First, there was the complaint against Maclean's arguing that Mark Steyn's article and its excerpt in the magazine promoted hatred towards the religion of Islam. Steyn was forced to defend his right to free speech in front of the BC Human Rights Commission, who deem it their responsibility to determine and restrict speech that they feel is hateful.
I have a problem with people who are like the commission. More specifically, I hate political correctness. There exists a problem in any society where intellectual discussion can be attacked and curtailed in order to make sure no one's feelings are hurt. I don't see how a society can be progressive when it lacks the ability to speak freely on any subject.
That being said, I believe there is a difference between free speech and hate. Christopher Maughan has brought to attention the existence of "Hatebook." A play on the popular social networking site, Facebook, except for creating online identities built on the topics people hate.
How come there hasn't been more publicity about this site? This site actively promotes hatred and its greatest number of users are registered in Montreal. The creator maintains that the site is not designed for discrimination but this isn't the message that the site sends. On the home page it says that users may "upload somebody's lies or publish secrets - get the latest gossip from your enemies and friends - reveal photos and videos on your 'hate profile' - tag your enemies - join a 'hate-clan' to get rid of all annoying this around you - take over the world."
This sounds like discrimination to me!
But let's be real, we're dealing with internet politics here and it is almost impossible to limit what content can be found online. To attack this would draw the ire of free speech activists and would just result in the website being moved to a different domain.
So where is the real discussion here?
Well how about this: do we enjoy hate? We like to hate on people because they hate on us. We join social network sites to bring people who hate together. It seems to me that we have an inherent disposition to hate others or even that we enjoy it. What does this say about us as a society? Personally, I would rather see the BC Human Rights Commission and the other bodies like it to to address this rather than bullshit complaints like that against Mr. Steyn. Doing so would be of greater benefit to Canadians than curtailing productive discussion.
- blenCOWe
Monday, June 30, 2008
Canada's Foreign Policy Myth Rebutted
Today (June 30), in the Globe and Mail, Michael Valpy has an article where he discusses the enduring perception of Canada as a peacekeeping nation. He describes the moral idealism that embodied the foreign policy of the Pearson era.
Mr. Valpy comes to the conclusion that Canada's positive image in foreign policy is no more than a myth now. Thanks to a decline in Pearsonian idealism since 1960, Canada's foreign policy no longer reflects a "specially endowed middle power, as the reasonable man's country, as the broker or the skilled intermediary, [that] made peace.”
There is no doubt that since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan (if not earlier) Canada's peacekeeping efforts have declined. The number of peacekeepers we have abroad has dwindled and probably correspondingly, so has our international presence.
However, it is important to note that Mr. Valpy's comparison to the past ignores two major facts: the first being that the nature of war has changed since 1960 and second, Canada no longer has the same amount of resources to draw upon for peacekeeping purposes.
In the immediate period following the end of World War II until the turn of the century, conflicts were largely between states. This usually meant a breach of one actor's sovereign territory or other aggression that broke whatever fragile international law there is. This made it easier for other states to align themselves in support. One could either help defend the victim's right to sovereignty or support whatever claims were made to authorize the aggression. The common link was that there was something specific to fight over... and most of the time this was territory.
Today's conflicts are increasingly intra-state and based on ethnic cleavages. It is this difference that makes foreign involvement difficult. Except for instances of clear aggression by one side, choosing sides means picking one ethnicity over another. For a secular nation like Canada this is a minefield of problems. In an increasingly globalized world, singling out a specific ethnic group is an invitation for trouble. Ethnicity extends beyond the man made borders that divide this world. To move against one faction of an ethnic group is likely to create a reaction from its other members worldwide. Thus, it doesn't make much sense to involve yourself in contentious issues that will almost certainly create a negative backlash. The divisions between right and wrong are less defined and the chances for mistakes are greater. This just makes it that much harder to find it strategically wise to intervene and keep the peace.
In regards to the second point, Canada has changed, plain and simple. We are a nation that was sired in warfare. Many of our major achievements have resulted from our participation in armed conflict. This made it necessary for Canada to be well prepared. Post-1945, Canada had the fourth largest standing military force and a large military industrial complex to back them thanks to our natural reserves. This is no longer the case.
After the war, Canada removed the draft, returned its workforce and resources, to non-military applications and bought into the idea of collective security. Our neighbour to the South, for example, continued to build up its defence capabilities to the point where the military industrial complex is one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. In comparison, Canada's complex is one of the smallest economic sectors. This limits our capabilities to engage ourselves abroad.
Involving ourselves in a major engagement like Afghanistan is taxing on our resources and to extend ourselves beyond that is dangerous. It is crucial to remember that great power states like Britain, the USSR and potentially the United States were brought down by over-stretching their assets. We should be wary to learn from history for fear of the idea that if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. While Canada isn't a great power, we should still be sure not to over-extert what we do have.
It isn't that I don't think Canada should not be involved in peacekeeping (more), its just that it seems that many people who argue this point appear to be oblivious of the changes that have occurred to international conflict as well as our nation and its capabilities. It wouldn't be wise to have our foreign policy dictated by ideals from a previous era, but at the same time we have a commitment to our predecessors to honour what they did. The challenge is how to do both.
- blenCOWe
Mr. Valpy comes to the conclusion that Canada's positive image in foreign policy is no more than a myth now. Thanks to a decline in Pearsonian idealism since 1960, Canada's foreign policy no longer reflects a "specially endowed middle power, as the reasonable man's country, as the broker or the skilled intermediary, [that] made peace.”
There is no doubt that since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan (if not earlier) Canada's peacekeeping efforts have declined. The number of peacekeepers we have abroad has dwindled and probably correspondingly, so has our international presence.
However, it is important to note that Mr. Valpy's comparison to the past ignores two major facts: the first being that the nature of war has changed since 1960 and second, Canada no longer has the same amount of resources to draw upon for peacekeeping purposes.
In the immediate period following the end of World War II until the turn of the century, conflicts were largely between states. This usually meant a breach of one actor's sovereign territory or other aggression that broke whatever fragile international law there is. This made it easier for other states to align themselves in support. One could either help defend the victim's right to sovereignty or support whatever claims were made to authorize the aggression. The common link was that there was something specific to fight over... and most of the time this was territory.
Today's conflicts are increasingly intra-state and based on ethnic cleavages. It is this difference that makes foreign involvement difficult. Except for instances of clear aggression by one side, choosing sides means picking one ethnicity over another. For a secular nation like Canada this is a minefield of problems. In an increasingly globalized world, singling out a specific ethnic group is an invitation for trouble. Ethnicity extends beyond the man made borders that divide this world. To move against one faction of an ethnic group is likely to create a reaction from its other members worldwide. Thus, it doesn't make much sense to involve yourself in contentious issues that will almost certainly create a negative backlash. The divisions between right and wrong are less defined and the chances for mistakes are greater. This just makes it that much harder to find it strategically wise to intervene and keep the peace.
In regards to the second point, Canada has changed, plain and simple. We are a nation that was sired in warfare. Many of our major achievements have resulted from our participation in armed conflict. This made it necessary for Canada to be well prepared. Post-1945, Canada had the fourth largest standing military force and a large military industrial complex to back them thanks to our natural reserves. This is no longer the case.
