So the National Intelligence Council has released a report predicting what the global society will look like by 2025. Predictably, the report forsees that the United States' dominance will decline in response to the growth of competitors like Brazil, China, India and Russia.
Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.
However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".
This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.
Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.
- blenCOWe
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Canadian People Want Results
Check out this article, it is about a recent Environics poll which finds that Canadian people want to see results when it comes to foreign aid. The people prefer to see tangible results over the exporting of Canadian values.
I wonder, could this be a result of the recent trend in Canadian government?
In the past few years, there has pretty much been a revolving door of Foreign Ministers and minority governments. Since recent parliaments have lasted about 2 years, it has meant that Foreign Ministers have needed to produce results for the upcoming election. This focus on results appears to have trickled down to the electorate; the Canadian people have come to expect results from their governments in their foreign aid at the expense of promoting Canadian values.
Just a thought...
- blenCOWe
I wonder, could this be a result of the recent trend in Canadian government?
In the past few years, there has pretty much been a revolving door of Foreign Ministers and minority governments. Since recent parliaments have lasted about 2 years, it has meant that Foreign Ministers have needed to produce results for the upcoming election. This focus on results appears to have trickled down to the electorate; the Canadian people have come to expect results from their governments in their foreign aid at the expense of promoting Canadian values.
Just a thought...
- blenCOWe
Monday, November 10, 2008
See, I Told Ya!
I saw this coming from a mile away!
"Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said on Sunday that a stepped-up emphasis by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan won't change Canada's plans to pull its military out of that country in 2011" -- Reuters
- blenCOWe
"Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said on Sunday that a stepped-up emphasis by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan won't change Canada's plans to pull its military out of that country in 2011" -- Reuters
- blenCOWe
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Some Things Won't Change
It seems that the leaders of Iran did not quite get what they were bargaining for when Barack Obama won the US presidential election this past week. No one will argue that under President George W. Bush, US-Iranian relations were strained to say the least so it would have been understandable if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thought that the campaign against Iran would dissipate under President Obama.
Ooops!!!
While Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, he also took his first political jab at the president-elect claiming that "the 'nations of the world' expect changes from the Mr. Obama -- mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was 'based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations' " -- Globe and Mail.
What makes the Iranian leader think he (and the rest of the world, however I don't think the he is thinking of the rest of the world considering he doesn't listen to anyone) can expect anything from Obama? While Obama did campaign on the ideal that he would take a more diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran but that does not mean that this approach will be any less forceful. Obama owes nothing to anyone but the people who elected them and they are not found in Iran.
A nuclear Iran would still constitute a threat to the security of the United States and Mr. Obama is aware of this. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be in charge of the safety and security of the nation, just like President Bush, and as such must be as forceful as necessary so as to protect the nation. Just because Obama is the supposed anti-Bush doesn't mean that he cannot recognize that Iran is a pressing issue right now in international affairs and he will seek to protect American interests, plain and simple. That is why it should not have come as any surprise when Obama commented that "it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it" -- Globe and Mail.
The Iranian government, specifically President Amadinejad, should only blame themselves for this continued campaign against them. Their shady stance on nuclear weapons and stated desire to wipe Israel off of the map make Iran not only a threat to the United State but to international peace and security. That is why Bush was so hard on them and that is why Obama will likely follow suit
Tough luck Iran, it looks like four more years of being public enemy number one!
- blenCOWe
Ooops!!!
While Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, he also took his first political jab at the president-elect claiming that "the 'nations of the world' expect changes from the Mr. Obama -- mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was 'based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations' " -- Globe and Mail.
What makes the Iranian leader think he (and the rest of the world, however I don't think the he is thinking of the rest of the world considering he doesn't listen to anyone) can expect anything from Obama? While Obama did campaign on the ideal that he would take a more diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran but that does not mean that this approach will be any less forceful. Obama owes nothing to anyone but the people who elected them and they are not found in Iran.
A nuclear Iran would still constitute a threat to the security of the United States and Mr. Obama is aware of this. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be in charge of the safety and security of the nation, just like President Bush, and as such must be as forceful as necessary so as to protect the nation. Just because Obama is the supposed anti-Bush doesn't mean that he cannot recognize that Iran is a pressing issue right now in international affairs and he will seek to protect American interests, plain and simple. That is why it should not have come as any surprise when Obama commented that "it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it" -- Globe and Mail.
