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
Thursday, July 31, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
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
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
Thursday, July 24, 2008
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
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
Sunday, July 20, 2008
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 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
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Big Step for Kosovo
Kosovo's succession gained another supporter today when the International Monetary Fund recognized its separation from Serbia and will now go through the membership application process.
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
Bad Tactics
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has come out and proposed recently that the tactics that the United States has employed in Iraq should be applied to battle the insurgency in Afghanistan. These tactics would include increasing the number of deployments of US forces in Afghanistan.
In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."
Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.
Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.
"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "
If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.
If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.
Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.
- blenCOWe
In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."
Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.
Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.
"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "
If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.
If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.
Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Whose Victory is it?
A victory over racism? Not quite!
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, July 12, 2008
This is Getting Old!
I don't even know why the United Nations even bothers sustaining the Security Council anymore. It continues to show that it is a toothless relic of an idealist era. The presence of the five veto votes makes it almost impossible for the Security Council to act when and where it is needed the most.
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Liberal Math
The mathematics of Liberal politics:
$3.5 million libel law suit from Stephen Harper + $8.5 million lawsuit for damages over "greenshift" + poor fundraising = empty election coffers.
I guess we won't be seeing that election anytime soon!
- blenCOWe
$3.5 million libel law suit from Stephen Harper + $8.5 million lawsuit for damages over "greenshift" + poor fundraising = empty election coffers.
I guess we won't be seeing that election anytime soon!
- blenCOWe
Further Proof
I have found further proof that money dominates the politics of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Yesterday, I posted about how the Liberal Party is in dire need of money and that filling the party coffers is one of their major goals for the summer. In doing so, I made reference to how their ability to force the rumoured fall election will be dependent on how much and how quickly they are able to fundraise.
In the period between now and the next session of parliament, four by-elections are supposed to take place. The seats to be filled are in the Guelph, Don Valley West, Saint Lambert and Westmount ridings. It had originally been planned that the elections to fill these seats would be held simultaneously in the first week of September. This approach makes sense to me as it would make it easier on Elections Canada and would allow the parties to coordinate with, and help, the campaigns easier and just seems logical.
Unfortunately, though, this plan doesn't work for the Liberal Party. The current party line is that the current member for the Don Valley riding, John Godfrey (who is resigning for a teaching position) is not set to resign until August 1, and that date was chosen by him. According to election law, this would not provide enough campaign time to conduct the vote in the first week of September.
The funny thing about this is that Mr. Godfrey could leave his position earlier. Its not like parliament is in session or that he is conducting summer meetings with his constituents. There is absolutely no need for him to stay until August when he is currently void of any representative duties.
So why would he continue to hold his seat later than necessary, probably fully aware of the effect in doing so?
Maybe because the Liberal Party is not ready for the by-elections, let alone a regular general election. It is becoming more and more clear that the Liberal Party is doing all they can to avoid having to face the public in an election. They have upheld a government that they are fiercely critical of, they are spending more time and energy promoting scandal concers rather than fruitful policy discussion and now they are dragging ass on filling empty seats in the House.
By the first week of September Dion should have had enough time to promote his Carbon Tax plan to the people of Canada. Having an extra two weeks would not have that much of an influence on convincing the electorate. So why wait then? It must be the money! It's always the money!
The Liberals are showing their continued inability/unreadiness to contest an election. They are downright fearful of it (Remember when Dion said that they party was ready to contest an election? That was a while ago! LOL). Assuming that its not that they don't believe in their Carbon Tax platform, it remains that their biggest concern is ... their lack of money.
So why do they not have any money? Because they generated fewer financial supporters and generated less money for the party. Maybe that means the message they are spreading and the actions they are taking are not that well liked by the citizens of Canada.
Uh oh, there goes the "green shift" ... and the election (if it ever comes)!
- blenCOWe
Yesterday, I posted about how the Liberal Party is in dire need of money and that filling the party coffers is one of their major goals for the summer. In doing so, I made reference to how their ability to force the rumoured fall election will be dependent on how much and how quickly they are able to fundraise.
In the period between now and the next session of parliament, four by-elections are supposed to take place. The seats to be filled are in the Guelph, Don Valley West, Saint Lambert and Westmount ridings. It had originally been planned that the elections to fill these seats would be held simultaneously in the first week of September. This approach makes sense to me as it would make it easier on Elections Canada and would allow the parties to coordinate with, and help, the campaigns easier and just seems logical.
Unfortunately, though, this plan doesn't work for the Liberal Party. The current party line is that the current member for the Don Valley riding, John Godfrey (who is resigning for a teaching position) is not set to resign until August 1, and that date was chosen by him. According to election law, this would not provide enough campaign time to conduct the vote in the first week of September.
