a collegial cow

Lost in the Global Economy

2011-08-25T01:23:00.003-03:00

For the last two years, we Canadians have been told numerous times by the Harper government(s) that we have fared comparatively well due to their successful shepherding through the global economic downturn. Admittedly, this has largely been true. While the economy has suffered, we are in a better position, domestically, than many others. That said, how we as a country interact with the rest of the global economy looks to be a little more precarious given recent events.

As Prime Minister Harper noted last month in an interview with Macleans, his view on foreign policy is that "our long-run interests are tied somewhat to our trade, but they're more fundamentally tied to the kind of values we have in the world: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law." This sounds nice and the Harper government has not failed to remind everyone about our principles, but what happens when our like-minded friends are no longer wise to become too invested with economically? After all, Canada needs trading partners to keep the economy running smoothly. So, whom should Canada strive to build strong economic ties with? The easy answer is everyone and that we should never turn away a potential partner. The reality is, however, that with out limited resources it is in our best interests to cultivate strong, strategic relationships rather than try to spread them out too thin.

In the past, discussion on whom Canada should trade with has focused on two major partners, the United States and Europe. But right now, both are in serious economic trouble as they struggle with issues of debt, unemployment and internal political deadlocks. Add to that the standoff between Canada and the EU over the hunting of seals and the sale of seal products and it looks like the traditional partners may not be the best trading partners in the near future.

What about China? Right from the start, Tory governments were heavily critical of China and its human rights record. Whether or not this was the right thing to do is not for me to say, but it did have a cooling effect on any relationship between Canada and the world's fastest growing economy. Now we see the government scrambling to rebuild ties with China in hopes of not becoming collateral damage of the economic repercussions of the US debt woes (Check out the Canadian International Council's new site OpenCanada.org and their recent Rapid Response roundtable about why the government is softening its stance on China). It is more than likely that it will take a few years of sustained effort to repair the previous damage done to the relationship.

Mr. Harper has just wrapped up a trade tour in Latin American in hopes of building up positive trade relations with the region, especially with Brazil. Attempts have been made to trumpet the benefits of the free trade deals recently signed with Honduras and Colombia but the reality is that these markets won't have a huge positive effect on the Canadian economy. The real prize would be to develop a strong economic relationship with rising star in the international arena, Brazil. But once again, our ties with this new power are not exactly the best they could be, thanks in part to neglect and fierce competition in the airline industry.

The Harper government will have to figure out where its priorities lie and work to (re)build the kinds of relationships that will help strengthen our economy and move past our recent economic problems. The question remains, what will the government do if economic gain comes at the expense of dealing with countries who don't share our values? If recent events give any indication, I predict the economy will come out on top (no surprise there!), but only time will tell.

Cross-posted at DMF Insider

Post-Conflict Potter: The Forgotten Aspect

2011-08-14T22:40:00.004-03:00

Alright, I'm a couple days late to jump on the Post-Conflict Potter bandwagon but having read some of the better responses to the original article (see responses from The Duck of Minerva , The Monkey Cage and Running Chicken) I've noticed that one factor seems to have been forgotten in all this "analysis" - I'm trying not to think too hard about this, I swear, but I am easily drawn in to these kinds of thought exercises - namely the importance of, to steal from the R2P doctrine, the responsibility to rebuild after the conflict.

All of the responses so far have focused on the need to rebuild following Harry's defeat of Voldemort at the end of the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. But everyone seems to have forgotten that the only reason Voldemort was even able to come back to "life" after he failed to kill Harry was that the Death Eaters were never successfully re-integrated into the British wizarding community the first time around. Just look how quickly they were willing to go back to their old ways of terrorizing mixed bloods, muggle-borns and those that held different views than them.

The authors of the original article (Malinowski, Holewinski & Schultz) recognize the importance of transitional justice the second time around, prescribing that,

Surviving Death Eaters will have to be brought to justice or reintegrated into magical society. Long-standing rifts among magical communities that the war widened must be healed. Most of all, we must ensure that the values that triumphed in the final battle -- tolerance, pluralism, and respect for the dignity of all magical and non-magical creatures alike -- are reflected in the institutions and arrangements that emerge from the conflict. What ultimately matters is not just whether something evil was defeated, but whether something good is built in its place.