The Iranian government, specifically President Amadinejad, should only blame themselves for this continued campaign against them. Their shady stance on nuclear weapons and stated desire to wipe Israel off of the map make Iran not only a threat to the United State but to international peace and security. That is why Bush was so hard on them and that is why Obama will likely follow suit
Tough luck Iran, it looks like four more years of being public enemy number one!
- blenCOWe
Friday, November 7, 2008
He's Good But Not That Good
I was reading the Embassy magazine today and Jeff Davis has an article in it examining what effect Barack Obama's election will have on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. One idea that comes up in his examination is that maybe President Obama will ask Canada to stay longer than the 2011 pull out date that was agreed upon in the last parliament.
Now I've read the articles and seen the showings of support for Canadians for Obama; the most surprising of all being the poll that claimed that as much as 80% of Canadians would vote for Obama if they could (a truly amazing idea considering that not even 60% of Canadians voted for their own politicians!). But even though the majority of Canadians like Obama, I don't know if this support would change Canadians minds about the Afghan mission.
For the past couple years, Canadian Forces have handled the dirty work of the mission, working in the places that no one else will. Other allies have greater numbers and better equipment, but it has been up to Canada to shoulder the brunt of the workload. Our nation did not shy away from this task either, we recognized the importance of the mission and got to work. This has, however, taken a toll on both the Canadians Forces and the political will of the nation.
I don't care how much Canadians like Obama or how close Canada is as an ally, the Canadian people have demanded that Canada be relieved of this terrible burden and it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon. In fact, Obama's commitment to re-deploy troops to Afghanistan will probably bolster Canadians' resolve that our forces need no longer be in Afghanistan.
President-elect Barack Obama may be the latest and greatest in international politics but when all is said and done, the dover principle takes over and the people of this nation will see the Canadians coming home in body bags and forget all about how much they like Obama.
- blenCOWe
Now I've read the articles and seen the showings of support for Canadians for Obama; the most surprising of all being the poll that claimed that as much as 80% of Canadians would vote for Obama if they could (a truly amazing idea considering that not even 60% of Canadians voted for their own politicians!). But even though the majority of Canadians like Obama, I don't know if this support would change Canadians minds about the Afghan mission.
For the past couple years, Canadian Forces have handled the dirty work of the mission, working in the places that no one else will. Other allies have greater numbers and better equipment, but it has been up to Canada to shoulder the brunt of the workload. Our nation did not shy away from this task either, we recognized the importance of the mission and got to work. This has, however, taken a toll on both the Canadians Forces and the political will of the nation.
I don't care how much Canadians like Obama or how close Canada is as an ally, the Canadian people have demanded that Canada be relieved of this terrible burden and it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon. In fact, Obama's commitment to re-deploy troops to Afghanistan will probably bolster Canadians' resolve that our forces need no longer be in Afghanistan.
President-elect Barack Obama may be the latest and greatest in international politics but when all is said and done, the dover principle takes over and the people of this nation will see the Canadians coming home in body bags and forget all about how much they like Obama.
- blenCOWe
Dion Still Full of Hot Air and Partisanship
The Liberal Party of Canada is a mess right now. They were the big losers of the recent election, their "leader" has stepped down (sort of...), the leadership convention is seven months away and they are broke. The party is only marginally ready to run a leadership contest and nowhere near ready to fight another election. Despite this, former/interim leader Stephane Dion is running his mouth, issuing challenges to Prime Minister Harper and his Tory government.
Most recently, Mr. Dion has announced that the Liberal Party will not be giving any free rides to the Conservative government as it did in the last parliament by abstaining from confidence votes so as not to bring down the government.
"Mr. Dion says the Liberals will voted against any legislation they disagree with, even if the Tories deem the proposals confidence matters" -- Globe and Mail
The funny thing about this is that the Liberals were better prepared to "grow a pair" back when they were abstaining from votes than they are now. The Liberals and the electorate are not ready for another election and will only create further problems in Canadian politics.
