Secretary Clinton Expresses Concern Over Key Stakeholders Being Excluded From Arctic Summit
Good for her!:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a rare public rebuke to close ally Canada on Monday, criticizing it for excluding key nations from a meeting to discuss the resource-rich Arctic.
Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon gathered his counterparts from Russia, Norway, the United States and Denmark for three hours of talks on Monday on the grounds that they were the only nations with Arctic coastlines.
The decision prompted unhappiness in Sweden, Finland and Iceland, who are also members of the eight-nation Arctic Council — traditionally the body where most important decisions on the region are taken.
“Significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region,” Clinton said in a statement issued before the meeting had even begun.
“I hope the Arctic will always showcase our ability to work together, not create new divisions.”
Global warming is gradually melting the Arctic ice cap, raising the possibility of increased shipping and mineral extraction in the remote and environmentally sensitive region.
Canada and the United States have very close ties and Clinton’s statement was the first open official rebuke of Ottawa since the months leading up to the 2003 Iraq War, which Canada refused to participate in.
Cannon spent much of his closing news conference responding to questions about Clinton’s statement and insisting he was not trying to marginalize the Arctic Council…
It’s interesting because I had read something yesterday about not only key nations being upset over being excluded but also some indigenous groups who felt they would be the ones to have to live with the decisions being made yet they were not offered a place at the table.
Gee, I hope Canada doesn’t have a pro-Canada lobby [*cough*] that’s going to rake the administration over the coals for speaking out and demand that we publicly apologize or reaffirm [every five minutes] our “strong, enduring, steadfast” relationship with our great ally, Canada.
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself 
Here are some photos from earlier in the day:
Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Denmark's Justice Minister Lars Barfoed take part in the official photo during the Arctic Ocean foreign ministers' meeting in Chelsea, Quebec March 29, 2010.
To view this animated banner you need to have Flash Player 9 or newer installed and JavaScript enabled. This 
I already feel the demand for an apology coming.
She should not apologize. Hillary told them the truth, they should just deal with it. I’m sure the Canadians won’t leave anyone else out again.
Oh you know its coming. I can see the congressional letter going around now. We must not criticze our friends in public signed by the wimpy masses.
Well, I was being tongue-in-cheek in that I don’t think anyone will ask her to apologize because Canada doesn’t have the equivalent of the AIPAC lobby to rally the troops at the first sign of even a hint of criticism.
That said, she certainly hasn’t said anything that she needs to apologize for, she was merely acknowledging what other nations/people were saying regarding being left out.
From April 1, 2010 Montreal Gazette Editorials
entitled:
“At Least She Didn’t Complain About the Food”
“Everybody has had, at least once, the sort of house-guest who mocks your furnishings, disdains your cooking, steps on your cat, and leaves your spare room a mess. This week all Canadians did, as Hillary Clinton openly and needlessly criticized her hosts on three different topics in a two-day visit.
As US Secretary of State, Clinton’s job is to speak her government’s mind. But that doesn’t mean flailing away in public at at a friendly host government, as Clinton did. In at least one case, she went farther, in public, than she should have gone even in private.
In Ottawa, for a meeting of Arctic Ocean states, convened by Lawrence Cannon, our foreign minister, Clinton grumbled that he had invited only five of the eight such states, a legitimate point but one which should have been made in private before she agreed to attend. She then blew off the concluding press conference, although she was no doubt well aware that she would have been the star of the show.
Then she went on TV to complain that Canadian troops will leave Afghanistan next year. Did nobody brief her on Canadian political sensitivities on that issue? And why doesn’t she hector certain other NATO allies who have done much less than Canada?
Finally, she said Canada should live up to her views on helping Third World mothers by improving their access to abortion. Even Canadians who agree with her on that won’t relish Aunt Sam pushing us around.
It wasn’t her best outing. ”
What exactly do you mean by the following?
“I hope Canada doesn’t have a pro-Canada lobby [*cough*] that’s going to rake the administration over the coals for speaking out and demand that we publicly apologize or reaffirm [every five minutes] our “strong, enduring, steadfast” relationship with our great ally, Canada.”
Josee, thanks for your comment
The comment of mine that you highlighted was not in any way mocking Canada, but rather the so-called “pro-Israel” lobby, AIPAC and how they responded to Obama raising concerns about settlements, etc. I was also implying that members of Congress won’t be rushing to Canada’s defense because there is no pro-Canada lobby in the US. People who read this blog regularly would know what I meant by that comment.
I will say that the US at times seems unaware of its bull-in-a-China-shop mentality with respect to our foreign policy. We do have a tendency to see things through one lens- our own- and assume that that is what everyone else should do. It’s classic ethnocentrism and unfortunately, many nations evidence this at times. I’m not defending it, I’m just saying that as an American, I am well aware of it. What makes it so unsufferable to many other countries (as far as I can tell) around the world is that the US is a super power and thus we have a tendency to demand that we get our way “or else.” I think our policy towards Latin America is an example- we simply will not accept that Brazil won’t sign onto Iran sanctions.
I’m not sure I totally agree with the notion that the US (or anyone else) should only criticize it’s allies in private. I have argued repeatedly on this blog that the US should be allowed to criticize Israel when an administration really feels that something needs to be said. It would be very biased and unfair of me to not apply that standard to other countries such as Canada, etc. Sometimes we do need to say things publicly because sometimes there are political reasons for doing so and sometimes it is because it just needs to be said.
Does that mean that all criticisms should be made public? Probably not and obviously people are going to disagree about what should and shouldn’t be made public. But some of Secy Clinton’s statements in Canada were seen as unfairly targeting Canada but I think she was pointing out a) a problem she saw with the whole process with respect to key stakeholders at the Arctic Summit and b) what she felt were key US concerns regarding family planning. The Summit was an international one and every nation has a right to voice their beliefs about what the priorities should be. I didn’t take her criticism to be specifically aimed at Canada but rather everyone involved and one could argue that the US had some responsibility to ensure that everyone was included. I think that her comments regarding family planning reflected not only the US administration’s take on the issue but also that of the UN and WHO. The fact that it is a touchy subject in Canadian politics at the moment certainly doesn’t mean she should have said nothing.
Again, thanks for your comment.