It seems that the general consensus amongst most discussions is that the appropriate response to the economic crisis and recession will (or should be) economic stimulus packages. It has dominated the news and I have heard little in the form of an alternative option... until now.
I found this article that is an excellent exploration into the subject with a focus on providing an alternative to the current discourse on the subject,
check it out
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Go Canada!
Mr. Harper has stepped up...finally!
No, I'm not talking about fiscal updates or economic stimulus packages; both of these things are important to Canada right now but I prefer to talk about Canada's position in the world.
I have written in the past that Canada must push to gain a greater position in world affairs. That was why I was a harsh critic when Mr. Harper announced a number of months ago that he would not commit Canada to competing for a seat on the UN Security Council in the 2010 elections.
Fortunately for Canada (and Mr. Harper), things have changed. Today, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, announced that Canada will in fact be challenging for the seat.
Canada needs this seat, simple as that. Canada needs to become a bigger player in the United Nations community. Under successive governments, not just the Conservatives, Canada's position has fallen in terms of international influence. Even in terms of the concept of Canada being a "middle power", Canada's influence has waned.
In terms of recovering, I see the need to focus on three main areas: military, economics and diplomacy. The first two are not the subject of this post but are simple; Canada's military capabilities need to be increased and Canada must reinvent itself after the global economic crisis as a major economic player (hopefully in a green capacity). The third, diplomacy, involves creating a greater image of Canada in the eyes of the world and showing that we can influence what happens in the international community. Holding a seat on the UN Security Council would be a perfect way to do this.
Committing to this endeavour helps Canada in a number of ways. First of all, the Security Council gives Canada an important voice and presence in discussions that it would not otherwise be present for. The Security Council is probably the most powerful body in international affairs and Canada's presence on it would have a positive impact on our ability to achieve our national interests. Secondly, gaining a seat on the UNSC would show a recommittment to the United Nations Framework. As of recent, critics of Canada's foreign policy have argued that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policies have been too closely connected to those of US President George W. Bush's policies. The US, under President Bush, has separated itself from multilateral bodies like the UN in favour of going it alone or with a few key allies. By recommitting to the United Nations, Canada would be able to separate itself from the policies of the US and show a commitment to the greater community of nations. Furthermore, the Canadian people would respond favourably to a recommittment to the ideals of the United Nations. Peace, security, human rights, economic and social development and humanitarian assistance are all things that the Canadian people identify with and expect their government to champion.
Canada's competition for this prestigious seat is Germany and Portugal. There are two seats for three countries and Germany has the overwhelming lead. In this race, Canada need only beat one country and Portugal, no offence, should be an easy win. Portugal has neither the record or the capabilities of Canada; its best asset is that it is a member of the EU and from what I gather, the members of the EU would prefer to have one of their own on the council as opposed to a "westerner" with close ties to the United States.
Canada must show up, talk a good game and back it up. It's our move Canada
- blenCOWe
No, I'm not talking about fiscal updates or economic stimulus packages; both of these things are important to Canada right now but I prefer to talk about Canada's position in the world.
I have written in the past that Canada must push to gain a greater position in world affairs. That was why I was a harsh critic when Mr. Harper announced a number of months ago that he would not commit Canada to competing for a seat on the UN Security Council in the 2010 elections.
Fortunately for Canada (and Mr. Harper), things have changed. Today, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, announced that Canada will in fact be challenging for the seat.
Canada needs this seat, simple as that. Canada needs to become a bigger player in the United Nations community. Under successive governments, not just the Conservatives, Canada's position has fallen in terms of international influence. Even in terms of the concept of Canada being a "middle power", Canada's influence has waned.
In terms of recovering, I see the need to focus on three main areas: military, economics and diplomacy. The first two are not the subject of this post but are simple; Canada's military capabilities need to be increased and Canada must reinvent itself after the global economic crisis as a major economic player (hopefully in a green capacity). The third, diplomacy, involves creating a greater image of Canada in the eyes of the world and showing that we can influence what happens in the international community. Holding a seat on the UN Security Council would be a perfect way to do this.
