What Are Test Cases?

W. Andy Knight has an interesting article in The Mark today on the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The quote below I find particularly interesting:

"The international society of states still relies heavily on the Westphalian notion that state sovereignty includes the legal right of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states. This is most clearly evidenced by the lack of action by the 'international community' in areas like the Darfur region of Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burma, among others. For R2P to become international law, it would require many more years of not just debate in the UN Security Council and General Assembly, but also testing in actual cases." -- W. Andy Knight

The idea of test cases would require that norms like non-intervention would be removed for certain situations and maintained for others. This raises the question: what qualities make certain situations better than others to be test cases? Not that I am against R2P, but is there not already a problem within the UN of rules applying to some and not others? The problem with test cases is that utilizing them would mean that the international community openly accepts this idea that rules would not apply to some people. Once this happens, how can any rules have effect?

- blenCOWe

Back in the Game

What a semester! I haven't been blogging this past semester but this will change in the new year. The first four months of my master's degree has flown by quickly and with all the weekly preparation and work I decided to take a break from my blogging activities. But now I am back and will be blogging as regularly as possible.

- blenCOWe

Speaking a Different Language Than Everyone Else

I was reading the latest article in Embassy about Romeo Dallaire's response to the change in diplomatic language regarding child soldiers (or "children in armed conflict") and it got me thinking about the effect this might have on Canada's efforts on this issue and the other areas that received a "Harper-izing" of diplomatic language. If we start changing the language our diplomats can use from the language that is normally used by the majority of others in the international community, isn't the chance for communication failures greater? Why is it necessary for Canada to be using a different language from everyone else when talking about subjects that require a great deal of multilateral cooperation for any real progress to be made? Changing the language that diplomats are allowed to use makes confusion more likely and cooperation more difficult and timely.

The Harper government has maintained that the change in language was done in order to have Canada's diplomats using words that are more in line with the policies of the current government. Doesn't this then indicate that the priorities of the government of Canada are changing from the priorities of the rest of the international community? If, though, Canada's priorities in these areas are not different from everyone else then I would view the changes as creating more trouble than they are worth and likely problematic.

One interesting view considered by the article was that the change reflects an expansion of policy to consider more than just children who act as soldiers:

" 'Child soldiers' generally includes only youth and children who act as armed militants, while 'children in armed conflict' would theoretically encompass those used as porters, water carriers and in other support activities. It would also include girls and young women who are held as sex slaves or used to manage an operation's logistics. Essentially, it enlarges the definition to include those who participate in combat or are exploited by it, but aren't armed."

Now, I might be more inclined to believe that the change in language represented an expansion of the focus of the policies to account for a more inclusive definition if the Harper government had not been fighting efforts to repatriate Omar Khadr so vigourously. In my opinion Mr. Khadr falls under the subject of child soldier, but even if you disagree with that, he would definitely be counted as a child in armed conflict give the fact that he was a minor when captured. As such, it is clear from the actions of the Harper government that the change in language does not represent an expansion of term but merely more political games by the Conservative government.

- blenCOWe

True Canadian-Style Foreign Policy

Now this is the type of foreign policy objective that Canada should be pursuing.

"Hundreds of Order of Canada recipients, representing some of the country's leading scientific, cultural and political luminaries, are joining a growing global groundswell calling for a multilateral agreement to end the use of nuclear weapons."

Too bad it couldn't come from the Conservative government... you know, the people whose job it is to construct and pursue Canada's foreign policy.

- blenCOWe

European Security Treaty will be an another example of failed collective security

In last week's edition of the Embassy the head of the Russian Embassy to Canada's political section, Dimitry Trofimov, has an article attempting to glorify Russian President Dimitry Medvedev's proposal for a European Security Treaty (EST), claiming that"it could provide equal and indivisible security for all states, both members and non-members of any given bloc, and create a common set of co-ordinates agreed by all 56 states in the Euro-Atlantic area." He goes on to suggest "such a treaty should create in the Euro-Atlantic area a reliable collective security system on the basis of principles of polycentrism, rule of international law and the central role of the United Nations, unified and indivisible security of all states, inadmissibility of isolation of any state, and the creation of zones with different levels of security."

The problem with collective security is that it has never worked as it is supposed to function. The idea behind collective security is that it is an alternative to the balance of power. Its principle, as Earnest Claude puts it, is "that in the relation of nations, everyone is his brother's keeper." All states guarantee to secure, collectively, each and every state that is party to the system. Any threat to the peace by any state to any other state must be seen as a threat to the security of all states and they must respond accordingly. The problem with CS is that when threats to the peace are identified, the call to respond has never been recognized and responded to by all the member states of the security organization.

Now advocates of this treaty might argue that in smaller numbers, collective security is more likely to work but given the fact that on the UN Security Council, Russia has been a regular roadblock to proposals for humanitarian and other types of intervention as have other European powers, France and Germany. Furthermore, France has only just rejoined the integrated command structure of NATO, with domestic protest, after many years. With this in mind, what are the chances that these "reluctant" powers will act more often and with greater effect when history has shown them not to be.

Rather than building another toothless security organization that will only further clutter the international community, the European community might be better served to work to make the United Nation's collective security mechanisms more effective.

There are also problems with how the EST would be structured. One of the themes that Mr. Trofimov identifies is that all members would be guaranteed equal security and that no member would seek to provide for their own security at the cost of the security of another state. The problem is that this theme also "respects the right of any state to maintain neutrality." This means that if it is not in the best interests of a state to become involved in a conflict then it is not required to participate. Therefore, the same problem of participation that is faced by the UN is again confronted in this treaty. There is also the inherent conflict, routinely found in collective security, that the treaty guarantees that the other member states will come to the rescue of an embattled member, but then weakens this guarantee by allowing states to opt out of any missions it does not want to participate in. This is the same design that the UN's security mechanisms employ thus making this agreement unnecessary and possibly even make it less likely for the UN's mechanisms to work when needed.

I wonder why Russia is proposing this now when one year ago, if this agreement had been in place, Russia would likely have been confronted by the organization's members over the conflict in Georgia (not to mention Georgia's ally, the United States). But therein may lay the answer; Russia might be proposing this new security organism in response to the US presence currently found in Europe's predominant security structures. This proposal could very well be Russia's newest response to NATO eastward expansion and have no real concern for an effective security organization in Europe.

- blenCOWe

Sovereignty Revoked!

I didn't think things like this could still happen,

"THE self-rule that the Turks and Caicos islands have enjoyed for 33 years was taken away on August 14th, when Britain removed their elected premier, cabinet and assembly, and suspended most of their constitution. For the next two years or so the islands, whose population is around 38,000, will be run by their governor—the representative of Queen Elizabeth.

Britain felt it had few choices, following the publication last month of a report by an inquiry, headed by Sir Robin Auld, a former British judge, which found a 'high probability of systemic corruption' in the tiny country’s government, with ministers apparently bribed by foreign property developers. Sir Robin described the situation as a 'national emergency'. He recommended a police investigation of Michael Misick, who resigned as premier in March but denies wrongdoing, and other government figures. The report noted Mr Misick’s reputation for enjoying a 'Hollywood lifestyle' and said his spending habits 'far exceeded his salary and allowances'."

- blenCOWe

More Cuts Threaten Canada's Foreign Policy Priorities

One again Canadians are finding out how the manner in which the Harper government plans to achieve its foreign policy goals in these times of fiscal restraint. The word of the day is that nasty little "c-word" known as cuts.

An article in today's Embassy announced that at the end of July, all of Canada's "Ambassadors, High Commissioners and Charges d'Affaires were told that program budgets for all missions were being immediately cut by 50 per cent. The program budget pays for such things as attending and hosting events and conferences, public diplomacy efforts and human rights advocacy."

Now cuts to some things like hosted events and conferences were expected and it is reasonable, to some extent, that things like events and conferences face cuts when money is tight. However, to make drastic cuts to the funding of public diplomacy efforts and human rights advocacy constitutes what I believe to be a direct threat to Canada's ability to pursue its foreign policy objectives.