The funny thing about this is that Mr. Godfrey could leave his position earlier. Its not like parliament is in session or that he is conducting summer meetings with his constituents. There is absolutely no need for him to stay until August when he is currently void of any representative duties.
So why would he continue to hold his seat later than necessary, probably fully aware of the effect in doing so?
Maybe because the Liberal Party is not ready for the by-elections, let alone a regular general election. It is becoming more and more clear that the Liberal Party is doing all they can to avoid having to face the public in an election. They have upheld a government that they are fiercely critical of, they are spending more time and energy promoting scandal concers rather than fruitful policy discussion and now they are dragging ass on filling empty seats in the House.
By the first week of September Dion should have had enough time to promote his Carbon Tax plan to the people of Canada. Having an extra two weeks would not have that much of an influence on convincing the electorate. So why wait then? It must be the money! It's always the money!
The Liberals are showing their continued inability/unreadiness to contest an election. They are downright fearful of it (Remember when Dion said that they party was ready to contest an election? That was a while ago! LOL). Assuming that its not that they don't believe in their Carbon Tax platform, it remains that their biggest concern is ... their lack of money.
So why do they not have any money? Because they generated fewer financial supporters and generated less money for the party. Maybe that means the message they are spreading and the actions they are taking are not that well liked by the citizens of Canada.
Uh oh, there goes the "green shift" ... and the election (if it ever comes)!
- blenCOWe
Monday, July 7, 2008
Money doesn't fix everything!
As the country's political leaders descended on Calgary for the Stampede, public relations and fundraising were never far out of thought. Now, building up financial support is always a forethought for political parties, whether or not an election looms. But for the Liberal party, its ability to plump up its coffers will be influential in determining when the next election will occur.
This summer is being touted as the run-up to a fall election that will determine the fate of Stephane Dion as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. With this in mind, he is devoting these summer months to promoting his Carbon Tax plan and filling those campaign coffers.
How will Dion and the Liberals accomplish their fundraising aims? The Victory Fund of course!
Supporters may contribute to the Liberal Party, either directly to the party or their local riding association, in monthly increments ranging from $5 to $91.66.
But why should people take part in this? Well, according to Dion, "giving to your party is the best way to give to your country." HA!
To me this would imply that contributors would receive something out of their monetary donation.
That brings me to another colourful tidbit by Dion, "The Liberal Party of Canada needs money, but has a lot of courage and determination."
That must be the courage and determination to sit on their hands when it comes to representing their constituents. To not show up and to not take a stand based on your stated beliefs. Or maybe its the courage and determination to ask for money from the people whom you are supposed to represent, yet don't.
Imagine the nerve of the Liberal Party to place the onus for electoral victory onto the shoulders of their financial supporters. As if the record of the party and its representative in the House have nothing to do with electoral victory. That it won't matter that the Liberals have sat in the House with their tails between their legs as long as Joe or Jane Taxpayer send them monthly donations.
But wait, does this mean that money means everything? That it is true that money is what actually drives politics?
This is the message that the Liberals are spreading with their summer campaign. Money will lessen global warming and money will ensure electoral victory.
In the 2006 election, the Conservatives were clearly the party most ready to govern. Not much has changed since. Good governance does not come from money. It comes from good policy and strong leadership, neither of which the Liberals have.
- blenCOWe
This summer is being touted as the run-up to a fall election that will determine the fate of Stephane Dion as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. With this in mind, he is devoting these summer months to promoting his Carbon Tax plan and filling those campaign coffers.
How will Dion and the Liberals accomplish their fundraising aims? The Victory Fund of course!
Supporters may contribute to the Liberal Party, either directly to the party or their local riding association, in monthly increments ranging from $5 to $91.66.
But why should people take part in this? Well, according to Dion, "giving to your party is the best way to give to your country." HA!
To me this would imply that contributors would receive something out of their monetary donation.
That brings me to another colourful tidbit by Dion, "The Liberal Party of Canada needs money, but has a lot of courage and determination."
That must be the courage and determination to sit on their hands when it comes to representing their constituents. To not show up and to not take a stand based on your stated beliefs. Or maybe its the courage and determination to ask for money from the people whom you are supposed to represent, yet don't.
Imagine the nerve of the Liberal Party to place the onus for electoral victory onto the shoulders of their financial supporters. As if the record of the party and its representative in the House have nothing to do with electoral victory. That it won't matter that the Liberals have sat in the House with their tails between their legs as long as Joe or Jane Taxpayer send them monthly donations.
But wait, does this mean that money means everything? That it is true that money is what actually drives politics?