Committing to this endeavour helps Canada in a number of ways. First of all, the Security Council gives Canada an important voice and presence in discussions that it would not otherwise be present for. The Security Council is probably the most powerful body in international affairs and Canada's presence on it would have a positive impact on our ability to achieve our national interests. Secondly, gaining a seat on the UNSC would show a recommittment to the United Nations Framework. As of recent, critics of Canada's foreign policy have argued that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policies have been too closely connected to those of US President George W. Bush's policies. The US, under President Bush, has separated itself from multilateral bodies like the UN in favour of going it alone or with a few key allies. By recommitting to the United Nations, Canada would be able to separate itself from the policies of the US and show a commitment to the greater community of nations. Furthermore, the Canadian people would respond favourably to a recommittment to the ideals of the United Nations. Peace, security, human rights, economic and social development and humanitarian assistance are all things that the Canadian people identify with and expect their government to champion.
Canada's competition for this prestigious seat is Germany and Portugal. There are two seats for three countries and Germany has the overwhelming lead. In this race, Canada need only beat one country and Portugal, no offence, should be an easy win. Portugal has neither the record or the capabilities of Canada; its best asset is that it is a member of the EU and from what I gather, the members of the EU would prefer to have one of their own on the council as opposed to a "westerner" with close ties to the United States.
Canada must show up, talk a good game and back it up. It's our move Canada
- blenCOWe
Saturday, December 13, 2008
You've Got To Be Kidding Me!
Robert Mugabe must be out of his mind!
One day after alleging that the current cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe was the result of a biological attack by Britain with the intent of genocide, two days after claiming that there was no problem with cholera, and all of this occurring only a couple of months after denying international involvement in sorting out the dispute concerning the presidential election; "President" Robert Mugabe has called out to the international community pleading:
"a huge international aid effort is needed to help combat a cholera outbreak that has killed hundreds" -- Globe and Mail
While I feel for the people of Zimbabwe, I believe that international aid should be given to help combat the cholera epidemic but with the condition that Mugabe be permanently removed from any position of power within Zimbabwe. It is his fault that the Zimbabwean people have fallen into such a poor state of living/health. He has been the only leader in Zimbabwe since it gained independence and has overseen the steady decline in the prosperity of the state. And its not like he showed much concern about his people when his ZANU-PF thugs were moving around the state forcing people to vote for him or be beaten up and killed.
This is very simple, Mugabe must go! No matter what!
- blenCOWe
One day after alleging that the current cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe was the result of a biological attack by Britain with the intent of genocide, two days after claiming that there was no problem with cholera, and all of this occurring only a couple of months after denying international involvement in sorting out the dispute concerning the presidential election; "President" Robert Mugabe has called out to the international community pleading:
"a huge international aid effort is needed to help combat a cholera outbreak that has killed hundreds" -- Globe and Mail
While I feel for the people of Zimbabwe, I believe that international aid should be given to help combat the cholera epidemic but with the condition that Mugabe be permanently removed from any position of power within Zimbabwe. It is his fault that the Zimbabwean people have fallen into such a poor state of living/health. He has been the only leader in Zimbabwe since it gained independence and has overseen the steady decline in the prosperity of the state. And its not like he showed much concern about his people when his ZANU-PF thugs were moving around the state forcing people to vote for him or be beaten up and killed.
This is very simple, Mugabe must go! No matter what!
- blenCOWe
Friday, December 12, 2008
What A Load of Crap!
My bullshit detector pretty much blew up when I read this:
The "government" of Zimbabwe is blaming the recent outbreak of cholera on the British government! Zimbabwe' information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, has proclaimed that,
"This is a serious biological-chemical weapon; a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British [who are] still fighting to re-colonize Zimbabwe and using their allies." -- Al Jazeera English
It is my sincerest hope that nobody who can think for themselves actually believes this to be true. Beyond the basic common sense that the UK, as a state that has ratified the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention and that is a western liberal democracy, would presumably take such despicable actions even if it did want to re-colonize Zimbabwe (one would think it would be able to use superior military might to great effect!) is the current situation in Zimbabwe and the events of this past year.
