During the recent election and in the short period after, we have heard repeated calls from sources within the Canadian government as well as the international community to begin talks with the Taliban leadership in order to find an end to the conflict in Afghanistan.
My personal thoughts on this have pretty much bordered on the concept of "yeah right, like the Taliban will negotiate in earnest!" Well it seems like I wasn't too far off the mark with this one.
"Taliban militants stormed a government building in the centre of the Afghan capital on Thursday and one of them blew himself up inside, killing five people, officials and witnesses said" -- Globe and Mail
Clearly the Taliban is not interested in negotiating with the Afghan government if it is attempting to bomb it. The reality is, the Taliban do not recognize the authority of Hamid Karzai's government and will not cooperate with it in finding a peaceful solution. The Taliban want their rule restored, simple as that!
- blenCOWe
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Canada's Next Foreign Minister
Who will be Canada's next minister of foreign affairs?
That is one of the many questions that are running through the minds of Canadian political enthusiasts in the anticipation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet decisions. For those, like me, that closely follow foreign policy, this question is of great intrigue.
I believe David Emerson would have done an excellent job had he decided to run again but that is now moot. So who should Mr. Harper choose to guide Canada's foreign policies both home and abroad?
In this week's edition of the Embassy Magazine, there is a brief evaluation of those who might be considered for this position. It grades the candidates based on their credentials as well as lists the pros and cons of each person. I found this to be a great read and opened my eyes not only to the larger number of candidates than I had envisaged but also some names that I had not thought about.
Following the Maxime Bernier "scandal" this spring, I voiced my opinion on this blog that Secretary of State Jason Kenney was well deserving of a promotion to this important cabinet office. My opinion has not changed. He has shown himself to be a reliable junior minister who has also done well at gaining the support of Canada's ethnic minority populations. He was the Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian Identity in the last parliament and I, for one, think that these things have been lacking in Canada's recent foreign policies. This criticism has been echoed by many of the Conservative Party's critics. Mr. Kenney could bring his experience from this post to the Ministy of Foreign Affairs and re-unite many Canadians who have been dis-enfranchised by our recent foreign minsters and policies. Canada could return to the well-respected middle power leader that it has been in the past, and re-connect Canada to its heritage in international affairs.
In terms of the criticisms of Mr. Kenney, the overwhelming "black mark" has been his critical viewpoint of Chinese policies, specifically on human rights. China has been repeatedly targeted as a necessary focal point of Canada's future foreign policies. Canadian-Chinese relations may be strained by the promotion of a strong critic of China to such an important role, but then again, why should Canada essentially "put all its eggs in one basket?"
Also in this week's Embassy is an article that says that focusing on China would be detrimental to Canada's international successs. It argues the world community is evolving into a multipolar balance of power. China isn't the only power growing in the world. India, Brazil and, South Africa are just a few of the other power centres growing along with China. Furthermore, we are seeing the return of an old power, Russia, who has been actively trying to re-assert its pre-eminent place in world affairs. Canada would do well to incorporate a foreign policy that accounts for these multiple centres of power and not just China. China is an important state for Canada to deal with, but it is not the only game in town. This fact helps to offset the criticism of Jason Kenney and his remarks about China.
Wrapping up, there are a number of potential foreign ministers that could be shuffled from other A-list cabinet positions, but by promoting Mr. Kenney, PM Harper would be able to add a well-deserving and capable minister to this important role. He is well-suited for this post and, possibly more important, rather than merely shuffle his present ministers which would only maintain the cabinet's strength, Prime Minister Harper could add a strong, young minister to an important portfolio.
- blenCOWe
That is one of the many questions that are running through the minds of Canadian political enthusiasts in the anticipation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet decisions. For those, like me, that closely follow foreign policy, this question is of great intrigue.
I believe David Emerson would have done an excellent job had he decided to run again but that is now moot. So who should Mr. Harper choose to guide Canada's foreign policies both home and abroad?
In this week's edition of the Embassy Magazine, there is a brief evaluation of those who might be considered for this position. It grades the candidates based on their credentials as well as lists the pros and cons of each person. I found this to be a great read and opened my eyes not only to the larger number of candidates than I had envisaged but also some names that I had not thought about.