This time around they have the ability to learn lessons from the past and incorporate them into the rebuilding efforts, but not the lessons from the American muggles in Afghanistan or Iraq, as the authors suggest, rather their own mistakes with the same group of Death Eaters 17 years earlier. They have seen from the events of the last two years, books... and/or corresponding movies, I guess, (Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows) what happens when former combatants are not successfully re-integrated and the human cost incurred. If you are going to rebuild after a conflict, make sure that you are willing to make the commitment that reconstruction requires because doing a poor job will only just postpone the eventual return of violence (*cough**cough**Somalia**cough**cough*).

More Victims of Distraction

2011-05-09T02:39:00.005-03:00

Following my previous post on the topic of important events being overshadowed by the crisis in Libya, Foreign Policy magazine has a good slideshow entitled "What Else happened This Week?"
It's definitely worth a read/view.

Distracted by the Arab Spring?

2011-05-08T23:35:00.008-03:00

For the last couple of months the world has been paying close attention to the events in the Middle East and North Africa ~~except maybe for the wedding of William and Kate~~. While the Arab Spring is admittedly a major step in the promotion of democracy, and extremely interesting to those of us interested in international relations, it is starting to appear that the protests (and their respective fallouts) are distracting the world from other major developments around the world (except for the death of Osama Bin Laden).

While this likely does not come as a surprise to some, the severity of this distraction is something I believe is worthwhile to look at. Today, the International Crisis Group sent out an alert that warned of serious trouble between Sudan and its newly separated southern region:

"North and South have deployed forces in and around Abyei in breach of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and subsequent security arrangements, as both seek to control the territory come Southern independence on 9 July. While previous clashes have involved civilians, informal militias, and/or police, last week's involved members of security forces on both sides. Further escalation and additional tit-for-tat deployments risk pushing Abyei beyond the tipping point, endangering lives and the fragile peace in Sudan.

Fighting broke out at a security checkpoint near Todach in the Abyei area on 1 May, after Sudan Armed Forces elements of the Joint Integrated Units (JIU, a largely failed CPA mechanism comprising troops drawn from the Northern and Southern armies) allegedly delivering an authorised weapons shipment were stopped by Southern police forces; fighting erupted leaving some 14 dead. In addition to the immediate threat posed to civilians in and around Abyei, at risk are recent gains of the CPA and the peaceful secession of the South."

The fact that the escalation towards conflict in Sudan has largely been ignored in favour of Libya et al. is interesting AND concerning. Achieving peace in Sudan has been a target of multiple actors in the international community. The Obama administration - including the president, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice - had identified achieving peace in Sudan as a prominent goal of American diplomacy in Africa. In addition, the United Nations and the African Union have sent numerous peacekeepers to the area and facilitated multiple attempts at creating, and sustaining, dialogue between the conflicting parties.

After all the investment that members of the international community have made into resolving Sudan's conflict with its southern region, the mostly peaceful referendum this past January was hailed as a positive sign that peace might be foreseeable in the near future. With this in mind, the fact that the world has largely forgotten/ignored the recent developments in the Abyei region is worrisome.

It is understandable that some may prioritize conflict (Libya) over potential conflict (Sudan), and while it would be completely unrealistic to demand that a western power (history's primary interveners) involve themselves in another conflict (this would be the 4th ~~war~~ "kinetic military action" for the United States), one would think that the various invested actors would try to exert greater diplomatic pressure on the governments in Khartoum and Juba. in the case of the intervention in Libya, the United States has had little investment in Libya, having only re-established diplomatic ties in the last few years. Meanwhile, the United States has been an active supporter of Southern Sudan's independence efforts and vocal about the situation in Sudan's western region of Darfur, or at least until it got distracted by the Arab Spring! Even the UN Security Council has remained, at least officially, silent about the growing likelihood of renewed conflict in Sudan!