Canada is currently on a rocky foreign policy path and cuts like this can transform rocky into treacherous. Right now some of the Canadian government's foreign policy priorities include campaigning for a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2010 as well as smoothing over a shift in governmental priorities towards Latin and South American that has left many states in Africa feeling more than a little bit jilted. Dealing with these challenges requires a fair amount of engagement in the international community and perfect examples of this are public diplomacy and human rights advocacy. These types of diplomatic initiative are crucial to build up Canada's image and influence in international relations and to cut the budgets for these programs across the board and by half shows that the Harper government is not backing up their stated intentions to pursue its objectives with the resources necessary to be effective in the pursuit.

Probably even worse is that this looks to be the beginning of another political game. The way I see, the Harper government is hoping to make DFAIT look like it is being fiscally irresponsible by introducing the cuts at a time that will practically ensure that the missions abroad will be over budget. How does the Harper government expect the missions to stay under budget when they cut half of the budget half-way through the fiscal year. Realistically it is possible that many missions have already spent their new budget allocations thus placing them in the difficult position of spending more than their budget, canceling the rest of those programs' events for the rest of the year or redirecting some of the funds of the other programs that have already faced to cuts to attempt to save some of these diplomatic necessities. In times of fiscal crunch, government departments, especially ones that some Canadians may not see the benefits from on a regular or semi-regular basis, that go over budget are almost destined to become political scapegoats. This doesn't strike me as an example of good governance (oops, Liberal-Era language!) when the political masters of departments are setting up the civil servants, that run them, to fail!

How does Harper believe, and expect Canadians to believe, that Canada is being guided through these difficult times in a manner that will be beneficial to the nation?

- blenCOWe

My Spin on Drezner's IR Zombies

One of the latest things to hit the blogosphere has been the mathematical exercise by Canadian researchers that concluded that "only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures."

When I read this a couple days ago when it came out, I'll admit I laughed a little bit about it but didn't really give it a second thought. But now thanks to Daniel Drezner, I have returned to weigh in on the subject of the "emerging threat from zombies." Today, Prof. Drezner wrote what I thought was a creative blog post on the application of theories of international politics to the zombie "problem." However, I believe there exists a significant problem in his analysis; zombies are not cognitive and rational beings. I do not claim to be an expert of zombies in any manner but the way I understand them, they are driven solely by their desire to eat the brains of other people. There is no greater motive than them other than sustenance.

In his structural realist analysis, Drezner claims "that there is no inherent difference between human states and zombie states. Regardless of individual traits or domestic institutions, human and zombie actors alike are subject to the same powerful constraint of anarchy." Furthermore, he adds that "it might even be tactically wise to fashion temporary alliances with certain zombie states as a way to balance against human states that try to exploit the situation with some kind of idealistic power grab made under the guise of anti-zombeism." The problem I see here is that both instances require the zombies to be thinking and acting like rational beings. Zombies and humans are not equally subject to the constraint of anarchy because zombies are unable to comprehend what anarchy is and how it threatens them as well lacking the mental capability to devise a strategy that is in their best interests. Therefore, I believe he is wrong when he concludes that "the introduction of zombies would not fundamentally alter the character of world politics." World politics would indeed be changed because of the introduction of a threat that will recklessly chase after its one goal; brains. An entity which has yet to be seen in world politics.

In terms of his liberal institutionalist and constructivist analyses, Drezner is counting on the fact that the zombies would have the cognitive ability to calculate the benefits and drawbacks to collaborating with other actors. As such, any ideas of building an international organization, including the presence of zombies, to deal with the presence of zombies or to build a world state inclusive of zombies appears to be quite impossible.

Lastly, when he addresses neoconservatism he recognizes that the zombie threat was an existential threat, noting that the threat from zombies is from their jealously over our freedom and not from their desire for our brains. Like the faults with the other theories, this analysis is based on the faulty assumption that zombies have the ability to make cognitive decisions like that. The unavoidable fact is simple, zombies pose a threat to humans because of their desire for brains and for no other reason.

The way I see it, it is possible from the perspective of humans to account for the presence of a zombie threat in this world, in international relations theory. However, in all the different ways that I have looked at it I do not see a way to include zombies into a theory in any role more than a threat. By this I mean that like environmental degradation, zombies pose a threat to the existence of humans but are not able to think rationally and are dependent on their natural circumstances (the need to consume brains). Thus, zombies are a threat and not an actor in international relations theory.

On a side note this has been kind of a fun post to write so thank you Prof. Drezner. Now I am going to go listen to Michael Jackson's Thriller because it just seems appropriate.

- blenCOWe

I Guess It's Not Easy Being A Rising Power

In the Economist this past week there was an interesting article about some of the recent foreign policy woes of rising power Brazil. Apparently being one of the up and coming class of new powers is not all that it may be cracked up to be. There seems to be some difference of opinion concerning whether or not the direction the Lula has been guiding Brazil on its current rise in power is in the best interests of the country.

Brazillian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's "predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, sought to boost trade and other ties with the United States and Europe. On taking office in 2003, Lula placed new stress on south-south ties. Brazil has doubled the number of its embassies in Africa, to 30, and joined or set up a clutch of new clubs. These include IBSA, with India and South Africa, of which Itamaraty, the foreign ministry, is especially proud."

This seems, to me, to be a typical dilemma for any power that is determined to rise up global hierarchy. A potential power can either choose to align itself with the old world powers of the industrial northern hemisphere or with the relatively uncertain but potentially prosperous states of the southern hemisphere.

For now though, Lula (and therefore Brazil's) decision to focus on its fellow economies of the South has appeared to have been a wise decision. "As evidence that this policy has borne fruit, Celso Amorim, the foreign minister, points out that most of Brazil’s trade is now with developing countries, thus anticipating Mr Obama’s advice that the world should not rely on the United States as consumer of last resort."

Brazil's foreign policies however have run into problems with its neighbours in South America. In his attempts to bolster the prosperity of the South American continent by increasing cooperation and collaboration amongst its neighbours. However, when

"Brazil embraced Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, inviting it to join the Mercosur trade block. The naivety of this approach became apparent when Bolivia, at Mr Chávez’s urging, nationalised the local operations of Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil company. In what has been called the 'diplomacy of generosity' towards left-wing governments in its smaller neighbours, Brazil agreed to pay more for Bolivian gas. Last month it similarly agreed to pay Paraguay more for electricity from Itaipu, the hydroelectric dam they share."

and then more recently at the meeting of Union of South American Nations (which Brazil initiated) in the Ecuadorean capital Quito,

"Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, backed by his allies, Bolivia and Ecuador, wanted to condemn Colombia for granting facilities at seven military bases to the United States, which is helping it battle guerrillas and drug-traffickers. 'Winds of war are blowing,' he thundered. Four countries, including Chile and Peru, backed Colombia."

It just seems tragic that Brazil has been pursuing a path that has largely shielded it from the problems of the economic downturn but then faces bumps on that path because of its squabbling neighbours.

- blenCOWe

Another Published Essay

I guess I am on a bit of a roll right now. First my paper for the ATLIS journal is finally released this past week and now I've got another essay currently featured on the front page of the website e-IR.

e-IR is a really cool website that I have been reading for a while. It was started by a couple of students at some of the top universities in the UK including Oxford, Cambridge and Aberystwyth. The website covers a wide array of sub-fields in international politics, featuring editorials by some of the worlds leading academics and essays by students varied backgrounds and institutions.

Trust me, check it out!

- blenCOWe

Some of Us Would Like an Answer or Even Some Visible Action!