Following the Maxime Bernier "scandal" this spring, I voiced my opinion on this blog that Secretary of State Jason Kenney was well deserving of a promotion to this important cabinet office. My opinion has not changed. He has shown himself to be a reliable junior minister who has also done well at gaining the support of Canada's ethnic minority populations. He was the Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian Identity in the last parliament and I, for one, think that these things have been lacking in Canada's recent foreign policies. This criticism has been echoed by many of the Conservative Party's critics. Mr. Kenney could bring his experience from this post to the Ministy of Foreign Affairs and re-unite many Canadians who have been dis-enfranchised by our recent foreign minsters and policies. Canada could return to the well-respected middle power leader that it has been in the past, and re-connect Canada to its heritage in international affairs.
In terms of the criticisms of Mr. Kenney, the overwhelming "black mark" has been his critical viewpoint of Chinese policies, specifically on human rights. China has been repeatedly targeted as a necessary focal point of Canada's future foreign policies. Canadian-Chinese relations may be strained by the promotion of a strong critic of China to such an important role, but then again, why should Canada essentially "put all its eggs in one basket?"
Also in this week's Embassy is an article that says that focusing on China would be detrimental to Canada's international successs. It argues the world community is evolving into a multipolar balance of power. China isn't the only power growing in the world. India, Brazil and, South Africa are just a few of the other power centres growing along with China. Furthermore, we are seeing the return of an old power, Russia, who has been actively trying to re-assert its pre-eminent place in world affairs. Canada would do well to incorporate a foreign policy that accounts for these multiple centres of power and not just China. China is an important state for Canada to deal with, but it is not the only game in town. This fact helps to offset the criticism of Jason Kenney and his remarks about China.
Wrapping up, there are a number of potential foreign ministers that could be shuffled from other A-list cabinet positions, but by promoting Mr. Kenney, PM Harper would be able to add a well-deserving and capable minister to this important role. He is well-suited for this post and, possibly more important, rather than merely shuffle his present ministers which would only maintain the cabinet's strength, Prime Minister Harper could add a strong, young minister to an important portfolio.
- blenCOWe
Friday, October 24, 2008
Ban Ki Moon's Calls for Disarmament Will Fall on Deaf Ears
Today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the members of the United Nations community to re-invest themselves in the disarmament process to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He spoke mostly to those states that are part of the exclusive nuclear weapons club. These states, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty in 1968 which required them to take serious steps to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles. Also targeted in the Secretary-General's call for disarmament were the unofficial nuclear powers: North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India. Unfortunately though, Mr. Ki-moon's pleas will likely fall on deaf ears and for three main reasons. These reasons are that 1) states enjoy the power that nuclear weapons bestow on them, 2) disarmament does not reduce the threats states face and, 3) the NPT is not an effective tool for disarmament.
It is no coincidence that the states that have nuclear weapons, for the majority, are also the ones with vetoes in the UN Security Council. Like the vetoes, nuclear weapons allow states a certain level of freedom in their policies. Nuclear weapons provide states with a deterrent from its adversaries that also possess nuclear weapons and act as a source of fear for non-nuclear states. This results in a sort of perceived invulnerability and confidence that states can get away with almost any policy they want. These states know they can get what they want and have gotten used to it. As with the case of Security Council reform, those with the power are not likely to be eager to give it up, yet it is these states that determine how successful these reform initiatives are. This is the most likely reason that Ki-moon's pleas will not yield any real result; until these states can be offered some sort of reward for giving up one of their major sources of international influence.
Secondly, disarmament does not prevent conflict. This is essentially the "guns don't kill people, people kill people argument." Disarmament assumes that by removing weapons, states will be less likely to engage each other in conflict. While I concede that states may, at times, build up their armaments/capabilities in response to other states' buildups, conflicts are not caused by the presence of weapons. International conflicts arise out of tensions over such things as natural resources and ethnicity. Long past are the times of the Cold War where the presence of weapons can create conflicts (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). A weapon is a merely a tool and is not a threat to anyone until a person makes it so. Therefore, disarmament is ineffective in attaining international peace because it only addresses the presence of the weapons and not the users or their intentions.
Lastly, to hold signatory states of the NPT to their treaty obligations to reduce their armaments is ineffective because it only regulates against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and not the vertical proliferation. Horizontal proliferation refers to increasing the total number of weapons while vertical proliferation refers to the expansion of weapon capabilities. The NPT has been somewhat effective in controlling the number of weapons that exist but has been ineffective in curtailing the expansion of these weapons' capabilities. There may be less nuclear weapons than in 1968 but the weapons that do exist are more deadly than ever so in effect the NPT has only been successful in strengthening the hierarchy of states in world affairs. Disarmament would be much more effective if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was to receive the kind of widespread support that the NPT has received. This treaty would address the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as some of the inherent environmental risks that are associated with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this has not happened as of yet and as such disarmament has remained largely ineffective in achieving international peace.