It's probably too early to start prognosticating how renewed conflict in this region would unfold, but a number of questions come to mind when considering the lack of response to the increased likelihood of conflict between Sudan and Southern Sudan:

1) has peace in Southern Sudan fallen victim to the hope for democratic reform in the Middle East and North Africa?
2) do fast-moving developments trump long-standing diplomatic investments?
3) for some, is spreading democracy more important than the promotion of peace?
4) is this an example of the media being able to dictate what is important in international affairs?
5) has Sudan become a tired subject in international affairs?

I'll probably think of more questions as time goes on or events proceed, but these are just some of the questions that come to mind when taking a first look at what is happening.

Happy Mother's Day everyone

Back to Blogging/Response to "Xenophobia to the Rescue?"

2011-04-10T15:23:00.005-03:00

Okay so I've been meaning to get back to blogging for a while now but I keep letting myself get distracted by other things (job/school work/travel), but I wanted to write up my two cents concerning a question posed by Steve Saideman concerning xenophobia and intervention ~~and was looking for a way to avoid working on an assignment for my economics course.~~

So Prof. Saideman asks whether or not intervention motivated by xenophobia is a good thing. I guess the first thing is that it seems to me that it would be just as self-interested as any other reason for intervention. Just like an intervention for strategic interests (US in Iraq for oil) or under the umbrella of the R2P doctrine (guilt from inaction during Rwanda), xenophobic intervention has the intervening states' interests at heart and not those of the victims on the ground. I do, however, see a difference in that a state intervening out of fear of an influx of refugees benefits from a sustainable peace being achieved. This would mean remaining involved afterwards to ensure that the country does not fall back into conflict. For example, France and Italy cannot afford to continually hold back the wave of refugees that would accompany sustained conflict in North Africa. A relatively quick end to the fighting and then some amount of peacebuilding assistance would be in their best interests so that a sustainable peace could be achieved and the flow of refugees could be reversed.

The danger, though, is that xenophobic intervention could lead to a focus on the refugees and directing one's efforts to turning away refugees and subjecting them to dangerous conditions. The 1951 Refugees Convention requires states to allow people to apply for asylum once they set foot on their land. By preventing refugees from landing, countries can avoid having to provide shelter to these people (until their status is determined). Such has already been the case as a boat of Tunisian refugees sunk off of the coast of Italy, killing 35, and another boat, carrying 1800 refugees from Libya was turned away and escorted into international waters. There have been other cases, especially in southeast Asia, where boats of asylum seekers have been forced to turn around and brave international waters in vessels (and conditions) that are unsafe and unsanitary.

So to bring it back to the original question, I would suggest that xenophobic intervention directed at tackling the problem(s) at the source of the refugees (conflicts) is "okay" whereas those acts of intervention aimed at preventing refugees from reaching their shores are bad forms of xenophobic intervention. (I do, however, find it distasteful to label some xenophobic actions as "good". I would say that a better term is needed).

... I guess I have to get back to my econ assignment now that I've thrown my two cents in (sigh)...

What Are Test Cases?

2009-12-30T13:13:00.003-04:00

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

2009-12-30T12:53:00.002-04:00

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

2009-09-03T01:33:00.003-03:00

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

2009-08-26T22:13:00.003-03:00

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

2009-08-24T20:10:00.005-03:00

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!

2009-08-23T13:25:00.003-03:00

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

2009-08-19T23:17:00.003-03:00

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

2009-08-19T01:17:00.005-03:00

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

2009-08-16T21:18:00.003-03:00

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

2009-08-16T17:54:00.002-03:00

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!

2009-08-13T03:27:00.002-03:00

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

2009-08-13T01:36:00.003-03:00

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

2009-08-11T15:52:00.002-03:00

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

2009-07-08T15:12:00.003-03:00

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

2009-06-26T16:31:00.003-03:00

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

2009-06-11T22:45:00.003-03:00

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

2009-06-01T23:06:00.002-03:00

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

2009-05-28T13:47:00.000-03:00

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

2009-05-27T22:28:00.000-03:00

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!

