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
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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
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
- 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
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
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
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
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
Monday, May 18, 2009
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
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
Sunday, May 17, 2009
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
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
Saturday, May 16, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
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
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
Saturday, May 2, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