In conclusion, these three realities will prevent Ban Ki-moon's efforts for disarmament from any true realization or effect. For these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that disarmament is largely an academic concept and not practical for reducing the threat of international conflict.
- blenCOWe
It is no coincidence that the states that have nuclear weapons, for the majority, are also the ones with vetoes in the UN Security Council. Like the vetoes, nuclear weapons allow states a certain level of freedom in their policies. Nuclear weapons provide states with a deterrent from its adversaries that also possess nuclear weapons and act as a source of fear for non-nuclear states. This results in a sort of perceived invulnerability and confidence that states can get away with almost any policy they want. These states know they can get what they want and have gotten used to it. As with the case of Security Council reform, those with the power are not likely to be eager to give it up, yet it is these states that determine how successful these reform initiatives are. This is the most likely reason that Ki-moon's pleas will not yield any real result; until these states can be offered some sort of reward for giving up one of their major sources of international influence.
Secondly, disarmament does not prevent conflict. This is essentially the "guns don't kill people, people kill people argument." Disarmament assumes that by removing weapons, states will be less likely to engage each other in conflict. While I concede that states may, at times, build up their armaments/capabilities in response to other states' buildups, conflicts are not caused by the presence of weapons. International conflicts arise out of tensions over such things as natural resources and ethnicity. Long past are the times of the Cold War where the presence of weapons can create conflicts (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). A weapon is a merely a tool and is not a threat to anyone until a person makes it so. Therefore, disarmament is ineffective in attaining international peace because it only addresses the presence of the weapons and not the users or their intentions.
Lastly, to hold signatory states of the NPT to their treaty obligations to reduce their armaments is ineffective because it only regulates against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and not the vertical proliferation. Horizontal proliferation refers to increasing the total number of weapons while vertical proliferation refers to the expansion of weapon capabilities. The NPT has been somewhat effective in controlling the number of weapons that exist but has been ineffective in curtailing the expansion of these weapons' capabilities. There may be less nuclear weapons than in 1968 but the weapons that do exist are more deadly than ever so in effect the NPT has only been successful in strengthening the hierarchy of states in world affairs. Disarmament would be much more effective if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was to receive the kind of widespread support that the NPT has received. This treaty would address the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as some of the inherent environmental risks that are associated with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this has not happened as of yet and as such disarmament has remained largely ineffective in achieving international peace.
In conclusion, these three realities will prevent Ban Ki-moon's efforts for disarmament from any true realization or effect. For these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that disarmament is largely an academic concept and not practical for reducing the threat of international conflict.
- blenCOWe
Monday, October 13, 2008
A New Bretton Woods An Unlikely Outcome
As the current financial crisis spreads to the corners of the world, many of the world's leaders and important thinkers are throwing out different ideas of how to fix the financial problems that are present in our current markets. This is obviously reasonable because governments will not be able to continuously bailout all the financial institutions that fall into trouble.
One concept that has been proposed that caught my attention was British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's idea to create a new Bretton Woods agreement with the intention to "reshape the world financial system." While this idea has good intentions and might have a beneficial impact, I don't believe that it would be the best response to this financial crisis. A look at the past results of the Bretton Woods system shows that a new agreement would be a short-term response.
The initial agreement helped to restore the international market in the post-World War II reality but this only lasted until 1971 when national interests began to take precedence. When the United States stopped their currency from being converted to gold, the Bretton Woods system crashed. This shows that when it comes to finances, states will usually act in the interests of their citizens before the interests of the international system. This cannot be overcome, simple as that. Domestic politics rule when it comes to the market. So when Prime Minister Brown says that "only by global action can we fully restore the confidence that is needed and build the international financial order", I believe he is wrong.
Instead I believe that more international action will only lead to further problems down the road. If one examines the current financial crisis, it is obvious that the much of the crisis can be traced back to the sub-prime mortgage problems of the United States. The downturn of the US market has affected the foreign markets because of the tremendous amount of foreign investment in the United States. When the US suffers, its investors suffer and thus the trickle down effect occurs.
So what then is the answer?
Well, first of all I do not claim to be an expert or even fairly proficient in terms of economic understanding. I try to avoid economics as much as I can in my studies but as this is almost impossible in studying politics and international relations, I have come to acquire some understanding of basic economics. With this in mind, I believe that the answer to this problem is apparent and is already beginning to show itself.