2009-05-27T22:25:00.000-03:00

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

2009-05-27T15:36:00.000-03:00

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?

2009-05-26T12:43:00.001-03:00

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

2009-05-20T23:00:00.000-03:00

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?

2009-05-18T13:20:00.000-03:00

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

2009-05-17T19:40:00.000-03:00

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

2009-05-16T11:18:00.000-03:00

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

2009-05-12T17:18:00.000-03:00

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

2009-05-06T15:42:00.000-03:00

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

2009-05-02T14:18:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-21T22:20:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-20T20:31:00.000-03:00

"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?

2009-04-18T14:40:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-14T16:24:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-13T00:06:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-11T17:56:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-11T14:34:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-11T13:48:00.000-03:00

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

2009-04-08T16:40:00.000-03:00

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!

2009-01-26T11:08:00.000-04:00

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!!

2009-01-22T14:20:00.000-04:00

Obama closes the prison at Guantanamo Bay!!!!

- blenCOWe

Someone at DND is Thinking!

2009-01-22T13:22:00.000-04:00

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?

2009-01-20T14:53:00.000-04:00

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!

2009-01-16T12:09:00.001-04:00

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

2009-01-05T22:47:00.000-04:00

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

What January May Hold

2008-12-30T19:32:00.000-04:00

It seems that the general consensus amongst most discussions is that the appropriate response to the economic crisis and recession will (or should be) economic stimulus packages. It has dominated the news and I have heard little in the form of an alternative option... until now.

I found this article that is an excellent exploration into the subject with a focus on providing an alternative to the current discourse on the subject,

check it out

- blenCOWe

Ho Ho Ho

2008-12-23T21:54:00.000-04:00

Check this out,

Santa is Canadian!

Take that Russia, lol

- blenCOWe

Go Canada!

2008-12-17T15:12:00.000-04:00

Mr. Harper has stepped up...finally!

No, I'm not talking about fiscal updates or economic stimulus packages; both of these things are important to Canada right now but I prefer to talk about Canada's position in the world.

I have written in the past that Canada must push to gain a greater position in world affairs. That was why I was a harsh critic when Mr. Harper announced a number of months ago that he would not commit Canada to competing for a seat on the UN Security Council in the 2010 elections.

Fortunately for Canada (and Mr. Harper), things have changed. Today, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, announced that Canada will in fact be challenging for the seat.

Canada needs this seat, simple as that. Canada needs to become a bigger player in the United Nations community. Under successive governments, not just the Conservatives, Canada's position has fallen in terms of international influence. Even in terms of the concept of Canada being a "middle power", Canada's influence has waned.

In terms of recovering, I see the need to focus on three main areas: military, economics and diplomacy. The first two are not the subject of this post but are simple; Canada's military capabilities need to be increased and Canada must reinvent itself after the global economic crisis as a major economic player (hopefully in a green capacity). The third, diplomacy, involves creating a greater image of Canada in the eyes of the world and showing that we can influence what happens in the international community. Holding a seat on the UN Security Council would be a perfect way to do this.

Committing to this endeavour helps Canada in a number of ways. First of all, the Security Council gives Canada an important voice and presence in discussions that it would not otherwise be present for. The Security Council is probably the most powerful body in international affairs and Canada's presence on it would have a positive impact on our ability to achieve our national interests. Secondly, gaining a seat on the UNSC would show a recommittment to the United Nations Framework. As of recent, critics of Canada's foreign policy have argued that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policies have been too closely connected to those of US President George W. Bush's policies. The US, under President Bush, has separated itself from multilateral bodies like the UN in favour of going it alone or with a few key allies. By recommitting to the United Nations, Canada would be able to separate itself from the policies of the US and show a commitment to the greater community of nations. Furthermore, the Canadian people would respond favourably to a recommittment to the ideals of the United Nations. Peace, security, human rights, economic and social development and humanitarian assistance are all things that the Canadian people identify with and expect their government to champion.

