What January May Hold

It seems that the general consensus amongst most discussions is that the appropriate response to the economic crisis and recession will (or should be) economic stimulus packages. It has dominated the news and I have heard little in the form of an alternative option... until now.

I found this article that is an excellent exploration into the subject with a focus on providing an alternative to the current discourse on the subject,

check it out

- blenCOWe

Ho Ho Ho

Check this out,

Santa is Canadian!

Take that Russia, lol

- blenCOWe

Go Canada!

Mr. Harper has stepped up...finally!

No, I'm not talking about fiscal updates or economic stimulus packages; both of these things are important to Canada right now but I prefer to talk about Canada's position in the world.

I have written in the past that Canada must push to gain a greater position in world affairs. That was why I was a harsh critic when Mr. Harper announced a number of months ago that he would not commit Canada to competing for a seat on the UN Security Council in the 2010 elections.

Fortunately for Canada (and Mr. Harper), things have changed. Today, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, announced that Canada will in fact be challenging for the seat.

Canada needs this seat, simple as that. Canada needs to become a bigger player in the United Nations community. Under successive governments, not just the Conservatives, Canada's position has fallen in terms of international influence. Even in terms of the concept of Canada being a "middle power", Canada's influence has waned.

In terms of recovering, I see the need to focus on three main areas: military, economics and diplomacy. The first two are not the subject of this post but are simple; Canada's military capabilities need to be increased and Canada must reinvent itself after the global economic crisis as a major economic player (hopefully in a green capacity). The third, diplomacy, involves creating a greater image of Canada in the eyes of the world and showing that we can influence what happens in the international community. Holding a seat on the UN Security Council would be a perfect way to do this.

Committing to this endeavour helps Canada in a number of ways. First of all, the Security Council gives Canada an important voice and presence in discussions that it would not otherwise be present for. The Security Council is probably the most powerful body in international affairs and Canada's presence on it would have a positive impact on our ability to achieve our national interests. Secondly, gaining a seat on the UNSC would show a recommittment to the United Nations Framework. As of recent, critics of Canada's foreign policy have argued that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policies have been too closely connected to those of US President George W. Bush's policies. The US, under President Bush, has separated itself from multilateral bodies like the UN in favour of going it alone or with a few key allies. By recommitting to the United Nations, Canada would be able to separate itself from the policies of the US and show a commitment to the greater community of nations. Furthermore, the Canadian people would respond favourably to a recommittment to the ideals of the United Nations. Peace, security, human rights, economic and social development and humanitarian assistance are all things that the Canadian people identify with and expect their government to champion.

Canada's competition for this prestigious seat is Germany and Portugal. There are two seats for three countries and Germany has the overwhelming lead. In this race, Canada need only beat one country and Portugal, no offence, should be an easy win. Portugal has neither the record or the capabilities of Canada; its best asset is that it is a member of the EU and from what I gather, the members of the EU would prefer to have one of their own on the council as opposed to a "westerner" with close ties to the United States.

Canada must show up, talk a good game and back it up. It's our move Canada

- blenCOWe

You've Got To Be Kidding Me!

Robert Mugabe must be out of his mind!

One day after alleging that the current cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe was the result of a biological attack by Britain with the intent of genocide, two days after claiming that there was no problem with cholera, and all of this occurring only a couple of months after denying international involvement in sorting out the dispute concerning the presidential election; "President" Robert Mugabe has called out to the international community pleading:

"a huge international aid effort is needed to help combat a cholera outbreak that has killed hundreds" -- Globe and Mail

While I feel for the people of Zimbabwe, I believe that international aid should be given to help combat the cholera epidemic but with the condition that Mugabe be permanently removed from any position of power within Zimbabwe. It is his fault that the Zimbabwean people have fallen into such a poor state of living/health. He has been the only leader in Zimbabwe since it gained independence and has overseen the steady decline in the prosperity of the state. And its not like he showed much concern about his people when his ZANU-PF thugs were moving around the state forcing people to vote for him or be beaten up and killed.

This is very simple, Mugabe must go! No matter what!

- blenCOWe

What A Load of Crap!

My bullshit detector pretty much blew up when I read this:

The "government" of Zimbabwe is blaming the recent outbreak of cholera on the British government! Zimbabwe' information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, has proclaimed that,

"This is a serious biological-chemical weapon; a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British [who are] still fighting to re-colonize Zimbabwe and using their allies." -- Al Jazeera English

It is my sincerest hope that nobody who can think for themselves actually believes this to be true. Beyond the basic common sense that the UK, as a state that has ratified the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention and that is a western liberal democracy, would presumably take such despicable actions even if it did want to re-colonize Zimbabwe (one would think it would be able to use superior military might to great effect!) is the current situation in Zimbabwe and the events of this past year.

This is clearly a ploy by Robert Mugabe to explain away the epidemic and retain what little, if any, credibility he has as a leader of the Zimbabwean state. By placing such ridiculous blame on the British, Mugabe is drawing attention off of the victims and the dire situation going on and diverting the attention to this non-sense proposition.

Ignore the stupidity! Focus on the lives in danger!

And would somebody please remove Mugabe!

- blenCOWe

Just A Thought...

Have you ever stepped back and considered if we've vilified the wrong war?

Political junkie as I am, I have been avidly reading the news/blog articles and television coverage of Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff (of whom I am a big fan) and his rise to the leadership of the Liberal Party. One major critique that has arose time and time again is his initial support of US intervention in Iraq, in 2003. His argument that Saddam Hussein' removal, as a threat to human rights, was different than the intentions of G.W. Bush but the means ended up being the same.

A number of recent events:

- the passage of the Status of Forces Agreement by the Iraqi Government, requiring the removal of US forces within a set timeline in the next year

- Canada's decision to withdraw from a combat role in Afghanistan in 2011

- Secretary of Defence Robert Gates' request that Canada remain committed to the Afghan mission beyond 2011

have made me start to think that Iraq may not have been as bad as completely terrible as it has been made out to be. (this is where I will become a pariah, lol)

Just look at the reality of the situations; Saddam Hussein was removed as a threat to the international order/security as well as to the human rights of Iraqi citizens. The new government has been able to solidify itself as a somewhat stable regime or at least enough that they could come together to democratically pass legislation to boot the US out of their lands.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the insurgency is by no means in decline, the US has had to recommit to sending a surge of troops into the theater, Canada has backed out, NATO support has been weak to take a real commitment to the mission (the decision by major NATO members... cough cough FRANCE, GERMANY... cough cough COWARDS... cough... to take up the missions in the more peaceful regions of Afghanistan rather than commit their greater resources to the mission in Kandahar), the weakness of infrastructure (Karzai's government, Afghan police and army) and the growing perception that the ISAF will be in Afghanistan for at least 10 more years.

Despite this, the mission in Afghanistan is seen as the more legitimate mission in international security!

Now don't get all tied up in knots, I'm just saying its kind of curious

- blenCOWe

A Little Cooperation Would Go A Long Way

In the United States, the proposed $14 billion auto sector bailout failed due to the United Auto Worker's Union was unwilling to accept a wage cut to help make the sector more profitable and fiscally responsible.

Then, the president of the Canadian Auto Worker's Union, Ken Lewenza, decided to provide the delightful snippet:

“We refuse to have the auto workers as scapegoats,” he said. “It's finger pointing.” -- The Globe and Mail

At the risk of pissing off a number of friends at home who are tied to the auto sector in Windsor, it seems to me that the unions are becoming a major obstacle to helping the people they are supposed to represent. The auto workers are not the scapegoats but many of the people I know that work in the sector have hourly wages in the range of $35/hour or even higher. Now it seems to me that a reasonable short-term cut in their wage in the region of $5-8 would not be harmful in the long-run. Like I said, this cut would be a short term solution to allow the auto companies to get their bailout monies and some time to restructure their business models so that they will be viable again in the future.