There only only two reasons that come to mind about why Dion would come out of the Liberal caucus meetings with this kind of message; 1) Dion wants another chance at being the leader during an election. If he can bring down the government before May then he would be responsible for leading the party due to his interim status. 2) the Liberals have realized that their base is eroding, even their in their hardcore bastions of support. This could be a calculated show to try to win back some of their eroding supporters. This scenario would probably entail the Liberals voting down anything that is not a confidence matter so that come the next election, the Liberals will be able to say that they opposed the Conservative's policies.
So, the way I see it, Canadians are either going to have another election forced upon them or we will see a parliament session marred by greater partisanship and little policy success. Either way, Canadians lose.
I have been watching a lot of the fallout out and commentary of Barack Obama's presidential election and the one thing that I find truely surprising is that many Republicans, including presidential runner-up John McCain have committed to working with Obama and the Democrats, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to lead the United States out of these troubling times. In other words, they are putting aside their differences for the good of the nation.
On the other hand, we see the fall out of the Canadian election where there has almost been a commitment to extreme partisanship by the parties of the opposition. These parties and their leaders are against the Conservatives pretty much no matter what they propose. Canada is heading into troubled times as well. Our economy is lagging; unemployment is up, the dollar is down and we face international threats; both from a security standpoint and from climate change. Now is not the time for petty squabbling; Canadian politicians need to look to their counterparts from the South and follow their lead. The security and prosperity of the nation must ALWAYS come before the interests of individual parties. It is my sincere hope that the parties of Canada's opposition embrace this when Parliament reconvenes next week.
- blenCOWe
Most recently, Mr. Dion has announced that the Liberal Party will not be giving any free rides to the Conservative government as it did in the last parliament by abstaining from confidence votes so as not to bring down the government.
"Mr. Dion says the Liberals will voted against any legislation they disagree with, even if the Tories deem the proposals confidence matters" -- Globe and Mail
The funny thing about this is that the Liberals were better prepared to "grow a pair" back when they were abstaining from votes than they are now. The Liberals and the electorate are not ready for another election and will only create further problems in Canadian politics.
There only only two reasons that come to mind about why Dion would come out of the Liberal caucus meetings with this kind of message; 1) Dion wants another chance at being the leader during an election. If he can bring down the government before May then he would be responsible for leading the party due to his interim status. 2) the Liberals have realized that their base is eroding, even their in their hardcore bastions of support. This could be a calculated show to try to win back some of their eroding supporters. This scenario would probably entail the Liberals voting down anything that is not a confidence matter so that come the next election, the Liberals will be able to say that they opposed the Conservative's policies.
So, the way I see it, Canadians are either going to have another election forced upon them or we will see a parliament session marred by greater partisanship and little policy success. Either way, Canadians lose.
I have been watching a lot of the fallout out and commentary of Barack Obama's presidential election and the one thing that I find truely surprising is that many Republicans, including presidential runner-up John McCain have committed to working with Obama and the Democrats, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to lead the United States out of these troubling times. In other words, they are putting aside their differences for the good of the nation.
On the other hand, we see the fall out of the Canadian election where there has almost been a commitment to extreme partisanship by the parties of the opposition. These parties and their leaders are against the Conservatives pretty much no matter what they propose. Canada is heading into troubled times as well. Our economy is lagging; unemployment is up, the dollar is down and we face international threats; both from a security standpoint and from climate change. Now is not the time for petty squabbling; Canadian politicians need to look to their counterparts from the South and follow their lead. The security and prosperity of the nation must ALWAYS come before the interests of individual parties. It is my sincere hope that the parties of Canada's opposition embrace this when Parliament reconvenes next week.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
What Will Obama's Foreign Policy Look Like?
After an expected, yet still impressive, victory last night, Barack Obama will lead the most powerful and imposing nation in the world. His victory largely rested on the economic and social issues of the people of America. This largely reflects his greater experience in domestic politics and social issues rather than in international affairs.
Many, including myself, are now eager to see what President Obama's foreign policies will look like. At the outset, it appears that Mr. Obama's foreign policy will be one of fixing the "mistakes" that President George W. Bush has made during his eight years in office. Most prominent on the agenda is definitely addressing the two wars that he will inherit from the previous administration. Obama campaigned on the desire to pull out of Iraq and re-commit to ending the security problems in Afghanistan. This follows the popular idea that entering Iraq was a mistake and that Afghanistan has greater legitimacy in terms of international security. This was definitely not in the considerations of the previous presidency.