As of today, the markets are beginning to rebound a little bit across the globe. Much of this has been because of involvement by national governments to invest in their national markets. From this, I conclude that the best way to address the current crisis is for each government to take care of their own markets and not to worry about the economic fortunes of the the international market. I realize this must sound crazy coming from an internationalist and in the current reality of globalization but if each country acts to stabilize their own markets then the international market will begin to stabilize as a by-product. As I said, this has already begun to happen because as national governments begin to act to protect their economies, the markets have begun to rise again.
Furthermore, the already existent international financial bodies (that were created by the original Bretton Woods system) are acting to protect markets. Recently the IMF announced that it would help to protect poorer countries from the fallout of the international financial crisis. This is a tremendous move by a body accused (sometimes by myself) of working for the world's rich countries. The poorer countries of the world are the ones most at risk of suffering from this crisis. They are the ones that would have the greatest difficulty to rebound and so the efforts by the IMF will be extremely beneficial to these already fragile markets. With this in mind, I do not see a reason to create another Bretton Woods organization.
In the end, it is sometimes better to focus on the small things in order to right larger problems. The international crisis is a problem that affects the globe but in order to address it, we must look to our own backyards before building another international financial body.
- blenCOWe
One concept that has been proposed that caught my attention was British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's idea to create a new Bretton Woods agreement with the intention to "reshape the world financial system." While this idea has good intentions and might have a beneficial impact, I don't believe that it would be the best response to this financial crisis. A look at the past results of the Bretton Woods system shows that a new agreement would be a short-term response.
The initial agreement helped to restore the international market in the post-World War II reality but this only lasted until 1971 when national interests began to take precedence. When the United States stopped their currency from being converted to gold, the Bretton Woods system crashed. This shows that when it comes to finances, states will usually act in the interests of their citizens before the interests of the international system. This cannot be overcome, simple as that. Domestic politics rule when it comes to the market. So when Prime Minister Brown says that "only by global action can we fully restore the confidence that is needed and build the international financial order", I believe he is wrong.
Instead I believe that more international action will only lead to further problems down the road. If one examines the current financial crisis, it is obvious that the much of the crisis can be traced back to the sub-prime mortgage problems of the United States. The downturn of the US market has affected the foreign markets because of the tremendous amount of foreign investment in the United States. When the US suffers, its investors suffer and thus the trickle down effect occurs.
So what then is the answer?
Well, first of all I do not claim to be an expert or even fairly proficient in terms of economic understanding. I try to avoid economics as much as I can in my studies but as this is almost impossible in studying politics and international relations, I have come to acquire some understanding of basic economics. With this in mind, I believe that the answer to this problem is apparent and is already beginning to show itself.
As of today, the markets are beginning to rebound a little bit across the globe. Much of this has been because of involvement by national governments to invest in their national markets. From this, I conclude that the best way to address the current crisis is for each government to take care of their own markets and not to worry about the economic fortunes of the the international market. I realize this must sound crazy coming from an internationalist and in the current reality of globalization but if each country acts to stabilize their own markets then the international market will begin to stabilize as a by-product. As I said, this has already begun to happen because as national governments begin to act to protect their economies, the markets have begun to rise again.
Furthermore, the already existent international financial bodies (that were created by the original Bretton Woods system) are acting to protect markets. Recently the IMF announced that it would help to protect poorer countries from the fallout of the international financial crisis. This is a tremendous move by a body accused (sometimes by myself) of working for the world's rich countries. The poorer countries of the world are the ones most at risk of suffering from this crisis. They are the ones that would have the greatest difficulty to rebound and so the efforts by the IMF will be extremely beneficial to these already fragile markets. With this in mind, I do not see a reason to create another Bretton Woods organization.
In the end, it is sometimes better to focus on the small things in order to right larger problems. The international crisis is a problem that affects the globe but in order to address it, we must look to our own backyards before building another international financial body.
- blenCOWe
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Canada leads world in banking
Today, the World Economic Forum released their evaluation of the banking systems of the world.Canada's financial system has been rated the best in the world. Way to go Canada!
This must come as a huge surprise to the leaders of Canada's opposition political parties as for the last week they have been attacking Stephen Harper over his failure to make changes to Canada's financial system in order to protect the nation from a similar meltdown to what the United States is experiencing. One popular criticism of Mr. Harper has been that "he must not truly understand Canada's economic reality." Well I guess the reality is that of all the leaders, Mr.Harper is the only one who truely understands Canada's situation!
