pleased to announce that Canada will launch a new labour program for the Americas that will include support for Colombia. This program will foster dialogue among government, business and labour, and address health and safety issues.

<p>
President Uribe and his government have made tremendous progress against the vicious cycle of conflict, violence and under-development that has plagued Colombia for decades. They have persuaded tens of thousands of paramilitaries to lay down their arms and join their countrymen in building a safer and more prosperous country.

<p>
Most Colombians are dedicated to the core values of successful countries: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canada shares these values and seeks to nurture them through our partnerships with Colombians. Working together, we can help realize the potential of this great country, and help its people achieve the peace, stability and economic opportunity they have so long desired.
</blockquote>

What exactly more were you looking for?

Touché.

But this is good:<blockquote class="smalltext">I am pleased to announce that Canada will launch a new labour program for the Americas that will include support for Colombia. This program will foster dialogue among government, business and labour, and address health and safety issues. President Uribe and his government have made tremendous progress against the vicious cycle of conflict, violence and under-development that has plagued Colombia for decades. They have persuaded tens of thousands of paramilitaries to lay down their arms and join their countrymen in building a safer and more prosperous country.</blockquote>He should be saying that when he is in front of a camera and forget the chippy stuff.

"He should be saying that when he is in front of a camera and forget the chippy stuff." Exactly.
As a collateral point, I get most of my news from GenX40, not CBC, so if the PM could provide his speeches, such as the one above to Al, my commentary would have a better chance to be valid.

"...I get most of my news from GenX40..."<p>Oh. My. God.

Nice to know I'm not the only one.

If I cared more about things like the War in Iraq, Afghanistan, Stephen Harper's International Trade Initiatives, Conrad Black, etc. I suppose I would go to real news sources, but GenX40 seems to suit my attention span and need to comment willy-nilly. Why go somewhere else just to get confronted with tedious arrays of superfluous facts? No sir, I'll let Al survey the issues of the day because frankly, I don't want to know anymore than what I read here.

Of course, I still get local news from The (Charlottetown) Guardian, but GenX40 does a decent job of that too.

Hans brings up a rather interesting point - years ago I would read newspapers and rely, to a degree, on their editorial filter to determine what the "news" was - now I have Alan (and Kate, and Damian and Ben and so on.) Each brings a distinctive filter and a good deal of editorial wisdom. Plus we get comments.

Harper really does have a communications problem; but he also has a vision problem. Is there a CPC vision of where Canadian foreign and trade policy should be going? Where does Columbia or Andorra or Yemen or any of the 'stans fit into this vision? Is there a minimum human rights/democracy standard a nation must hit before Canada wants to talk to them? Are there exceptions for places like China which makes virtually everything we use? Is there something distinctive about the CPC take on foreign policy - for example, more bilateral conversations and less UN?

Before harper can work on his communications problem he needs something to communicate.

And, finally, is it just me or does the CPC seem to have entirely run out of ideas. They seem to be going through the motions more than actually governing with a sense of purpose. If the Opposition was not so a)gormless, b)in leadership disarray, c) broke there would be an election sooner rather than later.

It is clear that over time one of us has entirely beaten the other into agreement and bent them to their will. I could not have said the above better.

Weird -- I was going to say "what Jay said", but Al beat me to it.

I think the problem with being dropped into a position like PM is that _that's it_: there's no getting on the blog and debating ideas with your buddies. You are isolated, and you have to execute on some sort of fundamental course that was set at the outset. Now, I can understand Harper's need to keep some of the yahoos quiet, why he wants to be the voice of the party but it looks like the well of ideas went dry fairly quickly. Why? I'm not sure, but perhaps because Harper's ideas went from "we believe that Canada should be a country that does X and people can Y" to "I want to be PM".

No way. Mulroney never said that all there is. Trudeau never did. They were guys. Even Pearson was. They had an agenda and were going to get it done. Heck, Joe Clark as Foreign Minister had more ooomph that this guy. Harper is simply not <i>vozhd</i>.

The laurel goes to you Alan - I could not take the CPC seriously ever again after your lovely,

"I, for one, welcome our rural overlords."

Not that I took them very seriously before the remark.

My issues with Harper are based on policy, not Al's comments, pithy as they are ;-)

Issue #1: the government is spending too much money
Issue #2: see #1

Ultimately, there can't be a conservative/libertarian-light/whatever vision of a country based around the principle of "I can buy you with your own money".

I appreciate that Harper so far is not falling into usual conservative deficit financing stupidity of no-tax, big spend. But it is interesting to note that even the gun registry (good idea, IT procurement disaster) is still spending at the full pace a year and a half into the term of this crew. If that does not speak to his ineffectiveness I do not know what does.

Open a new thread if you'd like to debate the registry ... I'm up for it.

If there was ever news on it I would. Instead, the Tories complain about it but then do nothing keeping the expenses flowing, doubling their stunned position.

Well, we knew the wheels were off the fiscal responsibility cart when Finance managed to convince the government in the 2006 Budget to express program expenses as a percentage of GDP.