Great article today in the Embassy about Canada's so-called campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council in the upcoming elections. It has been very hard to see what efforts the current government is making in order to strengthen Canada's case for the seat. I realize that a lot of diplomacy goes on behind closed doors (which is a topic already discussed frequently and one that I will save for another day) but there should be some visibility to the campaign. I think this quote sums it up succinctly;

"You don't win a Security Council campaign on the basis of a slogan or a tagline or posters or even cute little events," the former official said. "It's part of a complicated diplomatic process where a lot of it has to do with trading votes. 'I'll vote for you in this or that election if you vote for me on the Security Council.' It builds on bilateral relations.... You tug on the heart strings and remind them of all the great things you've done with them. You try to identify issues on which you share similar points of view. You commit yourself to consulting. That's how you win."

The problem is that Canada's track record right now isn't at its most convincing when trying to attract votes.

"what is clear is that Canada will have a much tougher challenge this time around. Recent policy decisions and actions taken by the government, like cutting aid to Africa, staunchly supporting for Israel, refusing to repatriate Omar Khadr, reticence on tackling climate change, and largely abandoned peacekeeping, are only going to hurt."

What exactly will Canada use to "tug on the heart strings" of other nations? Afghanistan...? That is likely to be a large portion of Canada's projected image as working to enhance international security, and it is true that Canadians should be proud of their forces. But with that mission being NATO led and with many European countries starting to rethink the mission, Canada's loud voice and strong stance next to the United States may actually hinder its chances to win some votes. When added to public debacles like cutting aid to Africa, Omar Khadr and more recently the Canadian woman who had to take a DNA test before the government would let her back into the country, Canada's image is probably not at its best right now.

I think what I, and many other Canadians, would like to see is a coherent and obvious strategy behind Canada's campaign. One that ignores partisan politics and is supported by all parts of the Canadian government. For this is not an issue party politics, it is an issue of working together to help Canada enhance its place in the international community.

- blenCOWe

My First Published Article

This past January, I presented a paper at the annual ATLIS Conference whose theme was on interventions. My paper, entitled In Search of an Identity: The Case for Niche Diplomacy in Canadian Foreign Policy, attempts to connect the concept of niche diplomacy with some of the current strengths and weaknesses found in Canadian foreign policy. Well, this spring it was accepted to be published in the ATLIS journal and now the new volume is up on the organization's new website. Take a look and feel free to send me your thoughts.

Here is the link: http://atlismta.org/online-journals/0809-journal-intervention/in-search-of-an-identity/

- blenCOWe

Great Article on Youth and Politics

I think this article nails the problem right on the head. Youth in Canada have the education, awareness and issues that should push them into actively participating in the political arena, and yet the majority choose to reside on the sidelines. As a young Canadian who actively participates in the political process, I find the trend both maddening and inexplicable. Take a look at the article, it is definitely well thought out and articulated.

If there's and inspiration deficit in our politics, blame it on the young

- blenCOWe

Vacation Interrupted

My blogging for the next couple of weeks will be light and sporadic. I am in Trois-Pistoles until the start of August taking classes to improve my French. I must say the lack of internet has been very disparaging since I arrived on Saturday.

On a side note, as part of a class that I am taking on media and reporting I will be posting at http://www.ecoledelangue.blogspot.com/ so check it out. I am new to the class having switched from another so I have no idea what shape it will take but with my french skills anything I post should at least be an entertaining read!

- blenCOWe

Former Diplomats See Security Council Seat in Reach For Canada

This week in the Embassy, Michelle Collins reports that some of Canada's former top diplomats believe that Canada's campaign for a UN Security Council Seat in 2011 will be successful. Former Ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker compared the campaign to basketball calling Canada's chances are "kind of a jump shot in traffic, one that we can make but will have to get on the rebound" (Embassy).

A jump shot in traffic? Really? That doesn't sound all that optimistic for those of us that have been paying attention to the campaign. In basketball, a contested jump shot is one of the harder shots and Canada doesn't really strike me as the Kobe Bryant/Lebron James sharpshooter type. Now if Mr. Heinbecker had said that we were in the low-post with the ball but still contested, I would have felt, then, that it could be said that the seat is foreseeable in Canada's future. But there is no point to dwell on what could have been said.

According to the latest UN DPKO releases, Portugal contributes more to UN peackeeping missions than either Canada or Germany but the numbers are not impressive for any of them. In the ISAF force in Afghanistan, Portugal's contribution to the mission is miniscule when compared to the contingents provided by Canada and Germany. While this is a rather narrow comparison of the three candidate states' involvement in peace operations and multilateral efforts, I believe it is possible to draw a couple basic conclusions from this. First, Portugal's greater contribution to UN peackeeping missions is a misleading factor because the difference is minor and when compared to the greater contributions of Canada and Germany on another (UN sanctioned, but not led) mission, becomes practically negligible. It would be hard to deny that Canada and Germany both play larger roles in protecting peace and security in the international community.

But Security Council elections are not just about troop contributions, they are essentially a report card on a state's participation and cooperation with those around it. This means it becomes necessary to look at other indicators like foreign aid. According to OECD statistics, Portugal's foreign aid levels (0.27% of GNI) are below that of Canada (0.32%) and Germany (0.38%). Canada and its competitors cannot use foreign aid levels as a great boost in the campaign as all are well below the international target of 0.7%. So again, Canada remains relatively in league with Germany in terms of influence/participation globally and Portugal comes up yet again short.

These are just a couple of the basic tangible measures that can help to compare states during international elections such as the Security Council ones. Based on these factors so far, it would seem like Canada would be a shoo-in for a Council seat. If that were the case though, Canadian citizens wouldn't keep reading about Canada's long shot chance to win the seat.

There is little wrong with Canada's "substance." I say this with the caveat that I do realize that Canada does have its problems but the bigger picture is that Canada's substance is of such good quality in so many areas that it can afford a few blemishes without tarnishing the whole. This means that there must be something wrong with the "delivery" or, in other words, politics. Canada has made some politically risky decisions since its last term on the Council including a pro-Israel stance, resistance to climate change initiatives, and even more recently its decision to focus the majority of its bilateral aid away from Africa. Often, elections become popularity contests and are not fought on the substance. This is what is causing the fear of losing the election. Canada has the substance to win the election but the popularity is in question after a string of politically risky decisions.

Is it time to go back to school where we all first learned about popularity? Canada needs a quick shot of popularity... time to throw a party! Are the parents going out of town anytime soon?

- blenCOWe

Brazil Beginning to Act Like a Great Power

The BBC reports, today that Brazil will offer the International Monetary Fund $10 billion in order to improve the accessibility of credit to developing nations. This move represents what could be the beginning of Brazil's true emergence as a great power. Brazil has both a strong military and economy but cannot really be called an "active" power. Until now, it was probably fairer to say that Brazil was at best a regional power. A move like this, part of a greater commitment by BRIC nations, helps Brazil to push past that label and earn the attention it has been receiving lately as a growing power.

Beyond that, by committing such a large amount of money to the IMF, Brazil may be helping to restore legitimacy to an institution that has had a poor track record in South America. With a contribution like this, Brazil will have a lot more influence in the decisions of the IMF because of the institution's structure where the number of votes a state has is dependent on the amount of money it contributes - this contribution would place Brazil as a top 5 contributions and, consequently, influence. What this means for South America is that it can finally have one of its own fighting in its best interests and hopefully work to change the mistrust (and/or hatred) that is the result of detrimental IMF involvement in the past. Also, this must make developing nations worldwide optimistic now that one of their former colleagues is now an influential player in international politics and institutions.

This seems like a good first step for Brazil and may create a little more anticipation for the upcoming BRIC summit.

- blenCOWe

Poll Shows People Favour Aid For Development Not Trade

Last week I wrote about Canada's decision to realign its foreign aid priorities towards countries who have major trade interests with Canada. Personally, I believe that foreign aid should serve a greater purpose than strengthening Canada's trade relations with other nations. There is so much poverty, disease and conflict in the world that Canada's foreign aid could have a significant impact in alleviating.

Well apparently I am not the only personal to have this belief. A recent poll shows that the Canadian people also believe that Canada's foreign aid should serve a higher calling than to bolster trade relations.