- blenCOWe
This must come as a huge surprise to the leaders of Canada's opposition political parties as for the last week they have been attacking Stephen Harper over his failure to make changes to Canada's financial system in order to protect the nation from a similar meltdown to what the United States is experiencing. One popular criticism of Mr. Harper has been that "he must not truly understand Canada's economic reality." Well I guess the reality is that of all the leaders, Mr.Harper is the only one who truely understands Canada's situation!
- blenCOWe
Foreign Policy Platforms
For the internationalist like me, the foreign policy sections of the parties' election platforms are what is really interesting in this election. Today, the Embassy magazine published a review of the four "national" parties' foreign policy platforms. I liked the way the magazine did it because it grouped all the foreign policy sub-topics together for the reader so that it it isn't necessary to search through the large platforms each party publishes for all the relevant foreign policy issues/proposals. Here are the links to the Embassy's reviews of each parties' foreign policies... enjoy
Liberal Party Foreign Policy
Conservative Party Foreign Policy
New Democratic Party Foreign Policy
Green Party Foreign Policy
- blenCOWe
P.S. This is a shout out to Justin Lundy who has been complaining that I don't blog about him.
Liberal Party Foreign Policy
Conservative Party Foreign Policy
New Democratic Party Foreign Policy
Green Party Foreign Policy
- blenCOWe
P.S. This is a shout out to Justin Lundy who has been complaining that I don't blog about him.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Canada's Place in the World Determined
One of the topics that has intermittently been discussed in the ongoing federal election has been concerning what is Canada's position in the world. Well I think this week we found our definitive answer: Canada is 180th out of 192 nations. Canada was the 180th nation to speak at the opening of the current session of the United Nations' General Assembly.
It is probable that a number of people will argue that this position is likely to have been influenced by the decision to send only a deputy minister to represent our nation instead of the Prime Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have already expressed my thoughts on this subject in a previous post. What I have to say this time is in reference to the message that Mr. Edwards presented to the UN Assembly.
Mr. Edward's presentation to the Assembly dealt with a number of topics from UN reform to human rights and the environment. One might say: "what's wrong with that? Those are important issues in the world today." Well that person would be correct but they also are not exactly new or groundbreaking. Those themes have been beat to death by almost every other nation in the UN. Why should Canada be positioned any earlier in the schedule of presentations if they are merely going to say what everyone else has to say? And this is not the fault of Mr. Edwards, it is the fault of the policy experts and bureaucrats within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade who have not been able to formulate a coherent and comprehensive plan for Canada's goals in the world. Nothing new was prepared for Mr. Edwards concerning Canada's position on climate change or Canada's intentions to compete for a seat on the 2010 Security Council.
We all know the areas of concern in the world and rough comprehensions of what the goals should be. What does need to be addressed is how these things are accomplished. This is the area where bureaucrats dwell (so it should have been beneficial to send a bureaucrat!). Politicians come up with the goals and bureaucrats are supposed to figure out how to accomplish these goals so don't blame the politicians (they have enough blame flying at them in this election).
So the next time you hear a federal candidate questioned on Canada's place in the world, remember the role that bureaucrats play in determining where Canada is in the world for it is not always a question of what but how.
- blenCOWe
It is probable that a number of people will argue that this position is likely to have been influenced by the decision to send only a deputy minister to represent our nation instead of the Prime Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have already expressed my thoughts on this subject in a previous post. What I have to say this time is in reference to the message that Mr. Edwards presented to the UN Assembly.
Mr. Edward's presentation to the Assembly dealt with a number of topics from UN reform to human rights and the environment. One might say: "what's wrong with that? Those are important issues in the world today." Well that person would be correct but they also are not exactly new or groundbreaking. Those themes have been beat to death by almost every other nation in the UN. Why should Canada be positioned any earlier in the schedule of presentations if they are merely going to say what everyone else has to say? And this is not the fault of Mr. Edwards, it is the fault of the policy experts and bureaucrats within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade who have not been able to formulate a coherent and comprehensive plan for Canada's goals in the world. Nothing new was prepared for Mr. Edwards concerning Canada's position on climate change or Canada's intentions to compete for a seat on the 2010 Security Council.
We all know the areas of concern in the world and rough comprehensions of what the goals should be. What does need to be addressed is how these things are accomplished. This is the area where bureaucrats dwell (so it should have been beneficial to send a bureaucrat!). Politicians come up with the goals and bureaucrats are supposed to figure out how to accomplish these goals so don't blame the politicians (they have enough blame flying at them in this election).
So the next time you hear a federal candidate questioned on Canada's place in the world, remember the role that bureaucrats play in determining where Canada is in the world for it is not always a question of what but how.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