After the war, Canada removed the draft, returned its workforce and resources, to non-military applications and bought into the idea of collective security. Our neighbour to the South, for example, continued to build up its defence capabilities to the point where the military industrial complex is one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. In comparison, Canada's complex is one of the smallest economic sectors. This limits our capabilities to engage ourselves abroad.
Involving ourselves in a major engagement like Afghanistan is taxing on our resources and to extend ourselves beyond that is dangerous. It is crucial to remember that great power states like Britain, the USSR and potentially the United States were brought down by over-stretching their assets. We should be wary to learn from history for fear of the idea that if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. While Canada isn't a great power, we should still be sure not to over-extert what we do have.
It isn't that I don't think Canada should not be involved in peacekeeping (more), its just that it seems that many people who argue this point appear to be oblivious of the changes that have occurred to international conflict as well as our nation and its capabilities. It wouldn't be wise to have our foreign policy dictated by ideals from a previous era, but at the same time we have a commitment to our predecessors to honour what they did. The challenge is how to do both.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Stand Up and Fight
The sham that was the Zimbabwean presidential "election" is over now and Robert Mugabe will be announced shortly as winning by a landslide. Mugabe will argue that the election is a fair representation of his support because the country's electoral commission refused to remove Morgan Tsvangirai's name from the ballot.
Now while it is obvious that this was not a free and fair election, I believe that there are better ways that this election could have been contested. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF thugs rounded up people and forced them to vote, Tsvangirai was hiding in the Dutch embassy. That doesn't really spark much belief in his commitment to his convictions.
I understand that Tsvangirai feared for his supporters and attempted to pull his name out of the election in order to protect them. His fears are understandable as both he and the members of his Movement for Democratic Change faced violence and detainment in the weeks leading up to the run-off vote. But this brings to mind to old axiom of "no risk, no reward." If he was truly committed to change then he would have continued to contest the election.
This brings to mind the ideas of Vaclav Havel who was a leader of the "Velvet Revolution" and the first president of the Czech Republic. He led a non-violent revolution against the Communist government in Czechoslovakia. He believed that people need to suffer for their beliefs. If Morgan Tsvangirai wanted to truly represent change and democracy for Zimbabwe then he should have continued to contest the election and Mugabe's governance by force. Realistically, with the worldwide attention that this election was receiving, Tsvangirai and his supporters would be less likely to suffer serious harm. They might get roughed up a little bit or detained but this would just add to the negative publicity that Mugabe's government was already receiving. Supporters of the MDC were not able to free themselves from the oppression of this election so why is it fair that Tsvangirai can run and hide while everyone else must suffer.
But this is all moot now that the election is over. So what is next for Zimbabwe?
I applaud Stephen Harper for coming out and denouncing the sham election, calling it an "ugly perversion of democracy" and for proposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. Not being short-sighted, I also applaud the other world leaders, including the UN Security Council, for denouncing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's actions.
But what to do? what to do?
I am in no means an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I tend to prefer Realist international theory and niche democracy. I feel that in following these directions, it is possible for a state's foreign policy to be efficient and beneficial for all parties concerned. But in terms of Zimbabwe, I believe some intervention is called for. Mugabe's government is maintaining its control through violence and oppression and this is something that peaceful democracies must vehemently oppose.
Human security should be the foremost concern and it appears that the only way to ensure this would be to intervene and return control of the country to the people. Like any other international action, there will be questions over the "legality" (if there is such a thing in international politics) of intervention. Jean Jacques Rousseau has written that,
"the uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone maintained him, force alone overthrows him."
I read this quote a couple days ago and my mind went instantly to thoughts of Mugabe and Zimbabwe. He has come out and said that he would die before succeeding control to Tsvangirai. This opens the door; it is clear that he does not believe in democracy and a fair electoral process. The only way to remove this oppression is to intervene.
But who? Who will answer the call to arms?
Now while it is obvious that this was not a free and fair election, I believe that there are better ways that this election could have been contested. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF thugs rounded up people and forced them to vote, Tsvangirai was hiding in the Dutch embassy. That doesn't really spark much belief in his commitment to his convictions.
I understand that Tsvangirai feared for his supporters and attempted to pull his name out of the election in order to protect them. His fears are understandable as both he and the members of his Movement for Democratic Change faced violence and detainment in the weeks leading up to the run-off vote. But this brings to mind to old axiom of "no risk, no reward." If he was truly committed to change then he would have continued to contest the election.
This brings to mind the ideas of Vaclav Havel who was a leader of the "Velvet Revolution" and the first president of the Czech Republic. He led a non-violent revolution against the Communist government in Czechoslovakia. He believed that people need to suffer for their beliefs. If Morgan Tsvangirai wanted to truly represent change and democracy for Zimbabwe then he should have continued to contest the election and Mugabe's governance by force. Realistically, with the worldwide attention that this election was receiving, Tsvangirai and his supporters would be less likely to suffer serious harm. They might get roughed up a little bit or detained but this would just add to the negative publicity that Mugabe's government was already receiving. Supporters of the MDC were not able to free themselves from the oppression of this election so why is it fair that Tsvangirai can run and hide while everyone else must suffer.
But this is all moot now that the election is over. So what is next for Zimbabwe?
I applaud Stephen Harper for coming out and denouncing the sham election, calling it an "ugly perversion of democracy" and for proposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. Not being short-sighted, I also applaud the other world leaders, including the UN Security Council, for denouncing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's actions.
But what to do? what to do?
I am in no means an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I tend to prefer Realist international theory and niche democracy. I feel that in following these directions, it is possible for a state's foreign policy to be efficient and beneficial for all parties concerned. But in terms of Zimbabwe, I believe some intervention is called for. Mugabe's government is maintaining its control through violence and oppression and this is something that peaceful democracies must vehemently oppose.
Human security should be the foremost concern and it appears that the only way to ensure this would be to intervene and return control of the country to the people. Like any other international action, there will be questions over the "legality" (if there is such a thing in international politics) of intervention. Jean Jacques Rousseau has written that,
"the uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone maintained him, force alone overthrows him."
I read this quote a couple days ago and my mind went instantly to thoughts of Mugabe and Zimbabwe. He has come out and said that he would die before succeeding control to Tsvangirai. This opens the door; it is clear that he does not believe in democracy and a fair electoral process. The only way to remove this oppression is to intervene.
But who? Who will answer the call to arms?
Friday, June 20, 2008
Fiberals!
I love this.
I thought the website www.willyoubetricked.ca was good but this site was sent to me and I love it even more.
In my opinion, www.theshiftygreen.ca is a work of art. It looks extraordinarily similar to the Liberals' thegreenshift.ca. The template is similar and the buttons look the same but the message is contrary. It has been composed so well that at first I thought I had accidentally clicked on the wrong site.
And that is the pure genius of it. It can easily be mistaken as the Liberals' site, yet providing the opposing point of view for the reader. Also, its critique of the Green Shift plan is more subtle (and thus less polarizing) than the vibrant and hard line site created first by the Conservative Party.
Argue the politics all you want, I think this is a creative and clever response to the Green Shift plan announced yesterday. Somebody's earned their money today!
-blenCOWe
I thought the website www.willyoubetricked.ca was good but this site was sent to me and I love it even more.