Apparently, the non-Big 3 companies (e.g. Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen) have wages quite a bit lower than those of the domestic producers. Basically, the idea would be to level these out, bringing the inflated wages down to realistic amounts. Notice that the companies with the reasonable wage levels are not the one's in major trouble!

It comes down to basic mathematics; if the unions do not start to play ball the companies will crumble. Its a simple comparison of equations,

Current Model: High wages x no hours (cuz the companies bankrupt) = no jobs/no money

Proposed Model: Slightly lower wages x regular hours = still have a job/income

Hey Unions, DO THE MATH!!

The bailout packages are just asking for a little cooperation so that these companies do not have to face the nature of free markets and collapse like they should according to their dysfunctional business models.

- blenCOWe

We Knew This Was Coming!

Since winning the US Presidential election in November, many Canadians have been pondering the question of whether Obama's commitment to winning in Afghanistan would have any effect on Canada's withdrawal date in 2011.

It was pretty clear that the United States would ask Canada to recommit to the Afghan mission. Well today our expectations were met when Current and future Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, asked Canada to stay on past 2011. Gates has asked that Canadians stay on in the volatile region of Kandahar, praising that,

"Proportionally, none have worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians. They have been outstanding partners for us, and all I can tell you, as has been the case for a very long time, the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners, the better it is."

Realistically, and I have said this before, Canada will not commit to a longer military presence in Afghanistan. Our body count is rising, our government is divided and the people are getting tired of politics as of late. We are suffering from battle fatigue and need a break. Canada needs to regroup, rest and refocus so that we can continue to push for a strong(er) position in the international community.

Now I'm not saying this because I believe that we should be in other theaters (like Darfur) but because I truly believe that Canada will be worse off if it decides to answer Gates' call. Canada's forces are not designed for this kind of mission. We neither have the strength, the equipment nor the political or public support for a long, drawn out occupation in Afghanistan.

This is one time that Canada must absolutely step up and firmly say no when the US calls.

- blenCOWe

One Scary Number

Sir Richard Branson and a number of world dignitaries have come together to form a group called Global Zero who want to see the renewal of Cold War efforts for disarmament, with the eventual goal of eliminating nuclear weapons within 25 years.

There is nothing wrong with their goal to decrease the number nuclear weapons but the number "zero" is a scary concept. Nuclear weapons have provided stability and predictability to the international order since their first use at the end of WWII. Removing all nuclear weapons will likely create a more volatile situation where states, especially rogue states and other troublemakers, will act more readily because they would not have the fear of annihilation.

The deterrence function of nuclear weapons has been one of the most important factors of the decline of inter-state wars in the relations of nations. As nuclear weapons spread to more states, stability ensured from the fear of nuclear war. If you take out the nuclear weapons then the fear dissipates and the world will revert to greater instability. It is also important to note that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 so it is not like they have become a mass tool of destruction. Their power is what stabilizes the balance of power amongst nations and makes states' actions predictable. Thus, the presence of nuclear weapons are necessary for stability in the relations of nations.

- blenCOWe

A Look to the Past for a Solution for the Future

So the National Intelligence Council has released a report predicting what the global society will look like by 2025. Predictably, the report forsees that the United States' dominance will decline in response to the growth of competitors like Brazil, China, India and Russia.

Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.

However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".

This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.

Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.

- blenCOWe

The Canadian People Want Results

Check out this article, it is about a recent Environics poll which finds that Canadian people want to see results when it comes to foreign aid. The people prefer to see tangible results over the exporting of Canadian values.

I wonder, could this be a result of the recent trend in Canadian government?

In the past few years, there has pretty much been a revolving door of Foreign Ministers and minority governments. Since recent parliaments have lasted about 2 years, it has meant that Foreign Ministers have needed to produce results for the upcoming election. This focus on results appears to have trickled down to the electorate; the Canadian people have come to expect results from their governments in their foreign aid at the expense of promoting Canadian values.

Just a thought...

- blenCOWe

See, I Told Ya!

I saw this coming from a mile away!

"Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said on Sunday that a stepped-up emphasis by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan won't change Canada's plans to pull its military out of that country in 2011" -- Reuters

- blenCOWe

Some Things Won't Change

It seems that the leaders of Iran did not quite get what they were bargaining for when Barack Obama won the US presidential election this past week. No one will argue that under President George W. Bush, US-Iranian relations were strained to say the least so it would have been understandable if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thought that the campaign against Iran would dissipate under President Obama.

Ooops!!!

While Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, he also took his first political jab at the president-elect claiming that "the 'nations of the world' expect changes from the Mr. Obama -- mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was 'based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations' " -- Globe and Mail.

What makes the Iranian leader think he (and the rest of the world, however I don't think the he is thinking of the rest of the world considering he doesn't listen to anyone) can expect anything from Obama? While Obama did campaign on the ideal that he would take a more diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran but that does not mean that this approach will be any less forceful. Obama owes nothing to anyone but the people who elected them and they are not found in Iran.

A nuclear Iran would still constitute a threat to the security of the United States and Mr. Obama is aware of this. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be in charge of the safety and security of the nation, just like President Bush, and as such must be as forceful as necessary so as to protect the nation. Just because Obama is the supposed anti-Bush doesn't mean that he cannot recognize that Iran is a pressing issue right now in international affairs and he will seek to protect American interests, plain and simple. That is why it should not have come as any surprise when Obama commented that "it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it" -- Globe and Mail.

The Iranian government, specifically President Amadinejad, should only blame themselves for this continued campaign against them. Their shady stance on nuclear weapons and stated desire to wipe Israel off of the map make Iran not only a threat to the United State but to international peace and security. That is why Bush was so hard on them and that is why Obama will likely follow suit

Tough luck Iran, it looks like four more years of being public enemy number one!

- blenCOWe

He's Good But Not That Good

I was reading the Embassy magazine today and Jeff Davis has an article in it examining what effect Barack Obama's election will have on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. One idea that comes up in his examination is that maybe President Obama will ask Canada to stay longer than the 2011 pull out date that was agreed upon in the last parliament.

Now I've read the articles and seen the showings of support for Canadians for Obama; the most surprising of all being the poll that claimed that as much as 80% of Canadians would vote for Obama if they could (a truly amazing idea considering that not even 60% of Canadians voted for their own politicians!). But even though the majority of Canadians like Obama, I don't know if this support would change Canadians minds about the Afghan mission.

For the past couple years, Canadian Forces have handled the dirty work of the mission, working in the places that no one else will. Other allies have greater numbers and better equipment, but it has been up to Canada to shoulder the brunt of the workload. Our nation did not shy away from this task either, we recognized the importance of the mission and got to work. This has, however, taken a toll on both the Canadians Forces and the political will of the nation.

I don't care how much Canadians like Obama or how close Canada is as an ally, the Canadian people have demanded that Canada be relieved of this terrible burden and it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon. In fact, Obama's commitment to re-deploy troops to Afghanistan will probably bolster Canadians' resolve that our forces need no longer be in Afghanistan.

President-elect Barack Obama may be the latest and greatest in international politics but when all is said and done, the dover principle takes over and the people of this nation will see the Canadians coming home in body bags and forget all about how much they like Obama.

- blenCOWe

Dion Still Full of Hot Air and Partisanship

The Liberal Party of Canada is a mess right now. They were the big losers of the recent election, their "leader" has stepped down (sort of...), the leadership convention is seven months away and they are broke. The party is only marginally ready to run a leadership contest and nowhere near ready to fight another election. Despite this, former/interim leader Stephane Dion is running his mouth, issuing challenges to Prime Minister Harper and his Tory government.

Most recently, Mr. Dion has announced that the Liberal Party will not be giving any free rides to the Conservative government as it did in the last parliament by abstaining from confidence votes so as not to bring down the government.

"Mr. Dion says the Liberals will voted against any legislation they disagree with, even if the Tories deem the proposals confidence matters" -- Globe and Mail

The funny thing about this is that the Liberals were better prepared to "grow a pair" back when they were abstaining from votes than they are now. The Liberals and the electorate are not ready for another election and will only create further problems in Canadian politics.