Canada's competition for this prestigious seat is Germany and Portugal. There are two seats for three countries and Germany has the overwhelming lead. In this race, Canada need only beat one country and Portugal, no offence, should be an easy win. Portugal has neither the record or the capabilities of Canada; its best asset is that it is a member of the EU and from what I gather, the members of the EU would prefer to have one of their own on the council as opposed to a "westerner" with close ties to the United States.

Canada must show up, talk a good game and back it up. It's our move Canada

- blenCOWe

You've Got To Be Kidding Me!

2008-12-13T17:16:00.000-04:00

Robert Mugabe must be out of his mind!

One day after alleging that the current cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe was the result of a biological attack by Britain with the intent of genocide, two days after claiming that there was no problem with cholera, and all of this occurring only a couple of months after denying international involvement in sorting out the dispute concerning the presidential election; "President" Robert Mugabe has called out to the international community pleading:

"a huge international aid effort is needed to help combat a cholera outbreak that has killed hundreds" -- Globe and Mail

While I feel for the people of Zimbabwe, I believe that international aid should be given to help combat the cholera epidemic but with the condition that Mugabe be permanently removed from any position of power within Zimbabwe. It is his fault that the Zimbabwean people have fallen into such a poor state of living/health. He has been the only leader in Zimbabwe since it gained independence and has overseen the steady decline in the prosperity of the state. And its not like he showed much concern about his people when his ZANU-PF thugs were moving around the state forcing people to vote for him or be beaten up and killed.

This is very simple, Mugabe must go! No matter what!

- blenCOWe

What A Load of Crap!

2008-12-12T20:23:00.000-04:00

My bullshit detector pretty much blew up when I read this:

The "government" of Zimbabwe is blaming the recent outbreak of cholera on the British government! Zimbabwe' information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, has proclaimed that,

"This is a serious biological-chemical weapon; a genocidal onslaught on the people of Zimbabwe by the British [who are] still fighting to re-colonize Zimbabwe and using their allies." -- Al Jazeera English

It is my sincerest hope that nobody who can think for themselves actually believes this to be true. Beyond the basic common sense that the UK, as a state that has ratified the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention and that is a western liberal democracy, would presumably take such despicable actions even if it did want to re-colonize Zimbabwe (one would think it would be able to use superior military might to great effect!) is the current situation in Zimbabwe and the events of this past year.

This is clearly a ploy by Robert Mugabe to explain away the epidemic and retain what little, if any, credibility he has as a leader of the Zimbabwean state. By placing such ridiculous blame on the British, Mugabe is drawing attention off of the victims and the dire situation going on and diverting the attention to this non-sense proposition.

Ignore the stupidity! Focus on the lives in danger!

And would somebody please remove Mugabe!

- blenCOWe

Just A Thought...

2008-12-12T15:28:00.000-04:00

Have you ever stepped back and considered if we've vilified the wrong war?

Political junkie as I am, I have been avidly reading the news/blog articles and television coverage of Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff (of whom I am a big fan) and his rise to the leadership of the Liberal Party. One major critique that has arose time and time again is his initial support of US intervention in Iraq, in 2003. His argument that Saddam Hussein' removal, as a threat to human rights, was different than the intentions of G.W. Bush but the means ended up being the same.

A number of recent events:

- the passage of the Status of Forces Agreement by the Iraqi Government, requiring the removal of US forces within a set timeline in the next year

- Canada's decision to withdraw from a combat role in Afghanistan in 2011

- Secretary of Defence Robert Gates' request that Canada remain committed to the Afghan mission beyond 2011

have made me start to think that Iraq may not have been as bad as completely terrible as it has been made out to be. (this is where I will become a pariah, lol)

Just look at the reality of the situations; Saddam Hussein was removed as a threat to the international order/security as well as to the human rights of Iraqi citizens. The new government has been able to solidify itself as a somewhat stable regime or at least enough that they could come together to democratically pass legislation to boot the US out of their lands.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the insurgency is by no means in decline, the US has had to recommit to sending a surge of troops into the theater, Canada has backed out, NATO support has been weak to take a real commitment to the mission (the decision by major NATO members... cough cough FRANCE, GERMANY... cough cough COWARDS... cough... to take up the missions in the more peaceful regions of Afghanistan rather than commit their greater resources to the mission in Kandahar), the weakness of infrastructure (Karzai's government, Afghan police and army) and the growing perception that the ISAF will be in Afghanistan for at least 10 more years.