In my opinion, www.theshiftygreen.ca is a work of art. It looks extraordinarily similar to the Liberals' thegreenshift.ca. The template is similar and the buttons look the same but the message is contrary. It has been composed so well that at first I thought I had accidentally clicked on the wrong site.
And that is the pure genius of it. It can easily be mistaken as the Liberals' site, yet providing the opposing point of view for the reader. Also, its critique of the Green Shift plan is more subtle (and thus less polarizing) than the vibrant and hard line site created first by the Conservative Party.
Argue the politics all you want, I think this is a creative and clever response to the Green Shift plan announced yesterday. Somebody's earned their money today!
-blenCOWe
Delayed Reaction?
Yesterday, the Department of Defense released its "Canada First Defence Strategy" on its website amidst the mass publicity over the release of Stephane Dion's Green Shift Strategy. Apparently this is an issue with some people.
Today I was perusing some of the political blogs I keep track of and come across Vijay Sappani's post critiquing the quiet release of the document. According to him, there is something to be read into the way this was released, being that it was amidst other pressing news and one day before the House is set to adjourn.
Isn't this a bit of overkill?
Just over a month ago, Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Defence Peter MacKay came out and publicly announced the strategy and what it would entail. This subject was discussed at the time and now we've moved on to the issues of the moment. Why would the government need to publicize this strategy again when they have already done so?
I think Mr. Sappani is just trying to create more negativity that is unproductive and wasteful with people's time. Making comments about the stealthy publication of this document doesn't further the discussion on the subject or do anything truly constructive.
Then he complains about how Canada is moving away from its peacekeeping heritage and towards being a major combat.
Today I was perusing some of the political blogs I keep track of and come across Vijay Sappani's post critiquing the quiet release of the document. According to him, there is something to be read into the way this was released, being that it was amidst other pressing news and one day before the House is set to adjourn.
Isn't this a bit of overkill?
Just over a month ago, Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Defence Peter MacKay came out and publicly announced the strategy and what it would entail. This subject was discussed at the time and now we've moved on to the issues of the moment. Why would the government need to publicize this strategy again when they have already done so?
I think Mr. Sappani is just trying to create more negativity that is unproductive and wasteful with people's time. Making comments about the stealthy publication of this document doesn't further the discussion on the subject or do anything truly constructive.
Then he complains about how Canada is moving away from its peacekeeping heritage and towards being a major combat.
"Harper is putting Canada on a dangerous military path that could suck away money from other areas like health, environment into military combat operations in other parts of the world, wars that can never be won."
Canada's participation in Afghanistan does not reflect a withdrawal from peacekeeping activities. We are fulfilling our commitments to our allies and to membership in NATO. Due to the limited size of the Canadian Forces, this commitment secures the majority of resources that Canada has, which influences the other activities (e.g. peacekeeping) we can participate in. Canada cannot risk to overextend its resources which has been detrimental to nations in the past (the British Empire, the United States). Furthermore, I would consider the Afghan mission to be one of the major conflicts requiring the peacekeeping experience that Canada possesses.
With this in mind, I believe Mr. Sappani's comments are unnecessary and counterproductive to any discussion on this subject.
A Cost of Carbon Taxing
So Stephane Dion officially announced his Carbon Tax platform today and in response both sides have come out swinging. Websites have been created, television interviews done and the lines in the sand have been drawn.
There are many different issues that the Carbon Tax brings up including the revenue neutral claim, its harmful effects on certain groups and its proposed tax breaks. But how will it affect Canada's economy? And more specifically international trade.
I am by no means an economist, I understand the very basics and that doesn't extend beyond what was taught in my introductory economics classes. What I do know is that the more products are taxed, the more they will cost the consumer to acquire, which decreases demand.
Introducing the carbon tax increases the cost of products and therefore the cost of living. But wait Mr. Dion's plan promises tax cuts to help with the added costs of products that use carbon. That means everything is fine, the Canadian economy will be secure because we will have extra money to adjust to the increased costs of living. Unless of course you are not getting the tax breaks; like people who don't live/pay taxes in Canada.
Implementing Dion's carbon tax would make it more expensive for other nations to buy from Canada. Increased energy costs will increase production costs. Transportation costs are going to increase the cost of getting the product to the consumer. Both increase the cost to the consumer. Increased cost means less demand meaning international consumers look elsewhere for their products. Canada's economy shrinks and jobs are lost. I wonder what tax cuts Mr. Dion plans for people who have no income.
Also and unfortunately, Canada is a net exporter of dirty energy. While we do dabble in hydroelectricity, Canada's major energy exports are oil and natural gas. These are dirty fuel sources and are punished by the carbon tax. Our other major exports are lumber, agriculture and automotive which are all carbon intensive. This means the carbon tax would make all of these exports more expensive and decrease demand which means our economy will suffer. The Liberals' Carbon Tax would therefore punish Canadians for having an economy built on the products available to them and established generations before them.
Now I am not against moving to more environmentally friendly practices. I don't think anyone is, except maybe the corporations that sell dirty energy. All of the major political parties in Canada have come out and said that it is important for Canada to "go green." The difference is how the parties want to achieve this. The Liberals want to punish bad behaviour, the Conservatives and the NDP want to reward good behaviour. And yes, I also find it strange that the NDP and Conservatives agree on something but maybe that just goes to show how the incentive option in smarter/better.
Making Canadians suffer through increased living costs while at the same time negatively affecting the economy is not the way to endear green living to the Canadian people. Greener living is better achieved through innovation and responsible choices, not making life harder.
- blenCOWe
There are many different issues that the Carbon Tax brings up including the revenue neutral claim, its harmful effects on certain groups and its proposed tax breaks. But how will it affect Canada's economy? And more specifically international trade.
I am by no means an economist, I understand the very basics and that doesn't extend beyond what was taught in my introductory economics classes. What I do know is that the more products are taxed, the more they will cost the consumer to acquire, which decreases demand.
Introducing the carbon tax increases the cost of products and therefore the cost of living. But wait Mr. Dion's plan promises tax cuts to help with the added costs of products that use carbon. That means everything is fine, the Canadian economy will be secure because we will have extra money to adjust to the increased costs of living. Unless of course you are not getting the tax breaks; like people who don't live/pay taxes in Canada.
Implementing Dion's carbon tax would make it more expensive for other nations to buy from Canada. Increased energy costs will increase production costs. Transportation costs are going to increase the cost of getting the product to the consumer. Both increase the cost to the consumer. Increased cost means less demand meaning international consumers look elsewhere for their products. Canada's economy shrinks and jobs are lost. I wonder what tax cuts Mr. Dion plans for people who have no income.
Also and unfortunately, Canada is a net exporter of dirty energy. While we do dabble in hydroelectricity, Canada's major energy exports are oil and natural gas. These are dirty fuel sources and are punished by the carbon tax. Our other major exports are lumber, agriculture and automotive which are all carbon intensive. This means the carbon tax would make all of these exports more expensive and decrease demand which means our economy will suffer. The Liberals' Carbon Tax would therefore punish Canadians for having an economy built on the products available to them and established generations before them.