Maybe if Canada's foreign aid levels were up near the international community's goal of 0.7% of GNI then maybe it would be okay to route some major aid to its trading partners but with current levels hovering around 0.3%, Canada is not forking up enough money to do this. Until the 0.7% standard is reached, aid should only be directed to addressing the major issues that currently plague the international community and Africa is definitely the place where the greatest impact and need can be found.

- blenCOWe

Canadian MPs Unhappy with African Diplomats

The Globe and Mail reports today about how a number of African diplomats have mounted a public effort to get the Canadian government to change their "abandonment" of the African continent in terms of bilateral aid. The group of diplomats from 17 African countries were calling for Canada to "regain its leading role as a friend to the continent." Their proposals included re-establishing bilateral ties, increasing trade ties (like many other powers, like China, are doing) and to conduct regular Canada-Africa meetings.

In the article, it is noted that Conservative MPs Jim Abbott and (Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Deepak Obhrai were deeply unhappy with the message that the diplomats were sending. Claiming that the diplomats had incorrect facts and opposed to the fact that the diplomats were criticizing the Conservative government, the Tories argued the message claiming that in fact Canada had meet its goal to double foreign aid levels for 2001 to $2.1 billion.

While it is good that Canada is increasing its level of aid, there exists a large problem with the way in which they are going about doing it. CIDA minister Bev Oda has argued that in this time of economic crisis, it is imperative for Canada to be more efficient in the way that it applies its foreign aid. Canada will now only provide bilateral aid to 7 countries in Africa down from the 15 countries that received it in the past (to put it in perspective there are 53 countries in Africa). These 7 countries will share $1.2 billion dollars with the rest being relegated to fighting amongst each other, and the rest of the world, for the remaining 20% of bilateral aid and the multilateral aid that Canada helps fund. Exactly how is this not abandonment? How is it okay that Canada is increasing its aid yet decreasing the number of people that get it? Does that make sense?

Strategically this move is even more perplexing. World powers like China and the United States are investing more and more into the troubled continent realizing both the need and the gains from it. Africa remains one of the poorest, if not the poorest, regions in the world and has the most need of help from developed countries like Canada. I fail to see the logic (beyond trade interests) that places the Caribbean and South America's urgency of need ahead of Africa's. Could this be another example of the Harper government's reluctance to compete in the international community, like initial reports that Canada would not actively campaign for a Security Council seat for fear of losing. Could it be that Prime Minister Harper and his Tory government are afraid of playing in the same arena as the "big boys" (China and US)?

Canada should be in a better position to work with African nations than either the US or China because of its previous history as a colony and not an imperial power. Added to that is Canada's record of assistance to Africa, both in terms of aid and efforts to act as a peacekeeper (Rwanda for example), as well as Canada's prominent position in the Francophonie organization.

And what about the Security Council elections? Those nine African countries are not likely to vote for Canada after it cut its aid programs to them. Its almost as if Mr. Harper wants Canada to lose to Portugal. PORTUGAL!!!! This is not a soccer game, this should have been an easy victory for Canada (I have not given up hope for Canada yet, I am just realizing that our actions are making this campaign harder than it should have been).

Trade relations are only part of the equation when building up diplomatic power. Public opinion, built through areas like foreign aid, peacekeeping, working withing the UN, is critical to having the type of diplomatic presence where Canada can truly ensure its security, including economic security, in the international community. The African diplomats are right to try to shake some sense in Canadian politicians because it is clear that nobody at home is getting through.

And I did not even mention the fact that despite the increase in foreign aid, Canadian foreign aid still only hovers around 0.3% of its GNI... oops!

- blenCOWe

Seeing Both Sides

Stephen Walt has a really good blog post on empathy and where it should exist in international relations over at the foreignpolicy.com. His argument is basically that "an inability to understand an adversary's perspective (or an ally's for that matter) is a crippling liability" and goes on to say that given the expansion of technology and globalization there is less of an excuse to not understand the "other side" of an issue.

On a personal level, I really connect with this because I have always enjoyed "playing the devil's advocate" and really pride myself on my ability to see past my own beliefs. So take a good look at what Prof. Walt is saying because there is definitely way too much narrow-mindedness in international politics.

- blenCOWe

The Century Mark!

I realize this probably should have happened a long time ago but because of the couple long breaks that I have taken it has taken me this long to get to 100 posts but I am finally here. My previous post on North Korea restarting the Korean War was my 100th post so... yeaaaaaa! lol

- blenCOWe

North Korea Restarts Korean War

North Korea has announced that it no longer considers itself to be bound by the terms of the truce that brought about the end of the fighting in the Korean War. The truce was not a formal peace agreement and as such the war had never officially concluded. What has apparently sparked this revival of war dialogue has been South Korea's decision to join the US in their initiative to conduct searches for nuclear weapons on ships heading to or coming from North Korea.

This, coming shortly after a nuclear explosion and testing of missiles, is just another example of North Korea's pattern of cutting across the grain of the international order. It seems that the Kim Jong Il regime is determined to buck the status quo and elevate itself to major player status. The problem is that even with nuclear weapons North Korea will not be a major player in international politics. It has neither the economic or diplomatic clout to back its military strength. To use a basic schoolyard comparison, North Korea will be the kid who thinks that they are a bully but doesn't have the respect of the others on the playground and gets beaten up both by the major bullies and by groups of smaller kids. How's that for imagery!

In recent years Russia and China have been North Korea's biggest allies on the UN Security Council. Their "friendship" has basically been that these two major players do not approve of North Korea's "bucking" of the system but do not want to see its sovereign borders crossed by any of the other powers. In restarting the Korean War, the DPRK risks provoking these, so far, sleeping giants. By posing a risk to the international order, North Korea may effectively force Russia and China to take a stronger position against their rogue actions.

If North Korea lashes out then the international community has the obligation to "put the rabid dog down." To allow this kind of behaviour to go unchecked will merely ensure that it is continued into the future. One rabid dog is a problem that must be managed before it contaminates anyone else.

- blenCOWe

What To Do With North Korea?

First North Korea tested a nuclear explosion thought to be 20 times more powerful than their one in 2006 and now, in the same week, they conduct a test of two short-range missiles. Now it would be difficult at best for anyone other than the North Koreans to decipher a strategic direction to these recent actions. Unlike past instances, North Korea went ahead with their plans without announcing them far in advance which typically led to a good amount of hard diplomatic talk usually stemming from South Korea, backed by the United States. The long lead up to tests by North Korea usually allowed them to negotiate some sort of compensation like being removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism or the removal of sanctions. That is why these recent moves do not make for good foreign policy on the part of the DPRk; by not following their typical problem they have drawn the ire of the great powers while not succeeding in gaining anything of value to them.

But what should the rest of the world do (or not do) in response to North Korea's recent actions?

One type of recourse could be to impose either unilateral or multilateral sanctions upon the totalitarian regime. But sanctions have shown themselves to be largely useless as a means to address North Korean actions. Furthermore, sanctions have been shown to be an ineffective means to punishing a troublemaking state. Sanctions only really punish the weakest people in society leaving the ones in charge unlikely to feel the effects of the sanctions. While it is possible to direct sanctions at the leaders of a rogue nation, it is difficult to do and with the recluse nature of the leadership of North Korea they are unlikely to be successful.

Another avenue is of course to militarily intervene in North Korea. Technically as there has been no official end to the Korean War, the US and South Korea could "legally" intervene in response to the recent actions (I believe this to be accurate but I am by no means an expert on international law). The problem with this recourse is that the DPRK has the 5th largest standing military in the world (approximately 1.1 million active troops); quite a bit bigger than 6th place South Korea (just under 700,000). Also against this course of action is the fact that the United States is already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and very unlikely to engage in another war, especially one against a nuclear state.