Despite this, the mission in Afghanistan is seen as the more legitimate mission in international security!

Now don't get all tied up in knots, I'm just saying its kind of curious

- blenCOWe

A Little Cooperation Would Go A Long Way

2008-12-12T14:42:00.000-04:00

In the United States, the proposed $14 billion auto sector bailout failed due to the United Auto Worker's Union was unwilling to accept a wage cut to help make the sector more profitable and fiscally responsible.

Then, the president of the Canadian Auto Worker's Union, Ken Lewenza, decided to provide the delightful snippet:

“We refuse to have the auto workers as scapegoats,” he said. “It's finger pointing.” -- The Globe and Mail

At the risk of pissing off a number of friends at home who are tied to the auto sector in Windsor, it seems to me that the unions are becoming a major obstacle to helping the people they are supposed to represent. The auto workers are not the scapegoats but many of the people I know that work in the sector have hourly wages in the range of $35/hour or even higher. Now it seems to me that a reasonable short-term cut in their wage in the region of $5-8 would not be harmful in the long-run. Like I said, this cut would be a short term solution to allow the auto companies to get their bailout monies and some time to restructure their business models so that they will be viable again in the future.

Apparently, the non-Big 3 companies (e.g. Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen) have wages quite a bit lower than those of the domestic producers. Basically, the idea would be to level these out, bringing the inflated wages down to realistic amounts. Notice that the companies with the reasonable wage levels are not the one's in major trouble!

It comes down to basic mathematics; if the unions do not start to play ball the companies will crumble. Its a simple comparison of equations,

Current Model: High wages x no hours (cuz the companies bankrupt) = no jobs/no money

Proposed Model: Slightly lower wages x regular hours = still have a job/income

Hey Unions, DO THE MATH!!

The bailout packages are just asking for a little cooperation so that these companies do not have to face the nature of free markets and collapse like they should according to their dysfunctional business models.

- blenCOWe

We Knew This Was Coming!

2008-12-11T09:59:00.000-04:00

Since winning the US Presidential election in November, many Canadians have been pondering the question of whether Obama's commitment to winning in Afghanistan would have any effect on Canada's withdrawal date in 2011.

It was pretty clear that the United States would ask Canada to recommit to the Afghan mission. Well today our expectations were met when Current and future Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, asked Canada to stay on past 2011. Gates has asked that Canadians stay on in the volatile region of Kandahar, praising that,

"Proportionally, none have worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians. They have been outstanding partners for us, and all I can tell you, as has been the case for a very long time, the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners, the better it is."

Realistically, and I have said this before, Canada will not commit to a longer military presence in Afghanistan. Our body count is rising, our government is divided and the people are getting tired of politics as of late. We are suffering from battle fatigue and need a break. Canada needs to regroup, rest and refocus so that we can continue to push for a strong(er) position in the international community.

Now I'm not saying this because I believe that we should be in other theaters (like Darfur) but because I truly believe that Canada will be worse off if it decides to answer Gates' call. Canada's forces are not designed for this kind of mission. We neither have the strength, the equipment nor the political or public support for a long, drawn out occupation in Afghanistan.

This is one time that Canada must absolutely step up and firmly say no when the US calls.

- blenCOWe

One Scary Number

2008-12-10T10:22:00.000-04:00

Sir Richard Branson and a number of world dignitaries have come together to form a group called Global Zero who want to see the renewal of Cold War efforts for disarmament, with the eventual goal of eliminating nuclear weapons within 25 years.

There is nothing wrong with their goal to decrease the number nuclear weapons but the number "zero" is a scary concept. Nuclear weapons have provided stability and predictability to the international order since their first use at the end of WWII. Removing all nuclear weapons will likely create a more volatile situation where states, especially rogue states and other troublemakers, will act more readily because they would not have the fear of annihilation.

