Health experts from all over the globe gathered in Beijing last Sunday to discuss the Coronavirus, newly named COVID19. The experts from the World Health Organization were rushed as the death tolls and numbers of infected people drastically rose in the last week, reported the Agence France Presse. On Monday, there were 1,770 casualties in mainland China and 71,000 infected globally. Meanwhile, Canadians who repatriated last week and are currently in quarantine in CFB Trenton, are reportedly healthy and are expected to leave the military base on their anticipated departure date, reported Global News.
A 28-year-old man died and four were injured last Sunday in a fatal shooting in Hartford, Connecticut. Police had been dispatched in front of the nightclub where the shooting happened following previous disturbances, reported the Associated Press. Police were able to provide immediate medical assistance. Surrounding streets were closed until 7 a.m. on Sunday. Investigations are ongoing.
Storm Dennis continues to damage the UK with heavy rains and flooding. The nontropical cyclone has been devastating England over the weekend. It has been described as a historical bomb cycle as it brought a month’s worth of rain to parts of Wales in just 48 hours, reported CTV. More than 200 flood warnings have since been issued, a record number for the country. The damage caused by the storm could have been reduced if the area hadn’t been from trying to recover from last week’s Storm Ciara, which left eight people dead across Europe.
Bernie Sanders becomes frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination after winning the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 10.Official results came out on Wednesday morning, putting Sanders ahead of Pete Buttigieg with 25.7 per cent of the votes over 24.4 per cent. The victory was declared “the beginning of the end for Donald Trump” by Sanders’ team, believing they now have momentum. Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren came fourth while Joe Biden barely secured the fifth position with 8.4 per cent of the voters’ support.
After more than three years and many extensions, Britain’s breakup with the European Union is finally official. And the story of their divorce is a long and laborious one. A chapter might be over, but the saga continues.
Back in June 2016, 52 per cent of the United Kingdom’s population voted in favour of the Brexit referendum. Yet, the withdrawal of the UK from the EU was sold to voters without a clear idea of what it would mean. Now that it’s here, the question remains.
What exactly does Brexit look like? Alas, my friend, we still don’t quite know and Britain has more time to figure it out once again.
Ironically, even as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson officially signed the Brexit Agreement, which came into effect on Friday, Jan. 31, the UK still has another 11-month transition period. They need to negotiate new regulations over various issues such as trade and immigration, while the old rules still apply. They couldn’t figure it out in three years, but who knows what will come out of this transition period?
We are not just talking about a few new adjustments here and there. We are actually looking at more than 750 treaties and international agreements that will need to be looked over, according to Financial Times. It will take time, and it should. Changes of this nature can’t be made in a rush.
However, despite the separation anxiety the exit is causing, it actually could mean greater opportunities for Canada. While our country and the UK were trading under the EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) since 2016, another deal will have to be drafted and agreed upon by both countries. Seeing how the UK struggled in dealing with Brexit in the first place and how unsteady the road ahead is, Canada could end up with the upper hand.
But ONLY eventually, after the transition period (which could also be postponed for another year or two).
How Britain managed to conquer the world is a wonder.
News emerged on Sept. 16 that Canada and the United Kingdom have reached an agreement to share embassies in some countries. While the agreement may help cut costs, its stated goal can also harm Canada’s image abroad.
The agreement, as it stands, doesn’t seem so threatening. Canada will allow British diplomats to work out of its embassy in Haiti. The U.K. will allow Canadian diplomats to work out of its embassy in Burma. In this way, both countries will gain diplomatic representation in countries where they previously had none.
What’s concerning is that the agreement could grow to cover a much longer list of embassies and consulates around the globe. Canada was once a colony of Great Britain and our foreign policy was once dominated by that country. Sharing embassies with our former colonial power certainly calls into question Canada’s independence.
Under the Conservative federal government, Canada has restored the “royal” moniker in the name of its armed forces. Premier Stephen Harper’s government also ordered all Canadian embassies to display a portrait of the Queen. Last year, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird drew criticism for having paintings by Quebec artist Alfred Pellan removed from the lobby of the Department of Foreign Affairs, only to have them replaced by the Queen’s portrait.
It feels almost as if this recent agreement to share embassies is but a small part of a longterm plan to recolonize Canada.
While Canada is regressing, it seems the rest of the Commonwealth is coming-of-age. Jamaica is considering abandoning the monarchy to become a republic, and Australia held a referendum in 1999 on whether to ditch the monarchy and elect its own president; the referendum was defeated, but at least they held a sincere national conversation on the subject.
In the meantime, our government has instead been trying to reassociate Canada with the U.K. out of some stubborn and misguided sense of nostalgia. And they’ve been doing so without any discussion on the subject. It is inevitable that the sharing of embassies will lead people around the globe to associate Canada more closely with the U.K. and Canada’s image will be hurt as a result, especially because of the differences in foreign policy.
The two countries’ foreign policies diverge in more areas than one might think. The last time Canada stored nuclear warheads for the United States was in 1984; meanwhile, the U.K. still has its own stockpile of 225 nuclear weapons. The U.K. joined the U.S. in the ill-advised war in Iraq, a war Canada refused to join in the absence of any mandate from the United Nations. Economically and politically, the two countries have different foreign policy objectives in a number of countries.
As Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s former ambassador to Germany, told The Globe and Mail, “We have an incompatible brand with the U.K.” Canada, known for being a peace-loving nation will now be rooming with a former colonial power. Whether it’s fair or not, many people will now think to paint us with the same brush.
Far too many questions remain about the specifics of how such an agreement would work in actual practice. If the U.K. were to decide it wanted to cut off diplomatic relations with a country, where would that leave Canada if we shared an embassy there?
If our foreign policy interests diverged and we had competing interests in a country, what type of strain would an embassy-sharing agreement place on our relationship? Would Canadian diplomats working out of a British Embassy have the same power to work against the U.K.’s interests as they would if they were working in a separate embassy?
Although government officials have called it a largely “administrative” agreement, the plan calls not only for the sharing of facilities, but also for the sharing of staff. Will Canadians still have access to the same level of French-language consular services as they currently do in our own embassies?
This agreement is pretty harmless because it only covers two locations but if it was expanded to encompass many more, it could have real implications on Canada’s image. Not only do the optics of sharing embassies undermine the notion that Canada is an independent nation, but the agreement may well undermine Canada’s ability to meet its own foreign policy objectives in the future.
As is typical with the Harper government, this agreement was formulated under a shroud of secrecy. And what Canadians are now left with is a long list of concerning questions and few satisfying answers.