Now I am not against moving to more environmentally friendly practices. I don't think anyone is, except maybe the corporations that sell dirty energy. All of the major political parties in Canada have come out and said that it is important for Canada to "go green." The difference is how the parties want to achieve this. The Liberals want to punish bad behaviour, the Conservatives and the NDP want to reward good behaviour. And yes, I also find it strange that the NDP and Conservatives agree on something but maybe that just goes to show how the incentive option in smarter/better.
Making Canadians suffer through increased living costs while at the same time negatively affecting the economy is not the way to endear green living to the Canadian people. Greener living is better achieved through innovation and responsible choices, not making life harder.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Bernier not alone
It appears that former minister Maxime Bernier is not the only government official who has been careless with classified documents. Our friends across the pond have an issue of security that dwarfs Mr. Bernier's gaffe.
Yesterday, it was reported that two batches of secret government documents were found on trains in Great Britain. These documents included strategies for tackling the drug trade, money laundering and the global financing of terrorism in addition to strategic assessments of al Qaeda and Iraqi forces. These two sets of documents were delivered to the BBC and The Independent news sources but fortunately for the government, neither of the organizations published any of the details found in the reports.
Troublesome as this may be, these two "misplaced" reports are just the tip of the iceberg. The British government has suffered from a recent streak of carelessness and poor security with important government records. Government computers have been stolen, discs misplaced and personal information lost. The information that has been lost has ranged from military recruits, patient records, driving records and worst of all, financial information (including banking info) for over half of the population of Great Britain.
The thing about all these lost documents that surprises me the most is the fact that my school's library has a better record at tracking the whereabouts of its materials than the government. If I return a course reserve past the time it is due I receive multiple emails about it, fines and a stern reminder from the circulation staff to return documents on time. As simple as this sounds, it has been generally effective in forcing myself and my fellow students to be wary of the sources we borrow.
So why, then, is it so hard for governments to keep track of their classified information? I would think that these documents deserve more attention than a library book or course reserve.
If I was still living in England and a current constituent, I would be raising hell in my government officials' ears about this because these are only the mishaps that have been caught. Who knows what else has been misplaced and hasn't been noticed yet!
As for Mr. Bernier, at least you only left the documents at your girlfriend's place and not laying around on public transportation.
- blenCOWe
Yesterday, it was reported that two batches of secret government documents were found on trains in Great Britain. These documents included strategies for tackling the drug trade, money laundering and the global financing of terrorism in addition to strategic assessments of al Qaeda and Iraqi forces. These two sets of documents were delivered to the BBC and The Independent news sources but fortunately for the government, neither of the organizations published any of the details found in the reports.
Troublesome as this may be, these two "misplaced" reports are just the tip of the iceberg. The British government has suffered from a recent streak of carelessness and poor security with important government records. Government computers have been stolen, discs misplaced and personal information lost. The information that has been lost has ranged from military recruits, patient records, driving records and worst of all, financial information (including banking info) for over half of the population of Great Britain.
The thing about all these lost documents that surprises me the most is the fact that my school's library has a better record at tracking the whereabouts of its materials than the government. If I return a course reserve past the time it is due I receive multiple emails about it, fines and a stern reminder from the circulation staff to return documents on time. As simple as this sounds, it has been generally effective in forcing myself and my fellow students to be wary of the sources we borrow.
So why, then, is it so hard for governments to keep track of their classified information? I would think that these documents deserve more attention than a library book or course reserve.
If I was still living in England and a current constituent, I would be raising hell in my government officials' ears about this because these are only the mishaps that have been caught. Who knows what else has been misplaced and hasn't been noticed yet!
As for Mr. Bernier, at least you only left the documents at your girlfriend's place and not laying around on public transportation.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Canada, Obama and Afghanistan
Now that Barrack Obama has secured the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, I like many Canadians are starting to think more and more about how Canada would be affected if he were to be elected. This being a blog with a focus on international politics, the foreign policy aspects of an Obama presidency are what interest me the most.
I'm currently reading a compilation of essays by Noam Chomsky and an interesting thought struck me. In his essay titled, On Resistance, Chomsky reflects on the Vietnam War stating that,
"there is no basis for supposing that those who will make the major policy decisions are open to reason on the fundamental issues, in particular the issue of whether we, alone among the nations of the world, have the authority and the competence to determine the social and political institutions of Vietnam. What is more, there is little likelihood that the electoral process will bear on the major decisions."
I read this and see striking similarities between Chomsky's Vietnam and the current US presence in Iraq. Moving right past the overstated similarities in the US performance in these wars, both topics were contentious issues during electoral races. A major issue of debate during the primary season has been whether or not to pull out of Iraq. Obama has made it clear that he intends to remove the troops from Iraq and move some of them into Afghanistan.
"Some of the troops now in Iraq should be sent to Afghanistan, where he said the Iraq war has has 'disastrous consequences' for the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network."
Chomsky believed that major issues like this are unlikely to be solved in elections but seeing as Obama has made this a staple of his platform, I would hazard a guess that the US involvement in Iraq is more likely to be affected by the upcoming presidential election than US involvement in Vietnam was. As such, Canada must begin to look forward and see how a candidate's election would affect our policies.
Obama's proposed plan of action would have a serious impact on Canada's foreign policy and the mission in Afghanistan. Already 1,000 US troops are moving from the eastern areas to Kandahar thanks to a new French contingent moving in. So this, in addition to US troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, is going to dramatically increase the number of US forces working in close proximity to Canadian Forces. Personally, I would prefer if there would be as little escalation of US involvement in Afghanistan as possible. Now normally I am in favour of increased interaction with our neighbour to the South but not this time.
US tactics in Afghanistan have been brutally inefficient. US policy has been to "bomb away" at things that both move and don't move. In terms of winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people, using tactics that produce unacceptable levels of collateral damage is not the way to go. Bombing the poppy fields and/or suspected al Qaeda strongholds further pushes the the Afghan people back towards the Taliban and al Qaeda and away from the peaceful re-construction that Canadians want from the Afghanistan mission. By taking away the poppies, the Afghan people are left without their major economic resource. This is in no way meant to be support for the illegal drug trade because poppies have many other uses which include producing vital, and legal, medicines that are need around the world. Also, bombing creates a high risk of injuring non-combatants. When this happens the enemy no longer is the insurgency but the people that are injuring (and killing) their family members, e.g. the people bombing them.
Despite what many Opposition MP's might claim (or used to claim), Canada has been enormously effective in making headway to a proper rebuilding of Afghanistan. Canadian Forces are working with the people to build a stable and legal economy while battling the corruption and insurgency that threatens to drag the Afghan people back into oppression. It would be unfortunate for both the Afghan people and the Canadian people working in country (Forces and Aid workers) to have US tactics become more prominent because for this to happen would greatly hamper or even undo the positive work that has been accomplished so far.
If Barrack Obama truly wants to pull out of Iraq, all the power to him but don't screw up a "good" (I know this isn't necessarily the most accurate word to use but it conveys the right message) thing in Afghanistan. Rotate the troops that are in Afghanistan but don't increase their numbers. If the desire to send troops abroad remains, try rebuilding the US foreign image a bit by helping the UN backed missions in Congo or Darfur. But remember, I said "help" not take over.