The last thing possible thing to do is to do nothing. This "nothing" includes mere statements condemning North Korea's actions as well as inaction by the rest of the world. This course effectively encourages the North Koreans to continue this pattern of behaviour in the future. North Korea is showing a blatant disrespect to the rest of the international community by ignoring nuclear regulatory norms. In a time where the upcoming rounds of nuclear disarmament talks are showing promise in their initial stages, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. To do nothing is tantamount to ensuring that there will be more clashes down the road between North Korea and the rest of the world.

North Korea appears to be a no-win situation. Sanctions and cheap talk won't work, the only action that will have any effect involves the use of military force but with the United States already becoming over-extended and the lack of political will by the rest this route is almost guaranteed not to happen.

This is what happens when you leave things unfinished (Korean War)!

- blenCOWe

CIDA Minister Announces Strategic Vision for Foreign Aid

Today Bev Oda, Minister of CIDA, announced what she deemed to be Canada's new strategy for making its foreign aid more effective. This announcement sought to further clarify how Canada will be spending its foreign aid budget after announcing in February that aid would be shifted in focus from having small amounts of aid going to many countries to focusing 80% of its aid to just 20 countries whose needs were greatest and circumstances best fit into Canada's foreign policy priorities.

Here is a link to Minister Oda's speech about the changes at the University of Toronto

A few key points to note:

- Apparently Canada has met its G-8 committment to double its amount of aid to Africa. This sounds like a great step forward in Canadian aid but considering Canada has decreased the number of recipients as well as decided to focus its priorities in the America's so I am unsure whether this will be a long-term accomplishment.

- Apparently Canada is on track to doubling its amount of international assistance to $5 billion per year by 2010-11. This only represents a move from 0.28% of GNI to approximately 0.30%. This is still a far cry from the projected goal by the international community of 0.7%. Canada is still a long way away from reaching this goal.

- The target of untying all Canadian foreign aid is admirable and is definitely a step to making the aid budget go farther. The one major problem I see with this is that in doing so there is less incentive for the the private sector to become involved in public-private endeavours and such which can be especially effective ways to bring manpower and expertise into the field.

In the end, it is likely that only time will tell as to the effect of these strategic initiatives. Factors like how long the Conservative government stays in power and what shape the rest of the global economic crisis will take will play major roles in any success that Canada sees in its international development assistance.

On the edge of your seat yet? haha

- blenCOWe

Is More or Less Canada a Good Thing?

Jim Creskey has an article in the Embassy magazine right now that expounds the negative aspects of Canada's recent foreign policies and calls for "Less Canada in the World." He brings up many good points against Canada's recent policies like our recent move to focus its aid away from the continent that needs it most (Africa), the poor track record of late in repatriating Canadians being held abroad and our lack of presence in recent discussions on disarmament.

However, the author's choice to label Canada's strong stance against Russia's recent foreign policies, especially military activities in the Arctic, as a "trumped up war of words" might lead one to believe that he is not viewing these activities as a part of a larger trend of Russian militarization across the world. To use Cold War era language, Russia appears to be defending and extending its "sphere of influence" around the world. It is defending its borders through recent actions against NATO expansion to states that sit along its borders like Georgia and other former Warsaw Pact states. In addition to this, Russia is stepping up Cold War reminiscent military activities including flight exercises over the Arctic that approach Canadian and Alaskan (U.S.) airspace like the one that curiously coincided with Obama's visit to Ottawa. Russia is complimenting these defence activities with forays into the Western Hemisphere like its growing ties (including arms deals) with Venezuala and of course Cuba. Both of which have strained, if not adversarial, ties with the major power in the hemisphere and our biggest ally: the United States.

If each state focused on its individual black marks then nobody would ever act internationally. Creskey suggests that Canada involve itself "in something the Jesuits call the twice-daily examination of conscience" to evaluate its foreign policies and he concludes that if Canada did a bit more of this then there would be less encouragement for Canada to act abroad. The problem with this is that this would lead to a "retreatist" agenda where Canada would have a much diminished presence in the world to the detriment of international trade (which is necessary for Canada's survival), public image, and security. The point of foreign policy evaluation is not to retreat from the world but to identify areas for improvment. Canada cannot become better by running and hiding. Despite the problems that Canada does have, it is still a beacon of good in the world and can and should be depended upon to help make this world a better place.

Don't be so quick to apologize for our mistakes without also acknowledging our accomplishments!

- blenCOWe

Obama and an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement

This week on Fareed Zakaria GPS, the weekly question is: "Do you think that President Obama will be able to negotiate a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians in this term? Why or Why not?"

Here is my response to his question (which I did in fact email into the show):

I believe that it will be unlikely that President Obama will be able to negotiate a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians in this current term. First of all, it is almost out of the question that there is a one-state solution. Given the losses faced by both sides, the strong historical claims that both states have, as well as the large number of third-party states that are deeply invested in supporting one side or the other in this conflict, it would seem unlikely that a one-state solution would be viable.

Secondly, given the most recent Israel-Gaza conflict and the events that transpired, Palestinians, most likely, would be more than hesitant to engage with Israel in negotiations because of a great sense of distrust. Negotiations cannot be successfully conducted when each party is actively thinking the worst about their counterparts.

The only real opportunity for a peaceful settlement would require Syria to play a significant role as not only a mediator but as a negotiator. The only way for any resemblance of a peace between Palestinians and Israelis would likely require a prior deal between Israel and Syria. For such a deal to occur would require Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria. If that were to happen, Syria could then place friendly pressure on Palestinians to agree to a deal with Israel. All of this, of course, would be complemented by US pressure on Israel to conclude a peace deal with the Palestinians.

In terms of Obama's ability to affect this process, he would obviously be able to direct US influence on Israel but that would essentially be the extent to his real influence. Seeing as Obama can only lend his influence but no real decision-making ability, the likelihood of Obama brokering a peace is small. There are simply too many non-US components to this type of scenario for Obama to be truely influential in any peace deal between Israel and Palestinians.

Now it may be possible for Obama to have a greater degree of success in helping to achieve peace between these two parties but given the complexity, Obama will require more than the 4 year term he currently has. If he is able to secure a second term in office then the likelihood would dramatically increase.

- blenCOWe

Some Canadian Diplomacy That Actually Makes Sense

For a while now, there has been a lot of talk about how under the Harper government Canada's strength and image in international relations have been woefully tarnished. Whether it has been the issues regarding repatriating Canadians being held abroad, like Omar Khadr, the inaction of the Canadian government in helping to address some of the many crises currently affecting international peace, or the way that Afghanistan has been dominating much of our foreign policy focus in the last 7 years, Canada's international presence has been taking hits left and right.

A while back I posted about my disgust at reports that the Harper government would not challenge for a seat in the upcoming UN Security Council elections for fear of losing that battle. A fear made realistic by many of the blunders and ill-conceived stances seen in recent years. Canada has done very well for itself when on the council in recent years and to not run for election because it would have been difficult or that there was the chance that we could lose would have been the ultimate sign of weakness and a step back from our storied internationalism. Fortunately, though, this has been a decision since reversed. Foreign policy is about using the resources one has to get what one wants. If your have the resources it does not make sense to not use them for the things you want.

My reason for bringing this up is that I am happy to see Harper's government finally taking a stand and pursuing its own foreign policy agenda and with force. Doug Saunders has an article in the Globe and Mail today that details the strong diplomatic push that Canada is making in Europe to show Europeans that the Arctic is Canadian territory. Canadian Embassies and diplomats are pushing Canadian images and Arctic policy wherever they can: sponsoring art exhibits, cultural displays and visiting officials like minister Lawrence Cannon and Governor General Michaelle Jean. Even better is the fact that this diplomatic push is avoiding the Cold War rhetoric of Arctic security and focusing on Canada's continued presence and cultural heritage in the Arctic. Its a softer type of diplomacy that is still being delivered with force. A diplomacy that will work for Canada (especially in Europe) and that Canadians can be proud of. Finally, the Harper government is "standing up for Canada" in a way that makes sense for Canada.