This is clearly a ploy by Robert Mugabe to explain away the epidemic and retain what little, if any, credibility he has as a leader of the Zimbabwean state. By placing such ridiculous blame on the British, Mugabe is drawing attention off of the victims and the dire situation going on and diverting the attention to this non-sense proposition.
Ignore the stupidity! Focus on the lives in danger!
And would somebody please remove Mugabe!
- blenCOWe
The "government" of Zimbabwe is blaming the recent outbreak of cholera on the British government! Zimbabwe' information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, has proclaimed that,
"This is a serious biological-chemical weapon; a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British [who are] still fighting to re-colonize Zimbabwe and using their allies." -- Al Jazeera English
It is my sincerest hope that nobody who can think for themselves actually believes this to be true. Beyond the basic common sense that the UK, as a state that has ratified the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention and that is a western liberal democracy, would presumably take such despicable actions even if it did want to re-colonize Zimbabwe (one would think it would be able to use superior military might to great effect!) is the current situation in Zimbabwe and the events of this past year.
This is clearly a ploy by Robert Mugabe to explain away the epidemic and retain what little, if any, credibility he has as a leader of the Zimbabwean state. By placing such ridiculous blame on the British, Mugabe is drawing attention off of the victims and the dire situation going on and diverting the attention to this non-sense proposition.
Ignore the stupidity! Focus on the lives in danger!
And would somebody please remove Mugabe!
- blenCOWe
Just A Thought...
Have you ever stepped back and considered if we've vilified the wrong war?
Political junkie as I am, I have been avidly reading the news/blog articles and television coverage of Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff (of whom I am a big fan) and his rise to the leadership of the Liberal Party. One major critique that has arose time and time again is his initial support of US intervention in Iraq, in 2003. His argument that Saddam Hussein' removal, as a threat to human rights, was different than the intentions of G.W. Bush but the means ended up being the same.
A number of recent events:
- the passage of the Status of Forces Agreement by the Iraqi Government, requiring the removal of US forces within a set timeline in the next year
- Canada's decision to withdraw from a combat role in Afghanistan in 2011
- Secretary of Defence Robert Gates' request that Canada remain committed to the Afghan mission beyond 2011
have made me start to think that Iraq may not have been as bad as completely terrible as it has been made out to be. (this is where I will become a pariah, lol)
Just look at the reality of the situations; Saddam Hussein was removed as a threat to the international order/security as well as to the human rights of Iraqi citizens. The new government has been able to solidify itself as a somewhat stable regime or at least enough that they could come together to democratically pass legislation to boot the US out of their lands.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the insurgency is by no means in decline, the US has had to recommit to sending a surge of troops into the theater, Canada has backed out, NATO support has been weak to take a real commitment to the mission (the decision by major NATO members... cough cough FRANCE, GERMANY... cough cough COWARDS... cough... to take up the missions in the more peaceful regions of Afghanistan rather than commit their greater resources to the mission in Kandahar), the weakness of infrastructure (Karzai's government, Afghan police and army) and the growing perception that the ISAF will be in Afghanistan for at least 10 more years.
Despite this, the mission in Afghanistan is seen as the more legitimate mission in international security!
Now don't get all tied up in knots, I'm just saying its kind of curious
- blenCOWe
Political junkie as I am, I have been avidly reading the news/blog articles and television coverage of Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff (of whom I am a big fan) and his rise to the leadership of the Liberal Party. One major critique that has arose time and time again is his initial support of US intervention in Iraq, in 2003. His argument that Saddam Hussein' removal, as a threat to human rights, was different than the intentions of G.W. Bush but the means ended up being the same.