- blenCOWe
I'm currently reading a compilation of essays by Noam Chomsky and an interesting thought struck me. In his essay titled, On Resistance, Chomsky reflects on the Vietnam War stating that,
"there is no basis for supposing that those who will make the major policy decisions are open to reason on the fundamental issues, in particular the issue of whether we, alone among the nations of the world, have the authority and the competence to determine the social and political institutions of Vietnam. What is more, there is little likelihood that the electoral process will bear on the major decisions."
I read this and see striking similarities between Chomsky's Vietnam and the current US presence in Iraq. Moving right past the overstated similarities in the US performance in these wars, both topics were contentious issues during electoral races. A major issue of debate during the primary season has been whether or not to pull out of Iraq. Obama has made it clear that he intends to remove the troops from Iraq and move some of them into Afghanistan.
"Some of the troops now in Iraq should be sent to Afghanistan, where he said the Iraq war has has 'disastrous consequences' for the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network."
Chomsky believed that major issues like this are unlikely to be solved in elections but seeing as Obama has made this a staple of his platform, I would hazard a guess that the US involvement in Iraq is more likely to be affected by the upcoming presidential election than US involvement in Vietnam was. As such, Canada must begin to look forward and see how a candidate's election would affect our policies.
Obama's proposed plan of action would have a serious impact on Canada's foreign policy and the mission in Afghanistan. Already 1,000 US troops are moving from the eastern areas to Kandahar thanks to a new French contingent moving in. So this, in addition to US troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, is going to dramatically increase the number of US forces working in close proximity to Canadian Forces. Personally, I would prefer if there would be as little escalation of US involvement in Afghanistan as possible. Now normally I am in favour of increased interaction with our neighbour to the South but not this time.
US tactics in Afghanistan have been brutally inefficient. US policy has been to "bomb away" at things that both move and don't move. In terms of winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people, using tactics that produce unacceptable levels of collateral damage is not the way to go. Bombing the poppy fields and/or suspected al Qaeda strongholds further pushes the the Afghan people back towards the Taliban and al Qaeda and away from the peaceful re-construction that Canadians want from the Afghanistan mission. By taking away the poppies, the Afghan people are left without their major economic resource. This is in no way meant to be support for the illegal drug trade because poppies have many other uses which include producing vital, and legal, medicines that are need around the world. Also, bombing creates a high risk of injuring non-combatants. When this happens the enemy no longer is the insurgency but the people that are injuring (and killing) their family members, e.g. the people bombing them.
Despite what many Opposition MP's might claim (or used to claim), Canada has been enormously effective in making headway to a proper rebuilding of Afghanistan. Canadian Forces are working with the people to build a stable and legal economy while battling the corruption and insurgency that threatens to drag the Afghan people back into oppression. It would be unfortunate for both the Afghan people and the Canadian people working in country (Forces and Aid workers) to have US tactics become more prominent because for this to happen would greatly hamper or even undo the positive work that has been accomplished so far.
If Barrack Obama truly wants to pull out of Iraq, all the power to him but don't screw up a "good" (I know this isn't necessarily the most accurate word to use but it conveys the right message) thing in Afghanistan. Rotate the troops that are in Afghanistan but don't increase their numbers. If the desire to send troops abroad remains, try rebuilding the US foreign image a bit by helping the UN backed missions in Congo or Darfur. But remember, I said "help" not take over.
- blenCOWe
Thursday, June 5, 2008
an opportunity that's knocking
Okay so the current government, specifically the ministries of defence and foreign affairs, do not want to get involved with the US mission in Congo. Thats fine it's their call not mine and I am certain there was a strategic reason why this decision was arrived at.
So how does Canada strengthen its international image after a shaky period including the Bernier affair, the denial of Canadian peacekeepers to the Congo mission and the continual debate over the mission in Afghanistan?
We probably cannot afford to send military personnel anywhere because of our current commitment to Afghanistan. Nor can we send someone equipment because we do not have the equipment for ourselves let alone anyone else. So what to do? What to do?
Well we do have a crusading election agency. And there is a sketchy election going on in Zimbabwe. A match made in heaven if there ever was one... and maybe a bit of payback by Stephen Harper for the overzealous actions of Elections Canada with the "in and out" issue.
Canada has a clean election record when it comes to its own processes. The structure may be sometimes contested but the reliability and accuracy of the results of our system are beyond question. Our government could easily take a leading role in garnering international support and pressure on Robert Mugabe's government to ensure that the run-off election scheduled for June 27 proceeds with much more clarity and accountability than the first attempt. While other nations have shown interest in the election, Canada could play a prominent role in this well-publicized situation and build on Canada's reputation for supporting good governance. Providing impartial election scrutineers and/or protection for the opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, would be minor actions that would go along way to improving Canada's international image.
Now it would be imperative for anyone involved to make it clear that they are not trying to influence the election one way or another. Canada would be supporting fair electoral practices and not either of the political parties or their leaders.
There is strategic sense in pushing for such action. First of all, there can be no legitimate backlash against promoting good governance, so something like this would look well on Canada for image purposes. Secondly, Canada currently only has 171 peacekeepers acting abroad; a number that is way too low for a country that prides itself on its past participation and leadership in peacekeeping activities. These peacekeepers need not be military either. Police officers, Canadian NGO's and volunteers could all play a part in this without placing further strain on the Canadian forces. Lastly, this would further Canada's portfolio of international activities thus adding another positive dimension to any Canadian campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council.
I know I keep mentioning the upcoming selections for the non-permanent seats on the Security Council but I truely believe that Canada should fight tooth and nail for that seat, both for the gain of Canada and the rest of the world. And I believe that getting involved in a positive manner with the upcoming election in Zimbabwe would be a good step towards this. So... lets get off of our asses and make something happen.
- blenCOWe
So how does Canada strengthen its international image after a shaky period including the Bernier affair, the denial of Canadian peacekeepers to the Congo mission and the continual debate over the mission in Afghanistan?
We probably cannot afford to send military personnel anywhere because of our current commitment to Afghanistan. Nor can we send someone equipment because we do not have the equipment for ourselves let alone anyone else. So what to do? What to do?
Well we do have a crusading election agency. And there is a sketchy election going on in Zimbabwe. A match made in heaven if there ever was one... and maybe a bit of payback by Stephen Harper for the overzealous actions of Elections Canada with the "in and out" issue.
Canada has a clean election record when it comes to its own processes. The structure may be sometimes contested but the reliability and accuracy of the results of our system are beyond question. Our government could easily take a leading role in garnering international support and pressure on Robert Mugabe's government to ensure that the run-off election scheduled for June 27 proceeds with much more clarity and accountability than the first attempt. While other nations have shown interest in the election, Canada could play a prominent role in this well-publicized situation and build on Canada's reputation for supporting good governance. Providing impartial election scrutineers and/or protection for the opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, would be minor actions that would go along way to improving Canada's international image.
Now it would be imperative for anyone involved to make it clear that they are not trying to influence the election one way or another. Canada would be supporting fair electoral practices and not either of the political parties or their leaders.
There is strategic sense in pushing for such action. First of all, there can be no legitimate backlash against promoting good governance, so something like this would look well on Canada for image purposes. Secondly, Canada currently only has 171 peacekeepers acting abroad; a number that is way too low for a country that prides itself on its past participation and leadership in peacekeeping activities. These peacekeepers need not be military either. Police officers, Canadian NGO's and volunteers could all play a part in this without placing further strain on the Canadian forces. Lastly, this would further Canada's portfolio of international activities thus adding another positive dimension to any Canadian campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council.