- blenCOWe

Thoughts Concerning the Recent Debate on Multicultural and Immigration Policy

Clifford Orwin recently wrote an article in the Globe and Mail about Jason Kenney's concepts of immigration and multiculturalism in Canada that provoked a response from one of the bloggers at Canada's World.

I believe that both sides make excellent points but I think that there is an aspect of the discussion that has been largely ignored. When discussing multiculturalism it is important to understand that multiculturalism (and coincidentally Canadian culture) is almost maddeningly vague. To say that something is multicultural is merely to say that it its composed of the aspects of more than one or two cultures. It is not set in stone. So to argue about whether Canada's multicultural heritage is being respected in our current immigration and cultural policies is almost a moot point. Canada's multicultural heritage is that for the large part ( and I know some will definitely disagree with this) Canada has been accepting of the cultures of the people that move to our country. All that we can realistically ask of the people that want to immigrate to Canada is that they are willing to do the same. To try to regulate the kind of cultural representation that exists in our country would very much be like social engineering and the type of hysteria mentioned in these articles.

Canada is in not present risk of being dominated by any one or even two cultures to the point that our multicultural identity is at risk. Our multicultural and immigration policies should be focused on making sure that there are no structural barriers to the entry of immigrants to Canada, not about making sure that there are specific levels of representation. Don't worry so much about what the population statistics say but whether or not certain groups are being unfairly treated in their pursuit of Canadian residency. We don't have proportional electoral policies so why should we be expected to have proportional representation in our multicultural and immigration policies.

Furthermore, Orwin points out and agrees with Kenney's comments about how immigrants should be accepting of Canadian values including things like the supremacy of civil law and gender equality. Both Kenney and Orwin seem to be missing the point that both of those are things protected by law in Canada. Potential immigrants should obviously be willing to accept and follow Canada's laws if they are to move here, this is not too much to ask. Focus less on the fact that these are understood to be Canadian values but rather on their presence as law. To ask that immigrants respect our law is not discriminatory but necessary to the protection of peace and security in Canada.

In the end, the focus should be on maintaining Canada's heritage of accepting immigrants willing to abide by our laws. Canada's laws outlaw the discrimination of people based on cultural aspects (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), all other discussion of values will be based on an individual's perceptions which seem to always been discriminatory in some way or another. Do not over-think or -analyze topics like this more than necessary. Canada's heritage is built as a liberal democracy is built on the rule of law and Canada's laws criminalize discrimination. Accepting this should be more than enough to prevent discrimination from finding a place in our immigration laws.

- blenCOWe

Russia Maybe Misfires

In expelling two Canadian diplomats working with the NATO office in Moscow, Russia may have misfired in expressing its anger over the ongoing military exercises taking place in neighbouring Georgia.

Russia has informed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia, Ralph Lysyshyn, that it would be expelling Isabelle Francois, Director of NATO information, and her deputy. It seems, though, that Russia could have made a wiser, more targeted decision to show its displeasure. It is no real secret that the United States is a major ally of Georgia and is pretty much the central cog in the NATO machine. If Russia wanted to make a truely strong statement about what it deems to be "muscle flexing" then it should have flexed its muscles and expelled an American diplomat, or someone from one of the other world powers.

On the other hand, Canada has become more vocal, recently, on Russia's activities. By choosing to expel Canadian diplomats it could be Russia's version of "killing two birds with one stone." The problem with this being Russia's intent would be that it would be an unclear message to Canada, especially after this much time. Sending mixed messages is not the way to conduct international diplomacy and one would hope that Russia would understand that.

The result, then, is essentially that in the best case scenario Russia has misfired in directing its displeasure and the worst case being that it is sending mixed messages concerning Canada.

- blenCOWe

More Than Just Words

This week in the Canadian foreign affairs periodical Embassy, Jeff Davis writes that the Stephen Harper government is building up the perception of a Russian threat for political gains at home. Davis makes reference to a number of different arguments including the the Conservatives' history of strong opposition to communism and the USSR, and opposition claims that the Conservatives are trying to villify the Russians for their recent military endeavours. What the author fails to realize are the current realities in Canada-Russia relations.

First of all, the reality is that Canada does not benefit from any weakening of its relations with the resurgent Russia. One of the major reasons that Russia's international power is growing again is its possession of vast supplies of energy resources. Now while Canada itself is not exactly short in its supply of energy, it does not benefit from making an enemy that could be useful in the future if ever Canada should need to gain access to energy reserves. Oh and the remarks about Conservatives being strict opponents of communism should be irrelevant considering that Russia is now one of the major capitalist economies in the world. With the global economy suffering, Canada cannot afford to isolate itself from a major economic power.

Furthermore, in terms of the upcoming United Nations Security Council elections, it would not be advisable for Canada to provoke a permanent, veto-wielding member. Academics and foreign affairs observers (including the Official Opposition) have routinely noted that Canada's place in the world has suffered from the actions and in-actions of the Harper government, and as such, Canada's path to re-election will be a difficult one. Given this, it would not make sense for the Canadian government to be provoking a giant power that could stand in the way of its re-election.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, Davis fails to acknowledge the bigger picture in his assessment of Canada's recent dialogue regarding a resurgent Russia. Examining the individual events by themselves highlights the politics of the situation; but the politics has not been the driving factor behind Canada's stance on Russia. The real driving force is the threat to the international order and security by the actions of the resurgent power. Many of Russia's recent actions have shown that Russia's unchecked growth may have a destabilizing effect on international politics. The recent war in Georgia, Russia's push for control of the Arctic, the revitalization of a Russian military presence in the Arctic in addition to the growing Russian presence in the western hemisphere (most notably in Latin and South American) shows that Russia is no longer content with its post-Cold War status. Russia appears to be determined to end the unipolar balance of power that is based on American power.

Then, of course, there is the NATO factor to consider. Russia's strong opposition to the expansion of NATO into parts of eastern Europe (including the proposed missile shield) must be accounted for by Canada, who is a founding member of the NATO alliance.

The reality of the situation that Davis and other observers should realize is that the world is heading towards another Cold War. This time, however, the battle will not be over ideological differences like the last one but over power and security. A resurgent Russia is a threat the current status quo (like all resurgent powers are) and that is what is driving this new confrontation.

This means that Mr. Davis and his fellow thinkers should take good note of the current realities of international peace and security when examining Canada's recent relations with Russia. There is no benefit from poor relations with Russia and this is why claims that the Harper government is pushing this agenda for their own benefit are so far off the mark. Political gain is not the driving force, peace and security is and any political points scored are only secondary to the greater issue.

- blenCOWe

Walt's Achievers in International Politics

Stephen Walt, Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, posted on his blog today about who he believes to be the over- and under-achievers in international politics. There are a number of interesting things that Walt points out that I believe are worth noting:

1) Walt lists Canada as an over-achiever country. As a student of international politics in Canada, I have heard for years how Canada has, historically, been able to punch above its "weight class." Despite being categorized as a "middle power," Canada is pretty good at getting involved in the major issues in international affairs. For almost a century, Canada has been getting its hands dirty in the major wars (The World Wars, Korea, Afghanistan, etc.), acting as a leader in international peacekeeping, as well a being a staunch supporter of multilateralism and the United Nations. So I guess I am just happy that someone, especially someone from the prestigious Harvard University, from outside of Canada notices the actions and presence of Canada in the international community.

2) Two of the over-achievers (North Korea and Israel) are not there for their positive actions but for the attention that the world is forced to pay to them. North Korea with its rogue campaign to gain nuclear weapons and Israel with its continuing conflict with Palestine are such politically hot topics that other states have to pay attention to these states for the threat they both pose to international peace and security. Therefore, it may be appropriate to question whether or not these states are actually over-achievers rather than "thorns in the side" of the international order.