The deterrence function of nuclear weapons has been one of the most important factors of the decline of inter-state wars in the relations of nations. As nuclear weapons spread to more states, stability ensured from the fear of nuclear war. If you take out the nuclear weapons then the fear dissipates and the world will revert to greater instability. It is also important to note that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 so it is not like they have become a mass tool of destruction. Their power is what stabilizes the balance of power amongst nations and makes states' actions predictable. Thus, the presence of nuclear weapons are necessary for stability in the relations of nations.

- blenCOWe

A Look to the Past for a Solution for the Future

2008-11-21T12:43:00.000-04:00

So the National Intelligence Council has released a report predicting what the global society will look like by 2025. Predictably, the report forsees that the United States' dominance will decline in response to the growth of competitors like Brazil, China, India and Russia.

Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.

However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".

This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.

Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.

- blenCOWe

The Canadian People Want Results

2008-11-12T12:36:00.000-04:00

Check out this article, it is about a recent Environics poll which finds that Canadian people want to see results when it comes to foreign aid. The people prefer to see tangible results over the exporting of Canadian values.

I wonder, could this be a result of the recent trend in Canadian government?

In the past few years, there has pretty much been a revolving door of Foreign Ministers and minority governments. Since recent parliaments have lasted about 2 years, it has meant that Foreign Ministers have needed to produce results for the upcoming election. This focus on results appears to have trickled down to the electorate; the Canadian people have come to expect results from their governments in their foreign aid at the expense of promoting Canadian values.

Just a thought...

- blenCOWe

See, I Told Ya!

2008-11-10T14:01:00.000-04:00

I saw this coming from a mile away!

"Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said on Sunday that a stepped-up emphasis by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan won't change Canada's plans to pull its military out of that country in 2011" -- Reuters

- blenCOWe

Some Things Won't Change

2008-11-08T21:55:00.000-04:00

It seems that the leaders of Iran did not quite get what they were bargaining for when Barack Obama won the US presidential election this past week. No one will argue that under President George W. Bush, US-Iranian relations were strained to say the least so it would have been understandable if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thought that the campaign against Iran would dissipate under President Obama.

Ooops!!!

While Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, he also took his first political jab at the president-elect claiming that "the 'nations of the world' expect changes from the Mr. Obama -- mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was 'based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations' " -- Globe and Mail.

What makes the Iranian leader think he (and the rest of the world, however I don't think the he is thinking of the rest of the world considering he doesn't listen to anyone) can expect anything from Obama? While Obama did campaign on the ideal that he would take a more diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran but that does not mean that this approach will be any less forceful. Obama owes nothing to anyone but the people who elected them and they are not found in Iran.

A nuclear Iran would still constitute a threat to the security of the United States and Mr. Obama is aware of this. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be in charge of the safety and security of the nation, just like President Bush, and as such must be as forceful as necessary so as to protect the nation. Just because Obama is the supposed anti-Bush doesn't mean that he cannot recognize that Iran is a pressing issue right now in international affairs and he will seek to protect American interests, plain and simple. That is why it should not have come as any surprise when Obama commented that "it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it" -- Globe and Mail.

The Iranian government, specifically President Amadinejad, should only blame themselves for this continued campaign against them. Their shady stance on nuclear weapons and stated desire to wipe Israel off of the map make Iran not only a threat to the United State but to international peace and security. That is why Bush was so hard on them and that is why Obama will likely follow suit

Tough luck Iran, it looks like four more years of being public enemy number one!

- blenCOWe

He's Good But Not That Good

2008-11-07T22:49:00.000-04:00

I was reading the Embassy magazine today and Jeff Davis has an article in it examining what effect Barack Obama's election will have on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. One idea that comes up in his examination is that maybe President Obama will ask Canada to stay longer than the 2011 pull out date that was agreed upon in the last parliament.

Now I've read the articles and seen the showings of support for Canadians for Obama; the most surprising of all being the poll that claimed that as much as 80% of Canadians would vote for Obama if they could (a truly amazing idea considering that not even 60% of Canadians voted for their own politicians!). But even though the majority of Canadians like Obama, I don't know if this support would change Canadians minds about the Afghan mission.