I know I keep mentioning the upcoming selections for the non-permanent seats on the Security Council but I truely believe that Canada should fight tooth and nail for that seat, both for the gain of Canada and the rest of the world. And I believe that getting involved in a positive manner with the upcoming election in Zimbabwe would be a good step towards this. So... lets get off of our asses and make something happen.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Yeah... I Don't Think So Keith
In the continuing debate going on over who will be Canada's next minister of foreign affairs, I have heard some excellent choices mentioned. Some of those named include current cabinet ministers David Emerson, Lawrence Cannon and Jim Prentice. Other possible candidates are Jason Kenney (my choice) and Deepak Obhrai. Each of these candidates have their positives and their negatives, and I believe all would bring something desirable to the position.
The people I don't believe have any chance of being appointed are Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. I read today in an article detailing the opinions of current parliamentarians and prominent academics, Liberal CIDA critic Keith Martin state his opinion that,
"it should be either Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff because they would be outstanding foreign ministers for Canada. They have experience. They have knowledge. They're articulate. They would bring a lot to the position of foreign affairs minister."
Umm... yeah... I don't think so Keith!
While both Mr. Rae and Mr. Ignatieff have the credentials and/or experience to play prominent roles in Canada's foreign affairs, there is noooooo way either of them will be the foreign affairs minister for the current government. Mr Martin should take a step back and take another look at the parliament he is a member of. I believe very much that Prime Minister Harper would never risk weakening his government's ability to enact legislation by including a member -- and a leading member-- of the official opposition into the cabinet. Whether it was Rae or Ignatieff, the member would be privy to information that as a member of the opposing party he is not entitled to. Furthermore, how would Harper place a member from another party in a critical role like foreign affairs because of the obvious question: how committed would this person be to furthering the Conservative agenda and not the agenda of his own party?
And then there is the issue of whether or not these people would accept the position. Given the intense scrutiny and short leash they would be given, it would be terribly uncomfortable having everyone looking over his shoulder to see what he is doing and how would that member be able to function in the House of Commons? An elected Liberal sitting on the wrong side of the House doesn't bode well for them. Then come election time, the individual would face great difficulty explaining to their constituents their decision to work for the "enemy." I don't care how much one may talk about the greater good or working for the best interests of Canada, there will, no doubt, be repercussions come election time. Both of these men would realize this and I don't think they would be willing to risk their re-election on that claim.
While there are examples of this occurring elsewhere in the world (like in Chad and Mauritania), I don't believe there has been a Canadian government where this has occurred. I may be wrong, but from what I have found/remembered, there appears to be no evidence to say otherwise.
So, my advice to Mr Martin is to wipe the Liberal magic dust out of his eyes and take another look at the realities of the House he sits in.
- blenCOWe
The people I don't believe have any chance of being appointed are Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. I read today in an article detailing the opinions of current parliamentarians and prominent academics, Liberal CIDA critic Keith Martin state his opinion that,
"it should be either Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff because they would be outstanding foreign ministers for Canada. They have experience. They have knowledge. They're articulate. They would bring a lot to the position of foreign affairs minister."
Umm... yeah... I don't think so Keith!
While both Mr. Rae and Mr. Ignatieff have the credentials and/or experience to play prominent roles in Canada's foreign affairs, there is noooooo way either of them will be the foreign affairs minister for the current government. Mr Martin should take a step back and take another look at the parliament he is a member of. I believe very much that Prime Minister Harper would never risk weakening his government's ability to enact legislation by including a member -- and a leading member-- of the official opposition into the cabinet. Whether it was Rae or Ignatieff, the member would be privy to information that as a member of the opposing party he is not entitled to. Furthermore, how would Harper place a member from another party in a critical role like foreign affairs because of the obvious question: how committed would this person be to furthering the Conservative agenda and not the agenda of his own party?
And then there is the issue of whether or not these people would accept the position. Given the intense scrutiny and short leash they would be given, it would be terribly uncomfortable having everyone looking over his shoulder to see what he is doing and how would that member be able to function in the House of Commons? An elected Liberal sitting on the wrong side of the House doesn't bode well for them. Then come election time, the individual would face great difficulty explaining to their constituents their decision to work for the "enemy." I don't care how much one may talk about the greater good or working for the best interests of Canada, there will, no doubt, be repercussions come election time. Both of these men would realize this and I don't think they would be willing to risk their re-election on that claim.
While there are examples of this occurring elsewhere in the world (like in Chad and Mauritania), I don't believe there has been a Canadian government where this has occurred. I may be wrong, but from what I have found/remembered, there appears to be no evidence to say otherwise.
So, my advice to Mr Martin is to wipe the Liberal magic dust out of his eyes and take another look at the realities of the House he sits in.
- blenCOWe
Promotion time for Jason Kenney
Foreign policy has always been a sub-section of Canadian politics that I have paid a great amount of attention to. It's the area of politics that I wish to build a career in and one that I study with great interest in school. That being said, the whole Bernier affair has blemished my interest of late in reading news articles or blogs concerning Canada's foreign policy. Of late, all I've read is that Canada's foreign image has been tarnished by the actions of an inexperienced and probably overwhelmed minister. Well, I'm tired of hearing about it and I'm ready to look to the future. The impending cabinet shuffle that keeps being mentioned in the news leads me to ponder the question: who will be Canada's next Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Presently, David Emerson has had the Foreign Affairs portfolio added to his current responsibilities as Minister of International Trade. According to Michelle Collins, in her recent article in the Embassy magazine, there is great speculation that Emerson will retain his new responsibilities in the impending cabinet shuffle.
I have no doubt that David Emerson would be a much better minister than Maxime Bernier was, but I see this as an opportunity to promote a young member who has had a proven track record in dealing with international affairs and whose political portfolio reflects Canada's multicultural citizenship. My choice for the next person to fulfill this crucial role would be Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast). He is a young member who could inject some fresh blood into a senior cabinet position while not sacrificing capability or competence. As secretary of state, Kenney has defended the Afghan mission in parliament, taken a strong stance on the actions of China in the recent protests/riots in Tibet and played an influential role in the Brenda Martin case. These actions remind me of those that a foreign affairs minister would perform. He has also been free from publicized gaffes as far as I am aware; a trait that would benefit a government that has spent much of its time responding to the controversies that have arisen. Let Mr. Emerson continue his fine work in his current position. Doing so would maintain the positive performance that already exist while invigorating the cabinet for the fall session of parliament.
I believe it is clear that Mr. Kenney has the presence and poise to be Canada's next minister of foreign affairs, and looking back, I don't seem to be the only person who believes so. In searching for some background information for this post I found that noted Canadian blogger Steve Janke believes that Mr. Kenney would be a fine choice as well. I must be on the right track if I am in agreement with him.
Hopefully this summer Prime Minister Harper will see fit to recognize this potential star candidate and provide him with the promotion he deserves.