There only only two reasons that come to mind about why Dion would come out of the Liberal caucus meetings with this kind of message; 1) Dion wants another chance at being the leader during an election. If he can bring down the government before May then he would be responsible for leading the party due to his interim status. 2) the Liberals have realized that their base is eroding, even their in their hardcore bastions of support. This could be a calculated show to try to win back some of their eroding supporters. This scenario would probably entail the Liberals voting down anything that is not a confidence matter so that come the next election, the Liberals will be able to say that they opposed the Conservative's policies.

So, the way I see it, Canadians are either going to have another election forced upon them or we will see a parliament session marred by greater partisanship and little policy success. Either way, Canadians lose.

I have been watching a lot of the fallout out and commentary of Barack Obama's presidential election and the one thing that I find truely surprising is that many Republicans, including presidential runner-up John McCain have committed to working with Obama and the Democrats, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to lead the United States out of these troubling times. In other words, they are putting aside their differences for the good of the nation.

On the other hand, we see the fall out of the Canadian election where there has almost been a commitment to extreme partisanship by the parties of the opposition. These parties and their leaders are against the Conservatives pretty much no matter what they propose. Canada is heading into troubled times as well. Our economy is lagging; unemployment is up, the dollar is down and we face international threats; both from a security standpoint and from climate change. Now is not the time for petty squabbling; Canadian politicians need to look to their counterparts from the South and follow their lead. The security and prosperity of the nation must ALWAYS come before the interests of individual parties. It is my sincere hope that the parties of Canada's opposition embrace this when Parliament reconvenes next week.

- blenCOWe

What Will Obama's Foreign Policy Look Like?

After an expected, yet still impressive, victory last night, Barack Obama will lead the most powerful and imposing nation in the world. His victory largely rested on the economic and social issues of the people of America. This largely reflects his greater experience in domestic politics and social issues rather than in international affairs.

Many, including myself, are now eager to see what President Obama's foreign policies will look like. At the outset, it appears that Mr. Obama's foreign policy will be one of fixing the "mistakes" that President George W. Bush has made during his eight years in office. Most prominent on the agenda is definitely addressing the two wars that he will inherit from the previous administration. Obama campaigned on the desire to pull out of Iraq and re-commit to ending the security problems in Afghanistan. This follows the popular idea that entering Iraq was a mistake and that Afghanistan has greater legitimacy in terms of international security. This was definitely not in the considerations of the previous presidency.

Next, I believe that President Obama will use the aforementioned pullout in Iraq as a credibility booster so that he can take steps to re-invigorate the peace process in the Middle East. This re-invigoration will be in the form of multi-lateral diplomacy and will hopefully be more conducive to peace than invasion. This involves actually talking to Iran, working with the different actors, yet still acting as a strong ally of Israel. Obama will likely have greater success with this than his predecessor did. The hawk-like actions of President Bush and his administration greatly tarnished the sincerity of Mr. Bush to bring peace to the Middle East.

Lastly, the recent eight years have seen the United States drift away from many of its European allies (save Britain of course). Much of this falling out has concerned the US invasion of Iraq as well as other hawkish actions of President Bush. President Obama must reach out to these disgruntled allies and re-build ties with them. One easy way that this could be accomplished is to end the recent trend towards unilateralism by the United States. European states, because of their history mired with warfare, are stong proponents of multilateralism, especially using the United Nations framework and not just the NATO alliance. The United States must put greater trust and effort into the United Nations system rather than move unilaterally if it doesn't get the response it desires. Regaining this favour will be critical in the upcoming years for the United States and Obama if it is to rebuild its international image and reputation.

Funny enough, especially given its attention in foreign policy debates during the Canadian election, China has remained almost a non-issue in discussions of future US foreign policy. I have not heard much from President-elect Obama on the topic of China and am curious as to what, if any, plans he has for US relations with the world's most populus country.

There is little doubt that the next four years will be transformational for the United States, and subsequently for the international community. I do not think Mr. Obama's lack of practical experience in international relations will affect this. His intelligence and charisma will help to rebuild US relations with foreign leaders and citizens and will be an inspirational leader for the United States.

- blenCOWe

Taliban bombs Afghan government

During the recent election and in the short period after, we have heard repeated calls from sources within the Canadian government as well as the international community to begin talks with the Taliban leadership in order to find an end to the conflict in Afghanistan.

My personal thoughts on this have pretty much bordered on the concept of "yeah right, like the Taliban will negotiate in earnest!" Well it seems like I wasn't too far off the mark with this one.

"Taliban militants stormed a government building in the centre of the Afghan capital on Thursday and one of them blew himself up inside, killing five people, officials and witnesses said" -- Globe and Mail

Clearly the Taliban is not interested in negotiating with the Afghan government if it is attempting to bomb it. The reality is, the Taliban do not recognize the authority of Hamid Karzai's government and will not cooperate with it in finding a peaceful solution. The Taliban want their rule restored, simple as that!

- blenCOWe

Canada's Next Foreign Minister

Who will be Canada's next minister of foreign affairs?

That is one of the many questions that are running through the minds of Canadian political enthusiasts in the anticipation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet decisions. For those, like me, that closely follow foreign policy, this question is of great intrigue.

I believe David Emerson would have done an excellent job had he decided to run again but that is now moot. So who should Mr. Harper choose to guide Canada's foreign policies both home and abroad?

In this week's edition of the Embassy Magazine, there is a brief evaluation of those who might be considered for this position. It grades the candidates based on their credentials as well as lists the pros and cons of each person. I found this to be a great read and opened my eyes not only to the larger number of candidates than I had envisaged but also some names that I had not thought about.

Following the Maxime Bernier "scandal" this spring, I voiced my opinion on this blog that Secretary of State Jason Kenney was well deserving of a promotion to this important cabinet office. My opinion has not changed. He has shown himself to be a reliable junior minister who has also done well at gaining the support of Canada's ethnic minority populations. He was the Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian Identity in the last parliament and I, for one, think that these things have been lacking in Canada's recent foreign policies. This criticism has been echoed by many of the Conservative Party's critics. Mr. Kenney could bring his experience from this post to the Ministy of Foreign Affairs and re-unite many Canadians who have been dis-enfranchised by our recent foreign minsters and policies. Canada could return to the well-respected middle power leader that it has been in the past, and re-connect Canada to its heritage in international affairs.

In terms of the criticisms of Mr. Kenney, the overwhelming "black mark" has been his critical viewpoint of Chinese policies, specifically on human rights. China has been repeatedly targeted as a necessary focal point of Canada's future foreign policies. Canadian-Chinese relations may be strained by the promotion of a strong critic of China to such an important role, but then again, why should Canada essentially "put all its eggs in one basket?"

Also in this week's Embassy is an article that says that focusing on China would be detrimental to Canada's international successs. It argues the world community is evolving into a multipolar balance of power. China isn't the only power growing in the world. India, Brazil and, South Africa are just a few of the other power centres growing along with China. Furthermore, we are seeing the return of an old power, Russia, who has been actively trying to re-assert its pre-eminent place in world affairs. Canada would do well to incorporate a foreign policy that accounts for these multiple centres of power and not just China. China is an important state for Canada to deal with, but it is not the only game in town. This fact helps to offset the criticism of Jason Kenney and his remarks about China.

Wrapping up, there are a number of potential foreign ministers that could be shuffled from other A-list cabinet positions, but by promoting Mr. Kenney, PM Harper would be able to add a well-deserving and capable minister to this important role. He is well-suited for this post and, possibly more important, rather than merely shuffle his present ministers which would only maintain the cabinet's strength, Prime Minister Harper could add a strong, young minister to an important portfolio.