A number of recent events:
- the passage of the Status of Forces Agreement by the Iraqi Government, requiring the removal of US forces within a set timeline in the next year
- Canada's decision to withdraw from a combat role in Afghanistan in 2011
- Secretary of Defence Robert Gates' request that Canada remain committed to the Afghan mission beyond 2011
have made me start to think that Iraq may not have been as bad as completely terrible as it has been made out to be. (this is where I will become a pariah, lol)
Just look at the reality of the situations; Saddam Hussein was removed as a threat to the international order/security as well as to the human rights of Iraqi citizens. The new government has been able to solidify itself as a somewhat stable regime or at least enough that they could come together to democratically pass legislation to boot the US out of their lands.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the insurgency is by no means in decline, the US has had to recommit to sending a surge of troops into the theater, Canada has backed out, NATO support has been weak to take a real commitment to the mission (the decision by major NATO members... cough cough FRANCE, GERMANY... cough cough COWARDS... cough... to take up the missions in the more peaceful regions of Afghanistan rather than commit their greater resources to the mission in Kandahar), the weakness of infrastructure (Karzai's government, Afghan police and army) and the growing perception that the ISAF will be in Afghanistan for at least 10 more years.
Despite this, the mission in Afghanistan is seen as the more legitimate mission in international security!
Now don't get all tied up in knots, I'm just saying its kind of curious
- blenCOWe
A Little Cooperation Would Go A Long Way
In the United States, the proposed $14 billion auto sector bailout failed due to the United Auto Worker's Union was unwilling to accept a wage cut to help make the sector more profitable and fiscally responsible.
Then, the president of the Canadian Auto Worker's Union, Ken Lewenza, decided to provide the delightful snippet:
“We refuse to have the auto workers as scapegoats,” he said. “It's finger pointing.” -- The Globe and Mail
At the risk of pissing off a number of friends at home who are tied to the auto sector in Windsor, it seems to me that the unions are becoming a major obstacle to helping the people they are supposed to represent. The auto workers are not the scapegoats but many of the people I know that work in the sector have hourly wages in the range of $35/hour or even higher. Now it seems to me that a reasonable short-term cut in their wage in the region of $5-8 would not be harmful in the long-run. Like I said, this cut would be a short term solution to allow the auto companies to get their bailout monies and some time to restructure their business models so that they will be viable again in the future.
Apparently, the non-Big 3 companies (e.g. Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen) have wages quite a bit lower than those of the domestic producers. Basically, the idea would be to level these out, bringing the inflated wages down to realistic amounts. Notice that the companies with the reasonable wage levels are not the one's in major trouble!
It comes down to basic mathematics; if the unions do not start to play ball the companies will crumble. Its a simple comparison of equations,
Current Model: High wages x no hours (cuz the companies bankrupt) = no jobs/no money
Proposed Model: Slightly lower wages x regular hours = still have a job/income
Hey Unions, DO THE MATH!!
The bailout packages are just asking for a little cooperation so that these companies do not have to face the nature of free markets and collapse like they should according to their dysfunctional business models.
- blenCOWe
Then, the president of the Canadian Auto Worker's Union, Ken Lewenza, decided to provide the delightful snippet:
“We refuse to have the auto workers as scapegoats,” he said. “It's finger pointing.” -- The Globe and Mail
At the risk of pissing off a number of friends at home who are tied to the auto sector in Windsor, it seems to me that the unions are becoming a major obstacle to helping the people they are supposed to represent. The auto workers are not the scapegoats but many of the people I know that work in the sector have hourly wages in the range of $35/hour or even higher. Now it seems to me that a reasonable short-term cut in their wage in the region of $5-8 would not be harmful in the long-run. Like I said, this cut would be a short term solution to allow the auto companies to get their bailout monies and some time to restructure their business models so that they will be viable again in the future.
Apparently, the non-Big 3 companies (e.g. Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen) have wages quite a bit lower than those of the domestic producers. Basically, the idea would be to level these out, bringing the inflated wages down to realistic amounts. Notice that the companies with the reasonable wage levels are not the one's in major trouble!
It comes down to basic mathematics; if the unions do not start to play ball the companies will crumble. Its a simple comparison of equations,
Current Model: High wages x no hours (cuz the companies bankrupt) = no jobs/no money
Proposed Model: Slightly lower wages x regular hours = still have a job/income
Hey Unions, DO THE MATH!!
The bailout packages are just asking for a little cooperation so that these companies do not have to face the nature of free markets and collapse like they should according to their dysfunctional business models.
- blenCOWe
Thursday, December 11, 2008
We Knew This Was Coming!