- blenCOWe
Presently, David Emerson has had the Foreign Affairs portfolio added to his current responsibilities as Minister of International Trade. According to Michelle Collins, in her recent article in the Embassy magazine, there is great speculation that Emerson will retain his new responsibilities in the impending cabinet shuffle.
I have no doubt that David Emerson would be a much better minister than Maxime Bernier was, but I see this as an opportunity to promote a young member who has had a proven track record in dealing with international affairs and whose political portfolio reflects Canada's multicultural citizenship. My choice for the next person to fulfill this crucial role would be Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast). He is a young member who could inject some fresh blood into a senior cabinet position while not sacrificing capability or competence. As secretary of state, Kenney has defended the Afghan mission in parliament, taken a strong stance on the actions of China in the recent protests/riots in Tibet and played an influential role in the Brenda Martin case. These actions remind me of those that a foreign affairs minister would perform. He has also been free from publicized gaffes as far as I am aware; a trait that would benefit a government that has spent much of its time responding to the controversies that have arisen. Let Mr. Emerson continue his fine work in his current position. Doing so would maintain the positive performance that already exist while invigorating the cabinet for the fall session of parliament.
I believe it is clear that Mr. Kenney has the presence and poise to be Canada's next minister of foreign affairs, and looking back, I don't seem to be the only person who believes so. In searching for some background information for this post I found that noted Canadian blogger Steve Janke believes that Mr. Kenney would be a fine choice as well. I must be on the right track if I am in agreement with him.
Hopefully this summer Prime Minister Harper will see fit to recognize this potential star candidate and provide him with the promotion he deserves.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Opposition Supports War Resisters
I tuned into CPAC today to watch the vote on the fate (137 in favour, 110 opposed) of the resisters to the US war in Iraq. I was not surprised to see the NDP and the Bloc vote in favour of their protection. I was somewhat surprised, however, to see the Liberals actually show up in relatively full force and vote... but then I realized that the Liberals could do this today because they had nothing at stake to do so.
The NDP and the Bloc had the principles that their parties hold dear at stake for them, but the Liberals, who sat on their hands with the budget implementation act (C-50), which includes the recent reforms to the immigration practices, continued their direction-less presence in the House of Commons. The Liberal party, minus a few select "leaders" and the passionate MP Andrew Telegdi (Kitcherner-Waterloo), decided it best to not represent their constitutents and/or prospective constituents, who would be affected to a greater degree by the immigration implications, and fight for US citizens that they do not represent. Whether or not Canada supports the international endeavours of our ally and neighbour to the South, the allegiances of the Members of Parliament should be to their constituents first and foremost.
How can the Liberal party honestly justify their actions over the past 24 hours to their faithful constituents? Telegdi answered this to some respect, quoting the "political realities" of the moment and the Government's desire to contest an election over Bill C-50 but this doesn't change the fact that the members elected to protect the interests of the citizens of another country and not the citizens of this country.
Now on to the initiative itself...
Canada, despite its objections to the War in Iraq, should not harbour the criminals of another country. These resisters as they call themselves are actually deserters of the US Armed Forces. This, under the United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice, is a crime that is punishable by court martial or even, during times of war, death. These deserters were all members of the armed forces before and even during the US invasion of Iraq and now claim conscientious objector status. Their requests for this status has been denied and now they are fugitives of military law. These claims are investigated for their legitimacy and then judged as to whether or not they are genuine. So in effect, these people do not like the judgement they were given and decided that they would rather be cowards and run from the laws of their home nation. These are not the types of people that we should be giving shelter to. Let us save room for people who truly need sanctuary and not from cowards who regret the choices they made. Don't forget there is no longer a draft in the US so these people signed up on their own accord. Canada may have given sanctuary to US citizens, during the Vietnam War, who were opposed to the war but these people had no choice of whether or not to serve. These people chose to enlist and now they don't want to fulfill their commitments. If they truly felt as strong as they claim against the war, they would serve the jail sentences that accompany conviction of desertion and more effectively show their opposition to the US presence in Iraq.
Unfortunately, this is all moot now because the initiative passed and now we must accept these people into our country. But what do we do with them now?? Hey, why not enlist them for service into Afghanistan? They are soldiers and Canada needs soldiers. But then again, Canadian soldiers are brave and honourable people, unlike these guys.
-blenCOWe
The NDP and the Bloc had the principles that their parties hold dear at stake for them, but the Liberals, who sat on their hands with the budget implementation act (C-50), which includes the recent reforms to the immigration practices, continued their direction-less presence in the House of Commons. The Liberal party, minus a few select "leaders" and the passionate MP Andrew Telegdi (Kitcherner-Waterloo), decided it best to not represent their constitutents and/or prospective constituents, who would be affected to a greater degree by the immigration implications, and fight for US citizens that they do not represent. Whether or not Canada supports the international endeavours of our ally and neighbour to the South, the allegiances of the Members of Parliament should be to their constituents first and foremost.
How can the Liberal party honestly justify their actions over the past 24 hours to their faithful constituents? Telegdi answered this to some respect, quoting the "political realities" of the moment and the Government's desire to contest an election over Bill C-50 but this doesn't change the fact that the members elected to protect the interests of the citizens of another country and not the citizens of this country.
Now on to the initiative itself...
Canada, despite its objections to the War in Iraq, should not harbour the criminals of another country. These resisters as they call themselves are actually deserters of the US Armed Forces. This, under the United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice, is a crime that is punishable by court martial or even, during times of war, death. These deserters were all members of the armed forces before and even during the US invasion of Iraq and now claim conscientious objector status. Their requests for this status has been denied and now they are fugitives of military law. These claims are investigated for their legitimacy and then judged as to whether or not they are genuine. So in effect, these people do not like the judgement they were given and decided that they would rather be cowards and run from the laws of their home nation. These are not the types of people that we should be giving shelter to. Let us save room for people who truly need sanctuary and not from cowards who regret the choices they made. Don't forget there is no longer a draft in the US so these people signed up on their own accord. Canada may have given sanctuary to US citizens, during the Vietnam War, who were opposed to the war but these people had no choice of whether or not to serve. These people chose to enlist and now they don't want to fulfill their commitments. If they truly felt as strong as they claim against the war, they would serve the jail sentences that accompany conviction of desertion and more effectively show their opposition to the US presence in Iraq.
Unfortunately, this is all moot now because the initiative passed and now we must accept these people into our country. But what do we do with them now?? Hey, why not enlist them for service into Afghanistan? They are soldiers and Canada needs soldiers. But then again, Canadian soldiers are brave and honourable people, unlike these guys.
-blenCOWe
Choosing Sides
My post yesterday on Canada’s refusal to provide a leadership contingent to the UN mission in Congo and the drastic fall in contributions (to the measly sum of 171 people) to UN missions got me thinking about the international system on a grander scale. In the latest issue of Foreign Policy there is an article by Richard Haass which discusses the idea of non-polarity in world politics. Rather than having the world split up into spheres of power as we’ve seen in the past or the notion of unipolarity as some may believe we are witnessing now, non-polarity describes a system which “involves several distinct poles or concentrations of power”. As he describes,
“In a multipolar system, no power dominates, or the system will become unipolar. Nor do concentrations of power revolve around two positions, or the system will become bipolar. Multipolar systems can be cooperative, even assuming the form of a concert of powers, in which a few major powers work together on setting the rules of the game and disciplining those who violate them”
In the system Haass details, the UN would finally fall from its defective dominance of world affairs and be replaced by a system of overlapping regional organizations. The basis for this proposed system already exists with the multitude of regional organizations that currently exist (NATO, EU, ASEAN, OAS AU) and that appear to be more functional that the current UN. This overlapping network of organizations would not be hampered by the ancient structure and bodies of the UN and would be more adaptive and responsive to current conditions in international affairs.