- blenCOWe

Ban Ki Moon's Calls for Disarmament Will Fall on Deaf Ears

Today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the members of the United Nations community to re-invest themselves in the disarmament process to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He spoke mostly to those states that are part of the exclusive nuclear weapons club. These states, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty in 1968 which required them to take serious steps to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles. Also targeted in the Secretary-General's call for disarmament were the unofficial nuclear powers: North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India. Unfortunately though, Mr. Ki-moon's pleas will likely fall on deaf ears and for three main reasons. These reasons are that 1) states enjoy the power that nuclear weapons bestow on them, 2) disarmament does not reduce the threats states face and, 3) the NPT is not an effective tool for disarmament.

It is no coincidence that the states that have nuclear weapons, for the majority, are also the ones with vetoes in the UN Security Council. Like the vetoes, nuclear weapons allow states a certain level of freedom in their policies. Nuclear weapons provide states with a deterrent from its adversaries that also possess nuclear weapons and act as a source of fear for non-nuclear states. This results in a sort of perceived invulnerability and confidence that states can get away with almost any policy they want. These states know they can get what they want and have gotten used to it. As with the case of Security Council reform, those with the power are not likely to be eager to give it up, yet it is these states that determine how successful these reform initiatives are. This is the most likely reason that Ki-moon's pleas will not yield any real result; until these states can be offered some sort of reward for giving up one of their major sources of international influence.

Secondly, disarmament does not prevent conflict. This is essentially the "guns don't kill people, people kill people argument." Disarmament assumes that by removing weapons, states will be less likely to engage each other in conflict. While I concede that states may, at times, build up their armaments/capabilities in response to other states' buildups, conflicts are not caused by the presence of weapons. International conflicts arise out of tensions over such things as natural resources and ethnicity. Long past are the times of the Cold War where the presence of weapons can create conflicts (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). A weapon is a merely a tool and is not a threat to anyone until a person makes it so. Therefore, disarmament is ineffective in attaining international peace because it only addresses the presence of the weapons and not the users or their intentions.

Lastly, to hold signatory states of the NPT to their treaty obligations to reduce their armaments is ineffective because it only regulates against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and not the vertical proliferation. Horizontal proliferation refers to increasing the total number of weapons while vertical proliferation refers to the expansion of weapon capabilities. The NPT has been somewhat effective in controlling the number of weapons that exist but has been ineffective in curtailing the expansion of these weapons' capabilities. There may be less nuclear weapons than in 1968 but the weapons that do exist are more deadly than ever so in effect the NPT has only been successful in strengthening the hierarchy of states in world affairs. Disarmament would be much more effective if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was to receive the kind of widespread support that the NPT has received. This treaty would address the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as some of the inherent environmental risks that are associated with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this has not happened as of yet and as such disarmament has remained largely ineffective in achieving international peace.

In conclusion, these three realities will prevent Ban Ki-moon's efforts for disarmament from any true realization or effect. For these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that disarmament is largely an academic concept and not practical for reducing the threat of international conflict.

- blenCOWe

A New Bretton Woods An Unlikely Outcome

As the current financial crisis spreads to the corners of the world, many of the world's leaders and important thinkers are throwing out different ideas of how to fix the financial problems that are present in our current markets. This is obviously reasonable because governments will not be able to continuously bailout all the financial institutions that fall into trouble.

One concept that has been proposed that caught my attention was British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's idea to create a new Bretton Woods agreement with the intention to "reshape the world financial system." While this idea has good intentions and might have a beneficial impact, I don't believe that it would be the best response to this financial crisis. A look at the past results of the Bretton Woods system shows that a new agreement would be a short-term response.

The initial agreement helped to restore the international market in the post-World War II reality but this only lasted until 1971 when national interests began to take precedence. When the United States stopped their currency from being converted to gold, the Bretton Woods system crashed. This shows that when it comes to finances, states will usually act in the interests of their citizens before the interests of the international system. This cannot be overcome, simple as that. Domestic politics rule when it comes to the market. So when Prime Minister Brown says that "only by global action can we fully restore the confidence that is needed and build the international financial order", I believe he is wrong.

Instead I believe that more international action will only lead to further problems down the road. If one examines the current financial crisis, it is obvious that the much of the crisis can be traced back to the sub-prime mortgage problems of the United States. The downturn of the US market has affected the foreign markets because of the tremendous amount of foreign investment in the United States. When the US suffers, its investors suffer and thus the trickle down effect occurs.

So what then is the answer?

Well, first of all I do not claim to be an expert or even fairly proficient in terms of economic understanding. I try to avoid economics as much as I can in my studies but as this is almost impossible in studying politics and international relations, I have come to acquire some understanding of basic economics. With this in mind, I believe that the answer to this problem is apparent and is already beginning to show itself.

As of today, the markets are beginning to rebound a little bit across the globe. Much of this has been because of involvement by national governments to invest in their national markets. From this, I conclude that the best way to address the current crisis is for each government to take care of their own markets and not to worry about the economic fortunes of the the international market. I realize this must sound crazy coming from an internationalist and in the current reality of globalization but if each country acts to stabilize their own markets then the international market will begin to stabilize as a by-product. As I said, this has already begun to happen because as national governments begin to act to protect their economies, the markets have begun to rise again.

Furthermore, the already existent international financial bodies (that were created by the original Bretton Woods system) are acting to protect markets. Recently the IMF announced that it would help to protect poorer countries from the fallout of the international financial crisis. This is a tremendous move by a body accused (sometimes by myself) of working for the world's rich countries. The poorer countries of the world are the ones most at risk of suffering from this crisis. They are the ones that would have the greatest difficulty to rebound and so the efforts by the IMF will be extremely beneficial to these already fragile markets. With this in mind, I do not see a reason to create another Bretton Woods organization.

In the end, it is sometimes better to focus on the small things in order to right larger problems. The international crisis is a problem that affects the globe but in order to address it, we must look to our own backyards before building another international financial body.

- blenCOWe

Canada leads world in banking

Today, the World Economic Forum released their evaluation of the banking systems of the world.Canada's financial system has been rated the best in the world. Way to go Canada!

This must come as a huge surprise to the leaders of Canada's opposition political parties as for the last week they have been attacking Stephen Harper over his failure to make changes to Canada's financial system in order to protect the nation from a similar meltdown to what the United States is experiencing. One popular criticism of Mr. Harper has been that "he must not truly understand Canada's economic reality." Well I guess the reality is that of all the leaders, Mr.Harper is the only one who truely understands Canada's situation!

- blenCOWe

Foreign Policy Platforms

For the internationalist like me, the foreign policy sections of the parties' election platforms are what is really interesting in this election. Today, the Embassy magazine published a review of the four "national" parties' foreign policy platforms. I liked the way the magazine did it because it grouped all the foreign policy sub-topics together for the reader so that it it isn't necessary to search through the large platforms each party publishes for all the relevant foreign policy issues/proposals. Here are the links to the Embassy's reviews of each parties' foreign policies... enjoy

Liberal Party Foreign Policy

Conservative Party Foreign Policy

New Democratic Party Foreign Policy

Green Party Foreign Policy

- blenCOWe

P.S. This is a shout out to Justin Lundy who has been complaining that I don't blog about him.

Canada's Place in the World Determined

One of the topics that has intermittently been discussed in the ongoing federal election has been concerning what is Canada's position in the world. Well I think this week we found our definitive answer: Canada is 180th out of 192 nations. Canada was the 180th nation to speak at the opening of the current session of the United Nations' General Assembly.

It is probable that a number of people will argue that this position is likely to have been influenced by the decision to send only a deputy minister to represent our nation instead of the Prime Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have already expressed my thoughts on this subject in a previous post. What I have to say this time is in reference to the message that Mr. Edwards presented to the UN Assembly.