This is the message that the Liberals are spreading with their summer campaign. Money will lessen global warming and money will ensure electoral victory.
In the 2006 election, the Conservatives were clearly the party most ready to govern. Not much has changed since. Good governance does not come from money. It comes from good policy and strong leadership, neither of which the Liberals have.
- blenCOWe
Canada position on Human Rights: Principles vs. Interests
Reading a recent article on Canada's participation in the Human Rights Council, some words by current Prime Minister Stephen Harper cause me to worry a bit.
The phrase that has stirred me concerns Canada's support of Israel of the HR Council. Mr. Harper stated that "he will not be 'bullied' into changing his position, 'whatever the diplomatic or political cost.' "
Now don't go classifying me as an anti-Semite or anything like that. I am no such thing; I believe in Israel's right to existence and outside that I generally prefer to avoid discussions on the topic because of the stubborn positions that opponents tend to take. What really worries me about this comment is the last section that states "whatever the diplomatic or political cost."
As a citizen of this great country and an international politics enthusiast, I would hope that the positions and actions of our government would take into account the inherent costs of each. Even the most indoctrinated idealist, I believe, would be worried by this stance.
I think back to my days in POLS 1000 with Dr. Michael Tucker and his teachings on Hans J. Morganthau. More specifically, the idea that politics consists of calculations of interests and the power and ability to serve these interests. Basically, Morgenthau believed that states should act in their best interests based on their abilities or power to accomplish them. This thinking exists in the realm of Realist IR theory but it is my hope that those who follow other theories of international relations pay at least some respect to its concepts.
The article that brought that brought this quote to my attention reported the findings of the Senate Committee on Human Rights. According to them, Canada's voting record has increasingly marginalized Canada amongst other nations on the Council and, of late, has isolated Canada.
If this assessment is a fair and accurate one then Canada's ability to accomplish things in the international system is threatened and diminished. In following this path, states are more likely to side against them in other subjects based on our track record in the Human Rights Council. To think that one thing will not affect others is absurd and naive.
There is nothing wrong with taking a stand on issues based on principles but only if that stand is smart for our nation. This is not an endorsement for voting against Israel or with a certain voting bloc, but rather that the costs of each decision are weighed with each decision and the most beneficial direction is taken.
Principles are important, but not at the sacrifice of our nation's abilities to act in its best interests.
- blenCOWe
The phrase that has stirred me concerns Canada's support of Israel of the HR Council. Mr. Harper stated that "he will not be 'bullied' into changing his position, 'whatever the diplomatic or political cost.' "
Now don't go classifying me as an anti-Semite or anything like that. I am no such thing; I believe in Israel's right to existence and outside that I generally prefer to avoid discussions on the topic because of the stubborn positions that opponents tend to take. What really worries me about this comment is the last section that states "whatever the diplomatic or political cost."
As a citizen of this great country and an international politics enthusiast, I would hope that the positions and actions of our government would take into account the inherent costs of each. Even the most indoctrinated idealist, I believe, would be worried by this stance.
I think back to my days in POLS 1000 with Dr. Michael Tucker and his teachings on Hans J. Morganthau. More specifically, the idea that politics consists of calculations of interests and the power and ability to serve these interests. Basically, Morgenthau believed that states should act in their best interests based on their abilities or power to accomplish them. This thinking exists in the realm of Realist IR theory but it is my hope that those who follow other theories of international relations pay at least some respect to its concepts.
The article that brought that brought this quote to my attention reported the findings of the Senate Committee on Human Rights. According to them, Canada's voting record has increasingly marginalized Canada amongst other nations on the Council and, of late, has isolated Canada.
If this assessment is a fair and accurate one then Canada's ability to accomplish things in the international system is threatened and diminished. In following this path, states are more likely to side against them in other subjects based on our track record in the Human Rights Council. To think that one thing will not affect others is absurd and naive.
There is nothing wrong with taking a stand on issues based on principles but only if that stand is smart for our nation. This is not an endorsement for voting against Israel or with a certain voting bloc, but rather that the costs of each decision are weighed with each decision and the most beneficial direction is taken.
Principles are important, but not at the sacrifice of our nation's abilities to act in its best interests.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, July 5, 2008
G-8 Reform: What should Canada do?
In the next couple days, the G-8 will meet in Japan to discuss the major issues of the world, including food and oil prices. One topic that will receive great discussion will also be the future existence of this select club of "economic powers."
In an era where international institutions increasingly face legitimacy and efficacy issues, the G-8 reflects the current problems facing the international system. Like many of the other institutions still around, the G-8 reflects the powerful nations of a previous lifetime. The current membership does not include emerging economic powers like China and India. Another problem it faces is that due to the systemic problems facing other international institutions, the G-8 is increasingly being turned to to deal with issues beyond its original design.