It appears that the Canadian government recognizes this proposed age of non-polarity and is aligning itself as such. Canada’s denial of the DPKO’s request for it to assume the lead of the mission in Congo is presumably the result of a greater commitment to success in Afghanistan. In other words, Canada is embracing its allegiance and commitment to NATO over the same ideals it has towards the UN. There are other examples of this too; the European Union has moved to strengthen its organization with the passing of its constitution and the African Union’s control of foreign assistance to the conflicts currently going on.
A move to a non-polar system could turn out to be a good thing for Canada. Our nation’s strength as a membership country is great in NATO than it is in the UN and as such we could have a greater role in shaping international policy. Canada would be in a stronger position to look out for its national interests in a smaller NATO than in the larger UN. I believe the phrase is that it is better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond.
Whether or not this is the intent of the current Canadian government, our nation’s commitment to the United Nations, while long and storied (at least amongst its citizens) appears to be withering.
- blenCOWe
“In a multipolar system, no power dominates, or the system will become unipolar. Nor do concentrations of power revolve around two positions, or the system will become bipolar. Multipolar systems can be cooperative, even assuming the form of a concert of powers, in which a few major powers work together on setting the rules of the game and disciplining those who violate them”
In the system Haass details, the UN would finally fall from its defective dominance of world affairs and be replaced by a system of overlapping regional organizations. The basis for this proposed system already exists with the multitude of regional organizations that currently exist (NATO, EU, ASEAN, OAS AU) and that appear to be more functional that the current UN. This overlapping network of organizations would not be hampered by the ancient structure and bodies of the UN and would be more adaptive and responsive to current conditions in international affairs.
It appears that the Canadian government recognizes this proposed age of non-polarity and is aligning itself as such. Canada’s denial of the DPKO’s request for it to assume the lead of the mission in Congo is presumably the result of a greater commitment to success in Afghanistan. In other words, Canada is embracing its allegiance and commitment to NATO over the same ideals it has towards the UN. There are other examples of this too; the European Union has moved to strengthen its organization with the passing of its constitution and the African Union’s control of foreign assistance to the conflicts currently going on.
A move to a non-polar system could turn out to be a good thing for Canada. Our nation’s strength as a membership country is great in NATO than it is in the UN and as such we could have a greater role in shaping international policy. Canada would be in a stronger position to look out for its national interests in a smaller NATO than in the larger UN. I believe the phrase is that it is better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond.
Whether or not this is the intent of the current Canadian government, our nation’s commitment to the United Nations, while long and storied (at least amongst its citizens) appears to be withering.
- blenCOWe
Canada's Retreat from Peacekeeping
First of all, I would just like to say to hello to anyone who reads this. This is my first attempt at blogging so I’m kind of hoping it won’t be a total disaster. So I thank you in advance and please keep reading.
Yesterday (June 2, 2008) I learned from an article by Allan Thompson on TheStar.com about how Canada has turned down a request by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations for Canada to take lead of the UN peacekeeping mission in Congo. The request, according to Thompson, was for a two-star general and some support staff, not soldiers. Not entirely an unrealistic request. The request was not for troops, which would have a negative effect on the of the troop deployments of the mission in Afghanistan. Surely Canada’s limited forces can spare one “lowly” two-star for a mission as important as the Congo.
I realize that Canada has had a bad experience in leading UN peacekeeping missions … cough cough…. Rwanda… cough cough… but for Canada to reject this call is a blatant slap in the face to the UN and the whole UN peacekeeping concept. Robert Fowler is completely right saying that Ottawa is acting as if it has given up on traditional peacekeeping. The perfect example of this is the fact that Canada has fallen from peacekeeping poster child to the 53rd position on the list of the UN’s largest contributors to peacekeeping. Now this slide is not solely the fault of the current Conservative government but as the current leaders of the government, and the ones to most recently turn down the UN, they will face the heat from the opposition and the public. This was Canada’s chance to restore its reputations and image, especially after the Bernier affair, and the controversial record of success in Afghanistan. The current mission in Congo is the largest one ever undertaken by the United Nations, and they wanted us to assume control of it. What the hell are the people in the ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs thinking? As a middle power, this is a role that Canada is well suited to play. We have the technical knowledge and experience to fulfill this role, and we are in that funny little niche where we are not a major power that pisses off other nor are we a quiet little pushover state; a largely neutral state that can act in the best strategic interests of the mission (especially considering we won’t have any troops in the theatre). This would have been an excellent opportunity for Canada to play a strategic role in international affairs and one that would likely be beneficial down the road (like helping our case for a seat on the Security Council).
"What they wanted was a francophone, from a country with no colonial or political baggage," said the military insider. "Canada could have made a real difference here."
Opportunity only knocks so many times before it stops coming and Canada will soon been running short of chances.
- blenCOWe
Yesterday (June 2, 2008) I learned from an article by Allan Thompson on TheStar.com about how Canada has turned down a request by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations for Canada to take lead of the UN peacekeeping mission in Congo. The request, according to Thompson, was for a two-star general and some support staff, not soldiers. Not entirely an unrealistic request. The request was not for troops, which would have a negative effect on the of the troop deployments of the mission in Afghanistan. Surely Canada’s limited forces can spare one “lowly” two-star for a mission as important as the Congo.
I realize that Canada has had a bad experience in leading UN peacekeeping missions … cough cough…. Rwanda… cough cough… but for Canada to reject this call is a blatant slap in the face to the UN and the whole UN peacekeeping concept. Robert Fowler is completely right saying that Ottawa is acting as if it has given up on traditional peacekeeping. The perfect example of this is the fact that Canada has fallen from peacekeeping poster child to the 53rd position on the list of the UN’s largest contributors to peacekeeping. Now this slide is not solely the fault of the current Conservative government but as the current leaders of the government, and the ones to most recently turn down the UN, they will face the heat from the opposition and the public. This was Canada’s chance to restore its reputations and image, especially after the Bernier affair, and the controversial record of success in Afghanistan. The current mission in Congo is the largest one ever undertaken by the United Nations, and they wanted us to assume control of it. What the hell are the people in the ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs thinking? As a middle power, this is a role that Canada is well suited to play. We have the technical knowledge and experience to fulfill this role, and we are in that funny little niche where we are not a major power that pisses off other nor are we a quiet little pushover state; a largely neutral state that can act in the best strategic interests of the mission (especially considering we won’t have any troops in the theatre). This would have been an excellent opportunity for Canada to play a strategic role in international affairs and one that would likely be beneficial down the road (like helping our case for a seat on the Security Council).
"What they wanted was a francophone, from a country with no colonial or political baggage," said the military insider. "Canada could have made a real difference here."
Opportunity only knocks so many times before it stops coming and Canada will soon been running short of chances.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