Mr. Edward's presentation to the Assembly dealt with a number of topics from UN reform to human rights and the environment. One might say: "what's wrong with that? Those are important issues in the world today." Well that person would be correct but they also are not exactly new or groundbreaking. Those themes have been beat to death by almost every other nation in the UN. Why should Canada be positioned any earlier in the schedule of presentations if they are merely going to say what everyone else has to say? And this is not the fault of Mr. Edwards, it is the fault of the policy experts and bureaucrats within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade who have not been able to formulate a coherent and comprehensive plan for Canada's goals in the world. Nothing new was prepared for Mr. Edwards concerning Canada's position on climate change or Canada's intentions to compete for a seat on the 2010 Security Council.

We all know the areas of concern in the world and rough comprehensions of what the goals should be. What does need to be addressed is how these things are accomplished. This is the area where bureaucrats dwell (so it should have been beneficial to send a bureaucrat!). Politicians come up with the goals and bureaucrats are supposed to figure out how to accomplish these goals so don't blame the politicians (they have enough blame flying at them in this election).

So the next time you hear a federal candidate questioned on Canada's place in the world, remember the role that bureaucrats play in determining where Canada is in the world for it is not always a question of what but how.

- blenCOWe

Election thoughts from Beausejour

Last night was the first candidates debate in the Beausejour riding. It took place at the Brunton auditorium on the campus here at Mount Allison University. The place was filled for the most part and pretty evenly split between students and regular residents of Sackville.

The candidates of the four parties contesting this riding were all there. Representing the Liberals was incumbent Dominic Leblance, Omer Leger for the Conservatives, Mike Milligan for the Green Party and my fellow classmate Chris Durrant for the NDP. Each candidate was given the floor for ten minutes and this was then followed by a question and answer period with questions coming from the audience.

Omer Leger greatly emphasized his level of experience in New Brunswick provincial politics. He played mostly on the strength of leadership of Stephen Harper but argued vigorously that it was time that Beausejour was represented by someone other than the Liberal party. He proposed that he would put in "aggressive effort to create opportunities for young people and young professionals" to stop the hemhorraging of New Brunswick's young workforce to Canada's West.

Dominic Leblanc's ten minute introduction largely parroted the views of Liberal leader Stephane Dion, further strengthening my belief that Mr. Leblanc is merely a mouthpiece for Dion and does not really represent his riding. He focused on the two issues of the national campaign; economy and the environment. The only thing he said that I believe truely would benefit this area was the re-investment in post-secondary education by way of the Millenium Bursury Foundation. As a past recipient of a Millenium Bursury, this spoke to me because of the great help my bursury had on relieving my student debt.

Mike Milligan didn't really impress me in his speech. He conveyed his past experiences, not in politics but in life and while he showed considerable insight it was not enought to instill the kind of confidence that one should have in their elected representative. In terms of political views, he stuck to the generic Green Party dialogue.

As for Chris Durrant, I've known him for a while now, being in more than a few classes with him and through my extensive involvement in politics on campus. I knew he would be entertaining and intelligent but the force at which he presented himself with onstage caught me by surprise. Chris easily had the best opening speech of all the candidates, utilizing the French language more than the others, probably in preparation for the upcoming debates in the more heavily francophone areas of this riding. I believe he connected with many of the youth in the crowd on what he and the NDP saw as Canada's future, both home and abroad, as well as his willingness to fight for families augmented by a personal experience that all could identify with.

At this point I could conclude that the majority of the crowd were either won over by Chris' presence or were supporters of him from the beginning. Either way, it was clearly evident that the majority of the crowd were behind Chris.

The question and answer period was politically risky for the candidates as the floor was open to any and everyone in the crowd. I had a pretty good idea of what questions would be asked of the candidates and the people in the audience did not disappoint. We heard questions about sustainability, nuclear power/waster, Omar Khadr, Insite as well as justice and childcare. Mr. Leblanc had mentioned in his opening statement that he was looking forward to some questions on Canada's role in the world. I was looking forward to this subject but the only topic that was really breached was Canada's foreign aid. I had a couple tough questions for the candidates in theis area but unfortunately the debate had a curfew of 9:30pm so I missed out. But this, like I have written about in the past, is a perfect example of how this election is narrow sighted, concerning mainly subjects of domestic importance.

As for how each candidate did, this may be debatable but the way I see it, Chris showed intelligence and presence that far exceeded his experience. I truely think that like the opening statements, he excelled and was at the top. Joining him up there was Dominic, who used his tremendous amount of experience to provide well articulated and polished answers. As for Mr. Milligan, the question period exposed even more his lack of experience and knowledge in federal politics. Unfortunately, the worst performance of the day was by Omer Leger who appeared to be unprepared, dodging many questions that are of great interest in this election.

I will be following this election closely as it is the riding that I will be voting in and I try to give updates as more events happen.

- blenCOWe

Great Article on the Election and Foreign Policy

This article came across my RSS feed today. It comes from a group called Canada's World. They're interested in Canada's role in the world and how we come to achieve this. It argues the point that I have previously made that the current election is ignoring the importance of foreign policy to Canada's direction in the next couple years. Check it out, it's intelligent and it offers links to more sources on the topic.

Canada's World

- blenCOWe

Mr. Edwards on the Largest Stage

Jeff Davis reports today that the Canadian government will be sending the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonard Edwards, as the Canadian official who will be attending the opening of the United Nations General Assembly next week.

The decision to send Mr. Edwards has drawn some ire from Canadian foreign policy experts because of his low level of seniority. While most states usually send either their head of state/ambassador or their foreign affairs minister, Canada will only be sending a civil servant – a high ranking one at that but still a civil servant and not an official of the government.

Lloyd Axworthy says he can’t understand why there won’t be at least a senior minister at the important diplomatic event. That surprises me because I can fully see why Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson will not be able to attend.

Turn on the television for five minutes and you will probably see an advertisement from one of the major political parties or a news story covering the election. This means Canada must be going through a federal election! This is quite an important time in Canadian politics and the direction our country moves in, but that’s not the whole story: Canada doesn’t really have a government right now!

The way I understand it, when the Prime Minister goes to the Governor General to ask him or her to dissolve parliament and the GG agrees there technically is no longer a government until after the election results are in. We do not have a system like the United States where the election occurs three months before the new president takes office. With this in mind, it would be inappropriate to send Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson to speak to the UN because they do not actually hold office right now. They are the incumbents (well not Emerson because he is not running again) but they are not the actual Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister at the time. Because of this, Canada’s next highest foreign affairs official would then have to be Mr. Edwards because the civil service is separate from the political leaders and is not affected by the election. Therefore, by sending Mr. Edwards to the UN, Canada is actually sending its highest CURRENT foreign affairs official.

I will admit that this is unfortunate timing as there are extremely important issues to discuss at the UN, for example the Security Council elections and the UN mission in Afghanistan. It would be better if Canada could send its Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister to the meetings but this truly isn’t possible. I believe that the chosen path is the most responsible because any elected official that would go to the meetings would not be able to say for certain that they will be in the next parliament let alone the governing party. By sending Mr. Edwards, other countries can have the assurance that Mr. Edwards will be around Oct. 15 to pass on their messages.

Think about it; what is worse for Canada’s international image: to send an official that is technically low ranking in seniority or to send someone who can make all kinds of promises but may not even be in parliament three weeks from now?

I think the question answers itself…

- blenCOWe

Sanctions Falling on Deaf Ears

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York speaking to the United Nations this week. He is spouting off his usual rhetoric about the great powers "bullying" Iran over its nuclear program and so on.

In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.

In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.

- blenCOWe

Some Good News for the Afghan Mission

In the debates between John McCain and Barack Obama in the lead up to this November's presidential election we have heard how the United States must re-commit to the mission in Afghanistan. Typically, this has involved a surge of US troops that is supposed to help combat the ongoing insurgency, especially in the troublesome Kandahar region.

I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.

With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.

Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!

Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.

Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.

- blenCOWe

The Electoral Blinders

I read an article in the Globe and Mail today that really got me thinking. For those, like me, who consider ourselves internationalists the current Canadian federal election is shaping up to be quite a bore. It seems that none of the parties are truly concerned about Canada's place and/or role in the World. This causes me great concern when I consider both our national history and our current realities.