Next, I believe that President Obama will use the aforementioned pullout in Iraq as a credibility booster so that he can take steps to re-invigorate the peace process in the Middle East. This re-invigoration will be in the form of multi-lateral diplomacy and will hopefully be more conducive to peace than invasion. This involves actually talking to Iran, working with the different actors, yet still acting as a strong ally of Israel. Obama will likely have greater success with this than his predecessor did. The hawk-like actions of President Bush and his administration greatly tarnished the sincerity of Mr. Bush to bring peace to the Middle East.
Lastly, the recent eight years have seen the United States drift away from many of its European allies (save Britain of course). Much of this falling out has concerned the US invasion of Iraq as well as other hawkish actions of President Bush. President Obama must reach out to these disgruntled allies and re-build ties with them. One easy way that this could be accomplished is to end the recent trend towards unilateralism by the United States. European states, because of their history mired with warfare, are stong proponents of multilateralism, especially using the United Nations framework and not just the NATO alliance. The United States must put greater trust and effort into the United Nations system rather than move unilaterally if it doesn't get the response it desires. Regaining this favour will be critical in the upcoming years for the United States and Obama if it is to rebuild its international image and reputation.
Funny enough, especially given its attention in foreign policy debates during the Canadian election, China has remained almost a non-issue in discussions of future US foreign policy. I have not heard much from President-elect Obama on the topic of China and am curious as to what, if any, plans he has for US relations with the world's most populus country.
There is little doubt that the next four years will be transformational for the United States, and subsequently for the international community. I do not think Mr. Obama's lack of practical experience in international relations will affect this. His intelligence and charisma will help to rebuild US relations with foreign leaders and citizens and will be an inspirational leader for the United States.
- blenCOWe
Many, including myself, are now eager to see what President Obama's foreign policies will look like. At the outset, it appears that Mr. Obama's foreign policy will be one of fixing the "mistakes" that President George W. Bush has made during his eight years in office. Most prominent on the agenda is definitely addressing the two wars that he will inherit from the previous administration. Obama campaigned on the desire to pull out of Iraq and re-commit to ending the security problems in Afghanistan. This follows the popular idea that entering Iraq was a mistake and that Afghanistan has greater legitimacy in terms of international security. This was definitely not in the considerations of the previous presidency.
Next, I believe that President Obama will use the aforementioned pullout in Iraq as a credibility booster so that he can take steps to re-invigorate the peace process in the Middle East. This re-invigoration will be in the form of multi-lateral diplomacy and will hopefully be more conducive to peace than invasion. This involves actually talking to Iran, working with the different actors, yet still acting as a strong ally of Israel. Obama will likely have greater success with this than his predecessor did. The hawk-like actions of President Bush and his administration greatly tarnished the sincerity of Mr. Bush to bring peace to the Middle East.
Lastly, the recent eight years have seen the United States drift away from many of its European allies (save Britain of course). Much of this falling out has concerned the US invasion of Iraq as well as other hawkish actions of President Bush. President Obama must reach out to these disgruntled allies and re-build ties with them. One easy way that this could be accomplished is to end the recent trend towards unilateralism by the United States. European states, because of their history mired with warfare, are stong proponents of multilateralism, especially using the United Nations framework and not just the NATO alliance. The United States must put greater trust and effort into the United Nations system rather than move unilaterally if it doesn't get the response it desires. Regaining this favour will be critical in the upcoming years for the United States and Obama if it is to rebuild its international image and reputation.
Funny enough, especially given its attention in foreign policy debates during the Canadian election, China has remained almost a non-issue in discussions of future US foreign policy. I have not heard much from President-elect Obama on the topic of China and am curious as to what, if any, plans he has for US relations with the world's most populus country.
There is little doubt that the next four years will be transformational for the United States, and subsequently for the international community. I do not think Mr. Obama's lack of practical experience in international relations will affect this. His intelligence and charisma will help to rebuild US relations with foreign leaders and citizens and will be an inspirational leader for the United States.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