Since winning the US Presidential election in November, many Canadians have been pondering the question of whether Obama's commitment to winning in Afghanistan would have any effect on Canada's withdrawal date in 2011.
It was pretty clear that the United States would ask Canada to recommit to the Afghan mission. Well today our expectations were met when Current and future Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, asked Canada to stay on past 2011. Gates has asked that Canadians stay on in the volatile region of Kandahar, praising that,
"Proportionally, none have worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians. They have been outstanding partners for us, and all I can tell you, as has been the case for a very long time, the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners, the better it is."
Realistically, and I have said this before, Canada will not commit to a longer military presence in Afghanistan. Our body count is rising, our government is divided and the people are getting tired of politics as of late. We are suffering from battle fatigue and need a break. Canada needs to regroup, rest and refocus so that we can continue to push for a strong(er) position in the international community.
Now I'm not saying this because I believe that we should be in other theaters (like Darfur) but because I truly believe that Canada will be worse off if it decides to answer Gates' call. Canada's forces are not designed for this kind of mission. We neither have the strength, the equipment nor the political or public support for a long, drawn out occupation in Afghanistan.
This is one time that Canada must absolutely step up and firmly say no when the US calls.
- blenCOWe
It was pretty clear that the United States would ask Canada to recommit to the Afghan mission. Well today our expectations were met when Current and future Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, asked Canada to stay on past 2011. Gates has asked that Canadians stay on in the volatile region of Kandahar, praising that,
"Proportionally, none have worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians. They have been outstanding partners for us, and all I can tell you, as has been the case for a very long time, the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners, the better it is."
Realistically, and I have said this before, Canada will not commit to a longer military presence in Afghanistan. Our body count is rising, our government is divided and the people are getting tired of politics as of late. We are suffering from battle fatigue and need a break. Canada needs to regroup, rest and refocus so that we can continue to push for a strong(er) position in the international community.
Now I'm not saying this because I believe that we should be in other theaters (like Darfur) but because I truly believe that Canada will be worse off if it decides to answer Gates' call. Canada's forces are not designed for this kind of mission. We neither have the strength, the equipment nor the political or public support for a long, drawn out occupation in Afghanistan.
This is one time that Canada must absolutely step up and firmly say no when the US calls.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
One Scary Number
Sir Richard Branson and a number of world dignitaries have come together to form a group called Global Zero who want to see the renewal of Cold War efforts for disarmament, with the eventual goal of eliminating nuclear weapons within 25 years.
There is nothing wrong with their goal to decrease the number nuclear weapons but the number "zero" is a scary concept. Nuclear weapons have provided stability and predictability to the international order since their first use at the end of WWII. Removing all nuclear weapons will likely create a more volatile situation where states, especially rogue states and other troublemakers, will act more readily because they would not have the fear of annihilation.
The deterrence function of nuclear weapons has been one of the most important factors of the decline of inter-state wars in the relations of nations. As nuclear weapons spread to more states, stability ensured from the fear of nuclear war. If you take out the nuclear weapons then the fear dissipates and the world will revert to greater instability. It is also important to note that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 so it is not like they have become a mass tool of destruction. Their power is what stabilizes the balance of power amongst nations and makes states' actions predictable. Thus, the presence of nuclear weapons are necessary for stability in the relations of nations.
- blenCOWe
There is nothing wrong with their goal to decrease the number nuclear weapons but the number "zero" is a scary concept. Nuclear weapons have provided stability and predictability to the international order since their first use at the end of WWII. Removing all nuclear weapons will likely create a more volatile situation where states, especially rogue states and other troublemakers, will act more readily because they would not have the fear of annihilation.
The deterrence function of nuclear weapons has been one of the most important factors of the decline of inter-state wars in the relations of nations. As nuclear weapons spread to more states, stability ensured from the fear of nuclear war. If you take out the nuclear weapons then the fear dissipates and the world will revert to greater instability. It is also important to note that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 so it is not like they have become a mass tool of destruction. Their power is what stabilizes the balance of power amongst nations and makes states' actions predictable. Thus, the presence of nuclear weapons are necessary for stability in the relations of nations.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