In the past, Canada has shouted from the highest mounts about its involvement and achievements in international affairs. From its surprising military achievements in the World Wars to its involvement with the creation of the United Nations or Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize winning work in the Suez Crisis to the decades of involvement by the Canadian Forces in UN peacekeeping missions. Now we've all heard this before; it has been repeatedly beaten into our brains about Canada and its peacekeeping and such but there are other areas of involvement that are beginning to dwindle. One prime example of this is with the Security Council elections. Canada has been very successful, for a middle power, at "punching above its weight" in many areas of international affairs. One way it has done this has been to place itself in positions that give it importance that its strength may not bestow. A seat on the Security Council has traditionally been one of those positions. Recognizing the importance and power that the Security Council has in world affairs, Canada has traditionally launched strong campaigns to win one of these seats of prestige when its name came around in the election cycle.

Unfortunately, of late, Canada's history of presence and involvement in international affairs has be relegated to an afterthought. Beginning with the previous Liberal regime and continuing through the most recent parliament, Canada's involvement has dwindled. Our nation has gone from one of the leading contributors to UN peacekeeping missions to contributing less than 100 people worldwide. Now I am not narrow minded, I realize that Canada is deeply involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan and with our limited military strength, in both supplies and manpower, it is necessary to pick and choose our battles. I wish Canada could contribute more but we just do not have the ability to do so currently.

I have been a big supporter of viewing Canada's involvement in Afghanistan not as a military mission but as a development/peacebuilding mission that requires the use of force because of the difficult situation the aid workers are in. Without the presence of our military and the rest of the NATO forces, the aid workers would be greatly at risk from those radicals who are intent on maintaining the stranglehold on the Afghan people. This type of work is necessary as less and less we see peacekeeping as being relevant and more and more we find that peacebuilding is required. The mission in Afghanistan is a peacebuilding mission and should be recognized as not a solely military endeavour.

As for the Security Council, the recent remarks released about how the Conservative government was not going to contest for the open seat unless it was sure it could win straight up pissed me off. This type of politics sends the message that Canada is afraid and unwilling to participate in the knitty gritty aspects of world politics. Canada should have been a lock to win this seat but its recent trend of pissing people off and not using its resources have created the situation of doubt we now are faced with. It strikes me that our recent officials have been unwilling to "play the game" so to say when it comes to these international elections. These seats confer great influence and power but one must sacrifice to get them. It may be necessary to give out some favourable votes in return for support come election time. However, Canada has largely just pissed off everyone except the US, Israel and a few key allies. In the past Canada would have easily had the support it would need to get a Security Council seat but now Canadian officials don't want to incur the necessary upfront costs that later benefit our nation's stature.

Then there was the recent revelation by Stephen Harper that Canada will be out of Afghanistan in 2011. I consider this a complete flip flop on the part of Mr. Harper. Last winter/spring, when the whole subject of renewal was the topic de jour, the Conservative government was against putting down a firm withdrawal date for both military and politically strategic reasons. This made sense; it is stupid to tell an enemy that you are only willing to fight until a certain date for they will just bide their time until that day and then once you leave they essentially win.

This just exacerbates what I believe to have been a debacle in the handling of the quest for support from NATO in return for Canada staying in Kandahar. The goal was to push for greater commitments of support from its fellow NATO members (of which I think France and Germany are showing how truely weak they are and how far they have fallen as world powers) but Canada could not gain solid support and ended up settling for a scenario (US troops are freed up to move to Kandahar) that will probably make things worse. Canada's troops are doing a good job in the conflict that everyone else is too afraid to engage in there but they are not getting the political support they need because of a lack of will from their political representatives.

Now I'm not saying that the opposition leaders are better; neither Layton nor Dion strike me as being people capable of leading Canada back to its strong international stature of the past. Both men have called for a complete pullout of Afghanistan which would leave Canada with just its paltry current commitments to UN peacekeeping missions. Then they want Canada to take part in global warming remedies that would hurt our nation's economy and stresses the inequalities amongst developed and underdeveloped states.

In the end, Canada's political leaders appear to be concerned with their electoral survival first and foremost and do not have a greater image for Canada and its place in the world. Stephen Harper did for a while but his recent direction has made me begin to wonder. I believe it's a sad day when Canada's place in the world is relegated to an afterthought. Canada cannot continue to prosper in this increasingly globalized world without a strong and coherent plan for its place in the world.

I might be mistaken, but I believe this kind of plan is supposed to be called "foreign policy." It's one of those little topics that are supposed to be discussed in elections!

- blenCOWe

Ambition Without Reality for the New UN Assembly President

The General Assembly of the United Nations has just announced its new president. Former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann has been selected after running unopposed by anyone from the Latin American states of whose turn it was to hold the position. Upon the announcement of his selection Mr. Brockmann revealed his own plans to make the United Nations a more democratic institution. That's a pretty high and mighty position considering the fact that he didn't really have to compete agains anyone to gain his elected position!

Anyway...

The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.

I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.

Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.

- blenCOWe

Election Musings

Here are a few things that have been going through my mind while watching coverage of the Canadian Federal Election:

Women

I applaud Stephane Dion for his initiative to nominate 106 female candidates in this election. I agree with the fact that there are not many women in Canadian politics but that is pretty much the only thing that we agree upon. Women are just over 51% of the population but held only 58 seats (at my last count) in the 304 seat House of Commons (which is less that one fifth of the seats). Clearly these percentages do not match up... but should they? Canada's parliamentary system follows the "First Past the Post System." This system has many advantages and disadvantages which are largely influenced by whether or not one benefits or suffers from this system. Despite the many calls for electoral reform, Canada, currently, does not employ any facet of proportional representation in its voting practices. This probably has some influence in determining how many women are elected each election. But then again, maybe not.

Unlike the recent surges in political activity that the US Presidential election has seen, female politicians in Canada have not been able to attract a near level of response. Canada has had its share of female political leaders from Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough to current Green Party leader Elizabeth May. None of these leaders though have been able to rouse the same level of support and activity that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Pallin have. It is probably stands to reason that a majority of voters in Canada do not focus on gender when choosing who to vote for. This educated guess leads me to make another hopefully educated ;) assumption in that Canadian voters tend to vote for who is most qualified and represents their interests the best. This is to say that if a female candidate is well qualified and truely connects with the interests of their electorate then she is likely to garner a fair amount of support. On the other hand, campaigning on the platform of being a woman and gender representation is not likely to garner as much support. As a voting citizen of Canada, I would like to think that we are voting for the most qualified candidate in elections and not based on factors of proportional representation.

Note: If I offend anyone with these views I am sorry but these thoughts are based on my recent years of political study and not because I believe women lack the capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the position or that women belong in the private sphere as opposed to public office.

The Carbon Tax

While watching one of Liberal leader Stephane Dion's recent speeches on CPAC, the thought hit me: "Okay so if we decide to accept your Carbon Tax plan, how would we know that it is working?" The Carbon Tax that Dion is proposing has no legitimate means of evaluation to determine if it is effective in its endeavour or even doing what it says it will. Examining Greenhouse emissions would not be the proper the indicator of this as the two things are not directly connected. Greenhouse Gases are likely to lessen in the next few years with the recent attention that global warming has received. Clean technology is growing in capabilities and becoming less expensive to own which increases the public's ability to access it and incorporate it into their lives. This will have a positive effect on decreasing GHG's. Also, the astronomical oil prices of late are forcing people to conserve their dependence on carbon based fuels and towards more environmentally friendly and cheaper means so that they do not go broke paying for the petroleum-based products we have grown to use so readily. These shifts in consumption will lower GHG's independently of the Carbon Tax, so any success by the tax would be undetectable.