3) Three of the under-achievers (India, Russia and Brazil) are classified as the next generation of great powers. Walt recognizes this and the underlying idea that the BRIC powers are going to change the shape of the international order but doesn't seem to be convinced. His arguments for India and Brazil are definitely valid and I pretty much agree with them. However, his argument that Russia is an underachiever appears to overlook certain aspects of its international presence.

As one of the few legal nuclear powers and by holding a permanent seat and veto in the UN Security Council, Russia has a tremendous influence on international politics. Russia can effectively determine where and when the UN becomes involved in international crises which, by my account, would make Russia a major player. While it is true that following the fall of the Berlin Wall Russia suffered from economic troubles, it has definitely moved past this to becoming an emerging energy superpower. The mere fact that it supplies energy resources to much of Europe means that Russia must be accounted for when other states make their foreign policies, as Ukraine found out this year.

One last thing, I think the presence of India and Brazil on the list of underachievers may show that economic growth is not nearly enough to push a state from being an influential middle power to that of being a great power. A realization that must be examined more closely, especially in this time of great power growth and decline.

- blenCOWe

Russia Changing its Tune

"Russia has no claims on the North Pole nor does it plan to militarize the Arctic, but it aims to persuade a United Nations commission of additional territorial claims."-- National Post

Apparently this is Russia's stance on the Arctic, according to the Russian envoy to the Arctic Council. Funny enough though, this appears to contradict Russia's recent track record when it comes to the Arctic.

The short list of relevant events can be as follows:

- the expedition that planted the Russian Flag on the North Pole

- the recent, and noticeable, change in military activity like flyovers by Russian airplanes that have been approaching US and Canadian airspace

- Russia's announcement that it will create a military unit designed to operate in Arctic conditions

- not to mention the all the rhetoric coming from Russia like when "expedition leader Artur Chilingarov made a series of eye-catching claims at the time, such as: 'the Arctic has always been Russian and will remain so."

Could this be a sign that Russia has decided its case for territorial expansion into the Arctic is not as strong as it may have thought? Reasonably there must be a pretty good reason for Russia taking a step back from its claim to such a resource rich area. Maybe the time has come to change tactics and challenge Russia on what it isn't saying rather than what it has been saying.

Just a thought...

- blenCOWe

What Qualifies a Leader?

The Economist, this week, published an article commenting on the differences that exist between countries and the paths that their leaders tend to follow on their way to the top. It makes for an interesting read. Check it out

- blenCOWe

The North Korean Pullout Threatens to De-Stabilize East-Asia

The Regional peace and security of East Asia is more than likely at risk of suffering from a massive destabilization due to an announcement from North Korea today that it will now boycott the disarmament talks taking place between the six stake-holders and will re-start production of weapons-grade plutonium and other nuclear power projects.

North Korea's state media outlet, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), released the announcement hours after the UN Security Council had condemned North Korea's rocket launch of April 5, 2009. Realistically, this appears to be a very rash decision by North Korea, even more so because of the escalating effect it may have between the involved actors. The authoritarian state also claimed that as a means of defending itself, it will work to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, building up its nuclear weapons arsenal.

The North Koreans claim that they are being unfairly targeted because of their poor ties with the United States, arguing that "according to the US logic, Japan may launch a satellite because Japan is its ally but we must not do the same because we have a different system and we are not subservient to the US" -- Al Jazeera

The difference, however, is that Japan hasn't withdrawn itself from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or pursued a program of of nuclear deterrence. The reason why the United States and the other powers of the UN Security Council have denounced the actions taken by North Korea is because of the threat that the rocket technology poses to the security of the region. The issue is not the satellite that North Korea claims was the reason for the rocket launch but the technol0gy used to launch the satellite into orbit. The Taepodong-2 missile, with a range that places most of East Asia within reach, is what has caused the strong reaction by world powers. Loaded with a nuclear bomb, the Taepdodoong-2 would give the DPRK a credible deterrent against nuclear power China and a preponderance of power against the other states. Both of these would be distinctions that do not accurately represent North Korea's place in the international order; a real threat to the balance of power that currently exists.

Another point to consider is the fact that while the United States has been active in denouncing the DPRK's actions, is has not done so alone. Despite claims that the United is merely trying to punish one of its non-allies, North Korea should recognize that all of the permanent member of the Council have denounced the rocket launch including Russian and China (who, to date, has been North Korea's strongest ally in the council. As such, this is not merely a matter of the big bad bully beating up on the smaller state but international society responding to a threat to international peace and security.

- blenCOWe

Some Thoughts on Somali Piracy

Now that Captain Phillips has been rescued from his pirate captors and the Maersk Alabama is on its way, I have some thoughts on the problem of the Somali pirates. The recent conflict over the American ship and the French Navy's assault to rescue a yacht have escalated this piracy problem. Until these recent events, the clashes with the pirates have not been deadly but now the pirates are already vowing revenge against those that killed their comrades. This will inevitably lead to future violent clashes between the pirates and the naval forces patrolling the international shipping lanes.

The situation with the pirates is looking more and more likely to becoming a real threat to international peace and security. If this continues, states are going to start defending their ships more proactively with force. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, states may defend themselves from armed attack until the Security Council acts upon the situation. Furthermore, the Security Council has already decreed that states may use military force to defend their ships.

It is a scary idea to think that the seas off of Somalia could be the next international conflict to start racking up a large deathtoll. With these waters being so vital to shipping and the alternative route around Cape Horn being cost- and time-expensive, the large number of states whose ships use these sea lanes will almost certainly mean that any conflict will be large and widely inclusive. Another international flashpoint is the last thing this world needs with peacekeeping forces already being stretched thin, no functional government in Somalia to help restore order and other conflicts in Africa already garnering international attention.

Unfortunately, the reality appears to be that there is no quick solution to this and the only foreseeable end to this is building government and order in Somalia, which is unlikely given the attention of major powers being elsewhere. So in the end, piracy has returned to the forefront of international affairs...

... cue the next Disney Pirate's sequel!

- blenCOWe

Playing Both Sides

The BBC is reporting today that Russia will be buying unmanned drones from Israel. The Russians apparently were so impressed with the Israeli drones in action during the conflict in Georgia this past August.

Normally, a transaction like this would not be out of the ordinary, they happen all the time. Canada does this all the time to meet its equipment demands. The difference with this situation is where Israel receives its support from. Each year Israel gets $300 billion in economic and military aid from the United States. So in effect, the military aid that the United States provides to Israel will be used to help supply the Russians.

Now I am not one to exaggerate any lingering Cold War tensions but considering the Russians and the Americans have been at odds recently over plans for a missile shield as well as during the Georgian conflict, I don't know that the United States would be too happy about this. Now they might not come right out and say this but let's be real. Russia is a rising power again; an energy giant intent of re-establishing its place in the international hierarchy that diminished at the end of the 1980s. Russia is doing a lot of posturing lately that should make observers a bit unnerved. Of late, Russia has stepped on some toes in regards to the Arctic; re-establishing Cold War era patterns of activity in Arctic airspace as well as ruffling feathers with the connections it is making with leaders like Hugo Chavez.

The reason that all of this is worrisome is because of the effect that this could have on the rest of the world. A war between two great powers is the last thing this world needs, especially when both possess the majority of nuclear weapons in this world.

Hmmm... another Israeli action that could threaten international peace and security!

- blenCOWe

An Interesting Find

I was surfing around the web the other day, cruising from one blog to another and onto different websites and I found a nice little gem.

Dr. Michael J. Tierney, Associate Professor at the College of William and Mary, has put together a playlist for topics of international relations. According to his website, he starts his Intro to International Relations classes with a song that he has tied to the topic of discussion.

I love this idea for two reasons: 1) I think the choices of song are great and really speak to the topics and, 2) I think this is a great idea for academics.

Art and media are great mediums to get messages across to people and have them start thinking about issues. Even more, I think that this idea is a great way to entice students into thinking about the different topics. I like the way Dr. Tierney is attempting to engage his students and make the subject exciting. I don't know what intro classes at the College of William and Mary are like but I know intro classes in Canada tend to be brutally boring and mundane so efforts like these are paramount to getting people interested, and keeping them interested. So I guess what I am saying is good work Dr. Tierney!