Facing problems like these, it is natural to begin to question the continued viability of such an organization. One potential avenue would be to completely disband the group in future hopes of a more legitimate and effective organization filling the vacuum left behind.
This avenue is an understandable reaction to the problems facing international institutions and likely to please the organization's most stringent opponents. However, it may not be the most constructive approach to the organization's future.
Another possible avenue would be to expand the group's membership to be more inclusive and representative of the current international economy. To include the Group of Five, a smaller group of emerging economic powers including China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, would make the organization more reflective of current realities. However, this path would not change the fact that the organization is charged with issues it was not created for.
But what would be in the best interests for Canada?
Canada's current membership affords it membership in a close-knit fraternity of current and former powers and an increased ability to "punch above its weight." If the G-8 were to be disbanded it would loose much of the stature it has from its membership. Although, if the G-8 were to be increased in size, Canada's influence would likely diminish because there would be more voices to be heard.
Obviously , it is not in Canada's best interests to diminish its ability to have its voice heard in world affairs. However, there are benefits for Canada in increasing the size of the G-8, whereas, disbanding the G-8 would not have benefits for Canada.
One benefit for Canada would be that it could cement itself as a champion for developing nations. Rather than continue to passively participate in the divide between North and South countries, Canada could become a leader in the campaign to include the Group of 5 nations. Doing so would create favourable relations with these emerging economies; ties that could become increasingly fruitful for Canada.
Secondly, this could further open up new markets to the Canadian economy. Canada has attempted, of late, to create better relations between China and itself. The actions of current Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Emerson, have been successful in this endeavour and campaigning to include China into the economic elite would further this cause. Reasonably, similar growth into expanding markets could be expected from future allies, like China's compatriots, Mexico, India, South Africa and Brazil.
It seems unlikely that the G-8 can exist as currently organized and of the two proposed reforms, it would be better in the long run for Canada to be a member of a larger economic body. For it makes obvious sense that some positives is better than no positives. Both possess negatives but in the end, it would be better for Canada to create more allies and open up more markets for itself.
- blenCOWe
In an era where international institutions increasingly face legitimacy and efficacy issues, the G-8 reflects the current problems facing the international system. Like many of the other institutions still around, the G-8 reflects the powerful nations of a previous lifetime. The current membership does not include emerging economic powers like China and India. Another problem it faces is that due to the systemic problems facing other international institutions, the G-8 is increasingly being turned to to deal with issues beyond its original design.
Facing problems like these, it is natural to begin to question the continued viability of such an organization. One potential avenue would be to completely disband the group in future hopes of a more legitimate and effective organization filling the vacuum left behind.
This avenue is an understandable reaction to the problems facing international institutions and likely to please the organization's most stringent opponents. However, it may not be the most constructive approach to the organization's future.
Another possible avenue would be to expand the group's membership to be more inclusive and representative of the current international economy. To include the Group of Five, a smaller group of emerging economic powers including China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, would make the organization more reflective of current realities. However, this path would not change the fact that the organization is charged with issues it was not created for.
But what would be in the best interests for Canada?
Canada's current membership affords it membership in a close-knit fraternity of current and former powers and an increased ability to "punch above its weight." If the G-8 were to be disbanded it would loose much of the stature it has from its membership. Although, if the G-8 were to be increased in size, Canada's influence would likely diminish because there would be more voices to be heard.
Obviously , it is not in Canada's best interests to diminish its ability to have its voice heard in world affairs. However, there are benefits for Canada in increasing the size of the G-8, whereas, disbanding the G-8 would not have benefits for Canada.
One benefit for Canada would be that it could cement itself as a champion for developing nations. Rather than continue to passively participate in the divide between North and South countries, Canada could become a leader in the campaign to include the Group of 5 nations. Doing so would create favourable relations with these emerging economies; ties that could become increasingly fruitful for Canada.
Secondly, this could further open up new markets to the Canadian economy. Canada has attempted, of late, to create better relations between China and itself. The actions of current Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Emerson, have been successful in this endeavour and campaigning to include China into the economic elite would further this cause. Reasonably, similar growth into expanding markets could be expected from future allies, like China's compatriots, Mexico, India, South Africa and Brazil.
It seems unlikely that the G-8 can exist as currently organized and of the two proposed reforms, it would be better in the long run for Canada to be a member of a larger economic body. For it makes obvious sense that some positives is better than no positives. Both possess negatives but in the end, it would be better for Canada to create more allies and open up more markets for itself.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