Introducing a policy so invasive and costly without a reliable means of monitoring its efficacy is wreckless and irresponsible. This renegade tax would be used to fund a Liberal governments excessive spending and would unjustly add to the increasing cost of living for Canadians. When the next election would be called the Liberals would likely yell from mountain top so that everyone could hear how their Carbon Tax was so effective in reducing Green House Gases when their decline would largely be a separate phenomenon. In the end, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party are using the environment as a crutch to raise taxes and increase their ability to spend.



One final thought: I LOVE NOT HAVING CLASS ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS!!!!!!

- blenCOWe

I'm Baaaaaaack!!!!

After a long absence from blogging, I am back. Football camp is over and I am back to school and have more time on my hands. This is a great thing because I am excited for the election that finally became official today.

Watching the leaders on television today was interesting. Some thoughts I had this morning while watching them were:
- Dion is still uninspiring
- Layton is pushing harder than ever to become the choice of the left wing
- Duceppe is ... well... he's just there
- May speaks well but strikes me as any other Green Party candidate: someone who is entertaining but will not be taken seriously (as an option) by the majority of voters
- Harper seems strong and well prepared for this election

I can't wait to see how this election plays out. I expect a lot of slander from the opposition parties and a harsh dose of reality, provided by the Conservatives, as to how successful the other leaders would be as Prime Ministers.

In my mind, there is no doubt the Conservatives will become the government again. The question in my mind is whether or not a majority will be reached.

Oooooh the election fever is growing

- blenCOWe

Excused Absence

To anyone that reads this blog,

I'm taking a bit of a hiatus from posting because I'm in the middle of football camp getting ready for the season.

I realize news and politics never sleeps but at the end of the day I'm banged up and bruised and all I want to do is lay down with a bag of ice.

I'll be back in a couple of days.

- blenCOWe

Russia's already won

According to the BBC, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been able to broker a deal between Russia and Georgia to come to a peaceful resolution to the recent fighting in and around South Ossetia.

This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.

I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.

- blenCOWe

Russia's true intentions

Like most people around the world, my recent free time has been dominated by watching the Olympics and cheering on my home nations (Great Britain and Canada). Nevertheless, my ears perk up when I hear the few stories that are reported concerning the war in Georgia/South Ossetia.

The more I think about it, I truly believe that Russia's intervention has had nothing to do with protecting the separatists in South Ossetia. Okay, so Russia has allowed the granting of passports to the people of the breakaway region and battled the Georgian forces who were attempting to restore stability in the area. If this was all that Russia was doing I would believe that their intentions were honourable. But that's not all that Russia is doing...

Recent stories about the conflict have shown that the conflict as is stands now has engaged in more than protectionist movements. Russian forces have sunk a Georgian boat, destroyed a civilian airport and refused a Georgian offer for a ceasefire. In taking these actions, Russia is showing a desire to expand the conflict into the rest of Georgia and have it continue.

Also, Russia has attacked a major pipeline that provides oil to the West. This pipeline is a major economic source for the Georgian people and pumps approximately 1% of the world's oil. This show's a deliberate attempt to further this conflict past not only the people of South Ossetia but the rest of Georgia and the West.

But why are they doing this? South Ossetia cannot be that valuable to the Russian Federation and as already mentioned, this conflict is going beyond just the separatist ambitions of the small area.

Well what about the oil? Unlikely. The pipeline is not that strategic of a target.

So why does Russia believe this such an important situation to escalate what could have remained relatively benign?

Just throwing this out there... but as I've already posted, we're seeing a return to Cold War style politics.

Russia's determination to destabilize the Georgian state might be Russia's bloody response to the missile shield currently being built by NATO in central Europe. Russia has already broached the subject of placing strategic bombers in Cuba and has agreed to sell $2 billion worth of weapons systems to Venezuala and Hugo Chavez.

These first two moves came in response to the missile shield but why this move, and why now?

Well the last one is easy: the Olympics provides cover for the Russians to avoid being crucified in the media for the moves they have made beyond protecting the separatists. By the time the world awakens from its Olympic daze, the majority of the damage and atrocities of war will have already taken place.

Now for the other why...

Georgia is a strong ally of the United States and is campaigning for its inclusion into the membership of the NATO alliance. If that were to occur then Russia would have to feel more threatened than it ever has because a member of the western alliance and strong ally of the US would be right up on its doorstep. I realize the Russia already is member of NATO that shares a border with Russia (Latvia) but Georgia has the increased likelihood of having missile systems placed on its soil because of its geographic proximity to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. This will increase the fear already instilled in Russia by the missiles going into Poland.

Georgia's membership however is not guaranteed. While a promise has been given that it will become a member, there is no timeline attached to it. This is what is likely enticing the Russians to take this plan of action. As long as Georgia is in this destabilized state, it will not be invited into full membership in NATO because to do so would embroil NATO into the conflict based on its collective security agreements. Therefore, the members of NATO will not vote to include Georgia if it will mean that they will be involved in battling the Russians because of the large scale conflict that would likely ensue despite the already existing commitments to Afghanistan. Georgia, in effect, would be the fuse to the next world war.

So much for Russia's benevolent intentions!

-blenCOWe

Defending Louise Arbour

Outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour has been receiving a lot of negative press lately as she prepares to end her term without an attempt for re-appointment. Watchdog NGO, Human Rights Watch has been recently critical of her time in office, claiming that she was not critical enough of major powers Russia and China.

Her record shows that she did not criticize either of these global giants during her term but she has been effective in criticizing some of the worst human rights violaters in the world. The list of her most criticized violaters includes Burma, the DRC, Iran, Israel, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Uganda. I don't know about anyone else but when I think of places where human rights violations are prevalent the aforementioned are the places that first come to mind.

Furthermore, it has become increasingly made public that the Human Rights Council suffers from bloc voting. This has been able to curtail some of the things that the Council could have done. Much like the Security Council, the states protect their allies even if they are violaters of human rights. Currently China and Russia are both on the Human Rights Council which places the Human Rights Commissioner in a difficult position; if he or she (in this case) is critical of powerful states like China and Russia then those states are likely to make life difficult in the Council in order to protect themselves. This doesn't mean that the Commissioner abandons the pursuit of human rights in those countries, just that they do so in a way that doesn't leave stranded the human rights of those in more troubling areas.

Commissioner Arbour has been outspoken against some of the worst violators in the world, which has been her job. Rather than try to tarnish her term and the work she has done with useless diatribe let's honour her contribution and then look to the future.

- blenCOWe

More of the Same

This summer has been rife with stories of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and his new election campaign strategy based on his new Carbon Tax plan and "strong leadership" (HA!). Dion has claimed that he feels confident contesting an election on this and in the last couple days, during the recent Conservative caucus meetings, Prime Minister Harper has dared Dion on to bring down the government in the fall.

Well what does this mean for the average Canadian citizen?

Facing prominent issues like the environment, the economy, and crime it looks like we are likely to see another session of parliament plagued by the threat of party politics and poor policy discussion.

The opposition parties pay little or no attention to the actual benefits of the Conservative policies, only to their own fates, completely ignoring the actual welfare of the Canadian people.

The only good thing that would happen with fall election would be that the Conservative party gained a majority in the House of Commons and this recent period of limited minority governance would be over.

Here we go again!

- blenCOWe

Broken Promises

I just wish the IOC could break its promises like the Chinese have broken theirs; just to give them a taste of their own medicine. When Beijing was campaigning for the upcoming Olympic Games Chinese officials promised that their human rights record and public access to the Internet would be bettered.

OOPS!!!

China's human rights record has not gotten better and may have even been further tarnished in the recent months. The so-called "increased access" is limited to sites that the Chinese government deem legal; so in other words: no improvement there. And then China has been "cleaning up" Beijing lately by removing those people they consider "undesirable" and replacing them with little pieces of artwork to beautify the city.

China really hasn't fulfilled its commitments to the IOC. In a fair world, the IOC would be able to withold the Games from Beijing but with just over a week until the opening ceremonies there is no chance of that.

China: 1 Olympics: 0

Do you feel proud about what you've done China?