Make sure you check out the playlist,

- blenCOWe

Personal Update

Just an update for whats been going on with me lately. I'm out here in Sackville, NB working as a substitute teacher. It's been a great experience and great preparation for my future aspirations. No, I'm not planning on a career at a teacher exactly; at least not in the B.Ed and PTA format. Instead, I am going to the University of Waterloo next year to do my Master's Degree in Political Science (International Relations). I'm excited about it because I'm going get a chance to work as a Teaching Assistant as get a chance to do some research work.

Also, one of the papers I wrote last year is gettting published in the ATLIS (Atlantic International Studies Organization) Journal. It will be coming out online in the next month or so and then will be published in hard copy at the beginning of the of the next school year. It's called "In Search of an Identity: The Case for Niche Diplomacy in Canadian Foreign Policy" and connects the characteristics of niche diplomacy to Canada's current situation economically, politically and internationally.

That's all for right now

- blenCOWe

I'm Back...Again

It has been quite a while since I have posted on here. I don't really have any real reasons for why it has been so long; I haven't been crazy busy or anything just lacking the desire or motivation to post. Well that will be changing shortly. I will re-start posting shortly once I am examined if I want to change the format of this blog or just do an update. I expect that this should only take about a day or two,

See you then,

- blenCOWe

Coalitions Aren't Perfect After All!

Iceland's coalition government has fallen apart due to the strain the economic crisis has placed on it.

I guess they are not as ideal as some attempted to lead us believe.

- blenCOWe

BYE BYE GITMO!!

Obama closes the prison at Guantanamo Bay!!!!

- blenCOWe

Someone at DND is Thinking!

Apparently the Department of National Defence wants a cut of the pie when Mr. Harper's stimulus package for the economy is included in next week's budget. Now my initial reaction when I read the headline of this article was that DND was getting greedy, calling for more money at a time when the focus should be on ensuring the economic security of Canada's citizens. The money to be used to upgrade Canada's current fleet of LAV-3's.

I have to admit as I read the article and then again, the idea began to grow on me and for two main reasons. First of all, Canada needs these vehicles. Let's face it, every couple days we hear about IED's going of and injuring Canadian soldiers. Now while we focus on the people, and rightly so, it must also be noted that we also lose equipment to damage; equipment that is sorely needed to protect our soldiers. One of the major problems facing our forces is that they lack some of the equipment that they sorely need and these vehicles are included in that. Therefore it is good thing that Defence Minister McKay is pushing for this.

The second reason this makes sense is that the contract for these vehicles would be served in Canada. These trucks would be built in London, Ontario and serviced in Edmonton, Alberta. This would provide a boost to the slumping auto industry and help to counter some of the losses that Canadian workers have faced as a result of plant closures by the "Big 3."

I think it would be safe to say that this avenue would not just be to the benefit of Canada's military but also to the people who work in Canada's automotive sector. This would be a rare case where Canadians could "have their guns AND their butter." Mr. Harper should include this relatively inexpensive ($1.3 billion) plan into next week's budget and economic stimulus plan. It would show that he and his government are thinking strategically for Canadians, both home and abroad, and would likely help to rebuild some of the confidence that they lost at the end of 2008.

Pony up Mr. Harper!

- blenCOWe

Where Were You?

Throughout my years I have often heard people say that they remembered exactly where they were and what they were doing when some of the most important events in history occurred. I have heard where people were when the Allies won the Second World War, when JFK was assasinated, the American pull out of Vietnam and, of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall that marked the end of communism.

In my relatively short time on this planet, two events come to mind that have had this kind of effect. On September 11, 2001 I was sitting in my Grade 10 Science class at Belle River District High School. The Principal came on to the P.A. system and announced what happened. It was one of those moments where after the announcement there was a moment of silence because of course no one really knew what to say/do and what it really meant. That moment is one that I will never forget and I will be able to say down the road (... like today) and say I remember exactly where I was when it happened.

The other moment occurred today. Years from now I will be able to say that on January 20, 2008 I was sitting at the Bridge Street Cafe in Sackville, NB when the United States inaugurated its first black president. Watching the coverage online, scrambling to find a steady feed whenever the server would boot me off because of the incredible strain from people attempting to watch the inauguration. Listening to Barack Obama's speech that I am not ashamed to say was pretty moving for me. I can honestly say that it was pretty inspirational and while I may not remember the exact words he said, the message will likely stick with me for a long time.

But now that the moment is over now, I believe it is time for everyone, especially the media, to take a big step back and realize that Obama is not the second coming of Jesus! There is so much anticipation about the change and good that President Obama is going to enact that there is almost no way that he can live up to these expectations. They say that the first 100 days set the tone for the entire presidency, well, it seems that if he doesn't close Gitmo, create peace in the Middle East and solve global warming in his first seven days then everything will be lost!

Now I'm not trying to rain on everyone's parade, I think Obama was an excellent choice for president, but let us all try to relax and let the commotion calm down. He is a man with a message of change but just a man and let's try to remember that. Let's not make the mistake of judging him on what he says but by what he actually does. To do this, though, we have to wait and see what happens so lets all just chill out with the anticipation and notions of grandeur.

- blenCOWe

Enough Already!

I'm beginning to get really tired of hearing Israel's blanket excuse for attacking civilian establishments and non-combatants. The "Hamas was firing rockets from so-and-so site" has pretty much lost whatever credibility it had.

First they attacked the Islamic University in Gaza, next a United Nations school and now the United Nations headquarters in Gaza. It may just be me but its seems like the Israeli attacks are being targeted at those establishments where a strong voice of opposition to the claims of self-defense could originate. Israel is making sure that the only voice heard is theirs and no news of the actions they take themselves can be heard.

This strategy leads one (at least me) to think that the IDF may not be acting in self-defense but lashing out in anger; possibly committing crimes against humanity. If this were the case, Israel would definitely not want word of the crimes it was committing to leak out for everyone to find out about. That is why it makes sense that Israel is proceeding as they are. They want to hide what is really happening in Gaza so that they do not attract more negative publicity than they are already receiving. Israel cannot afford to lose what few allies it has, especially the United States. If it were to come out that Israel was committing war crimes then it would likely lose the support of the US and then would likely suffer the wrath of the international community.

I wonder if there will be anyone left to speak out against Israel when they are done?

- blenCOWe

CUPE Committee Advocates Censorship and Ban

So apparently the Ontario University Workers Coordinating Committee of CUPE has proposed that Israeli academics be banned from teaching or speaking at Ontario universities.

I guess there's nothing like starting the year off with some good old fashioned racism!

I tend to avoid writing on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. As far as I am concerned, it is a dispute with no fair and equitable resolution in sight or even possible. That said, I find this proposal to be ridiculous and an assault on academia.

Maybe this is just the student inside me speaking but one of the major attractions that I have had to academia is that it tends to serve as a forum for free-thinking and, more importantly, free speech. The proposal to remove all Israeli academics from campuses unless they condemn the assault on Gaza and the bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza.

According to article I read this is, this proposal is meant to be a calculated political response to the recent escalation in Gaza. Well... academia is not the place to do this! This proposal will only hamper any discourse. Censorship has no place in the university classroom, it will serve to provide an incomplete perspective on issues and perpetuate the kind of ignorance that helps to create and further these conflicts.

Now don't take this as my statement in support of either party in the conflict. I condemn senseless killing of any group of people, not to mention the intrusion of politics into the classroom.

I know, I know, that's a funny thing to hear from a political science student.

If CUPE feels it necessary to make a political statement on this subject, make a public announcement or lobby the government. Don't use the academic community as your political medium. You do not represent the students in this community so don't attack the quality of their education. Students pay good money to study from these academics and gain the best educations they can. They should not suffer from your politics.

- blenCOWe