- blenCOWe

China's Bountiful Blunders

For the last couple months I have been left speechless (sort of ... lol) about the decisions that China has been making that have international ramifications. Personally, I don't understand how China can continue to make poor decisions that deteriorate its international image.

The short and probably incomplete list of poor decisions that come to mind are:

1. Blocking effective action from taking place in the crisis in Darfur because of the oil connections China has with Khartoum.
2. The over-excessive response to the Tibetan protesters in Lhasa.
3. Selling arms to Robert Mugabe's abusive ZANU-PF in the period leading up to the presidential elections. Arms that were probably used to oppress MDC supporters.
4. Blocking UN sanctions against the fraudulent Mugabe regime.
5. It's extensive military buildup including the ballistic missile capabilities on their new submarines.
6. It's lack of cooperation in fulfilling its Olympic promises to better its human rights record and to increase internet acess and openness for its citizens.
7. Taking action to prevent the ICC from taking action against the Sudanese president who is accused of crimes against humanity.

In the global arena, China is active in trading its products and finding ample sources of oil abroad. It cannot afford to make itself so unpopular based on its oppressive and ill-advised foreign policy choices. It is unlikely that China will be able to support its population if it only befriends the "rogue" or oppressive regimes. China needs to be able to endear itself to other democracies and the best way to do that is to show a sincere concern for human rights and to pursue good policies in that area.

It just appears that China is creating a negative image for itself and one that is likely impact China's future foreign successes. This image is driven by the deliberate yet senseless negative policies of the Chinese government. I realize China has always been a bit different in its political philosophies but it's about time it took a step back and evaluated the impression it is giving in its policy decisions.

- blenCOWe

Cold War Memories

I realize I wasn't really around for the Cold War, I was born in the mid 80's so technically I was alive for the last couple years but I was a toddler so that doesn't really count. That said, I have become a big fan of studying Cold War history and politics and I am beginning to see some things in the news that lead me to think that the United States and Russia are tangled in a Cold War-styled struggle right now in international relations.

There are the little disputes between the two powers over topics like certain independence movements (Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc.), arctic sovereignty and UN Security Council sanctions for Zimbabwe. These are not really devastating to US-Russian diplomacy, but it still adds to the tension between the two.

Then last week Russia announced the possible deployment of some of its strategic bombers in Cuba. This re-surfaced memories of the crisis surrounding Russia's placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Cuba is notoriously anti-American and it doesn't matter that Fidel Castro has retired because the person now in charge is his brother Raul. These bombers would easily be able to reach targets in the United States (Florida is 90 miles away) and are intended to be a Russian response to the United State's move to introduce a missile shield in central Europe.

The missile shield is intended to be a defense against terrorism and rogue states not as a move against the Russia Federation. The missiles would be located in NATO member states and as of the last time that I checked Russia and NATO are not at war with each other. Like the missiles did 46 years ago, the strategic bombers and their placement in an opponent's backyard poses a credible threat to the United States security. If a situation of war was to arise, the bombers create a risk of attack that the homeland of the United States is unused to (one of the reasons 9/11 was so profound in its impact on US security).

Russia's move to re-introduce a Russian threat to US homeland security is an intentional threat to the US. Following the 1962 crisis, President Kennedy pledged that the United States would never invade Cuba. This means that Cuba has no need to defend itself against the US and thus would not need the added arsenal. In addition, in the months since the retirement of Fidel Castro, US tension towards Cuba has softened a bit, thus making the escalation poorly timed.

Adding more fuel to the fire, today it was reported that Russia will be selling $2 billion worth of arms to Venezuela at the request of, US opponent and president,Hugo Chavez. The deal includes the sale of submarines and the necessary equipment for missile defense systems. This is the latest of deals that Chavez and Russia have had, which have already totaled $4 billion. This presents a possible threat to the US because Hugo Chavez is quite possibly the biggest and loudest opponent of George W. Bush and the United States of America that currently exists.

These latest moves are of strategic concern because it would appear that Russia is building alliances with those states that can be classified as the enemies of the United States. Russia is uniting together a new sphere of influence targeted against the United States. This time, however, it is not communism that binds its members but their opposition to the United States of America. This reality is potentially more dangerous than the previous one because the target is not just the economic system or infrastructure but the citizens and culture of the United States. Dangerous means costly and the price that would be paid would be the lives of innocent American civilians.

The chance for a new conflict, especially one in the western hemisphere, is troubling but the worst part about it is the escalation factor that would be involved. If something were to happen, the alliances and partnerships that exist in this hemisphere would likely bring the entire hemisphere to war. Add in NATO and Russia and this regional conflict now spreads out across the world. Welcome to World War 3!

This all stinks like the many little proxy disputes the littered the Cold War era. As a citizen of a western hemisphere nation, this growing situation and the chance for escalation worries me. The world need not return to the shadow of a war between great powers. Small scale conflicts are giving everyone enough trouble as is, in this case bigger is not better.

- blenCOWe

A Final Push for Peace?

I fully appreciate the gravity of the United States sending William Burns to the nuclear talks with Iran but it seems to me that a lot of the recent discussion on the subject might be a little over-ambitious.

In the waning months of the his final term in the presidency, George W. Bush is attempting to create visions of peace to include in his legacy. He has pushed for a peace agreement between Syria and Israel and has ended 30 years of US unwillingness to work with the Iranians towards an amicable agreement.

These endeavours are admirable but unfortunately both of these actions will probably take longer than the remaining months that he has in office. To begin involvement in these situations knowing full well that they will last beyond his term is both ignorant and unrealistic. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, is under no obligation to continue whatever works he starts. Mr. Bush SHOULD know this and his foreign counterparts do too so what is Bush going to offer these people? The foreign leaders that Bush is trying to work with have no incentive to deal with Bush in earnest because they know that in five months they will be dealing with someone else. This is especially troublesome because of the distance the candidates are attempting to place between themselves and Bush's practices and record. The chance for continuity is slim and considering the volatile and rapidly shifting nature of international politics, the effort that Bush is putting in now is unlikely to produce lasting results.

For example, recent remarks have indicated that, in the Iran case, if the multilateral talks break down, the Iranians can expect conflict from the United States. How is Iran supposed to react to these comments? And how credible a threat can it be from the United States if the threat of conflict only lasts five months? This situation has the same effect as trying to place a withdrawal date in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a foreseeable end in sight, opponents need only bide their time so that at the right time they can disrupt the ongoing process.

Rather than attempting to forge deals himself, Bush could work with Congress and the Senate to create policy that can continue past these next presidential elections. This would be a much more effective use of his time and the taxpayers' money.

In the end, Bush has set high expectations for his final months in office and possibly might have set the bar a bit too high. It is beginning to look more and more like a last ditch effort to leave some remnants of peace in his lasting legacy.

- blenCOWe

In-and-Out Bitterness

I'm beginning to think that the resulting furor from the opposition over the supposed in-and-out scandal is getting out of hand.

Realistically, what have the Conservatives really done? They found a way to get as much out of their election financing as they could. It wasn't something completely new, they just used it more than it had been in the past. There was no conscious attempt to break election law; the Tories acted within the exact wording of the law.

So why the furor?

This is just another example of the Liberal Party's greater focus on trying to distract Canadians with delusions of scandal and corruption rather than positive policy discussion... kind of like the last government... a Liberal government!

The Liberals are just sore that the Conservatives have shown themselves to be able to play the "politics" game better than they do. This is quite a blow for the "natural governing party!

Before the witch hunt torches are further lit, let's just think about what the responsible and constructive solution to this problem might be. If this type of financial practice is no longer desirable then why not just reform electoral law to say as much. Address the framework that has allowed this so that it doesn't happen again. This will do much more to prevent future scandal than the Liberals current smear campaign in the media.

You know, the funny thing about witch hunts: they were usually fed by propaganda and misinformation and its not like they stopped witchcraft.

- blenCOWe