For the past couple years, Canadian Forces have handled the dirty work of the mission, working in the places that no one else will. Other allies have greater numbers and better equipment, but it has been up to Canada to shoulder the brunt of the workload. Our nation did not shy away from this task either, we recognized the importance of the mission and got to work. This has, however, taken a toll on both the Canadians Forces and the political will of the nation.

I don't care how much Canadians like Obama or how close Canada is as an ally, the Canadian people have demanded that Canada be relieved of this terrible burden and it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon. In fact, Obama's commitment to re-deploy troops to Afghanistan will probably bolster Canadians' resolve that our forces need no longer be in Afghanistan.

President-elect Barack Obama may be the latest and greatest in international politics but when all is said and done, the dover principle takes over and the people of this nation will see the Canadians coming home in body bags and forget all about how much they like Obama.

- blenCOWe

Dion Still Full of Hot Air and Partisanship

2008-11-07T11:06:00.000-04:00

The Liberal Party of Canada is a mess right now. They were the big losers of the recent election, their "leader" has stepped down (sort of...), the leadership convention is seven months away and they are broke. The party is only marginally ready to run a leadership contest and nowhere near ready to fight another election. Despite this, former/interim leader Stephane Dion is running his mouth, issuing challenges to Prime Minister Harper and his Tory government.

Most recently, Mr. Dion has announced that the Liberal Party will not be giving any free rides to the Conservative government as it did in the last parliament by abstaining from confidence votes so as not to bring down the government.

"Mr. Dion says the Liberals will voted against any legislation they disagree with, even if the Tories deem the proposals confidence matters" -- Globe and Mail

The funny thing about this is that the Liberals were better prepared to "grow a pair" back when they were abstaining from votes than they are now. The Liberals and the electorate are not ready for another election and will only create further problems in Canadian politics.

There only only two reasons that come to mind about why Dion would come out of the Liberal caucus meetings with this kind of message; 1) Dion wants another chance at being the leader during an election. If he can bring down the government before May then he would be responsible for leading the party due to his interim status. 2) the Liberals have realized that their base is eroding, even their in their hardcore bastions of support. This could be a calculated show to try to win back some of their eroding supporters. This scenario would probably entail the Liberals voting down anything that is not a confidence matter so that come the next election, the Liberals will be able to say that they opposed the Conservative's policies.

So, the way I see it, Canadians are either going to have another election forced upon them or we will see a parliament session marred by greater partisanship and little policy success. Either way, Canadians lose.

I have been watching a lot of the fallout out and commentary of Barack Obama's presidential election and the one thing that I find truely surprising is that many Republicans, including presidential runner-up John McCain have committed to working with Obama and the Democrats, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to lead the United States out of these troubling times. In other words, they are putting aside their differences for the good of the nation.

On the other hand, we see the fall out of the Canadian election where there has almost been a commitment to extreme partisanship by the parties of the opposition. These parties and their leaders are against the Conservatives pretty much no matter what they propose. Canada is heading into troubled times as well. Our economy is lagging; unemployment is up, the dollar is down and we face international threats; both from a security standpoint and from climate change. Now is not the time for petty squabbling; Canadian politicians need to look to their counterparts from the South and follow their lead. The security and prosperity of the nation must ALWAYS come before the interests of individual parties. It is my sincere hope that the parties of Canada's opposition embrace this when Parliament reconvenes next week.

- blenCOWe

What Will Obama's Foreign Policy Look Like?

2008-11-05T11:04:00.000-04:00

After an expected, yet still impressive, victory last night, Barack Obama will lead the most powerful and imposing nation in the world. His victory largely rested on the economic and social issues of the people of America. This largely reflects his greater experience in domestic politics and social issues rather than in international affairs.

Many, including myself, are now eager to see what President Obama's foreign policies will look like. At the outset, it appears that Mr. Obama's foreign policy will be one of fixing the "mistakes" that President George W. Bush has made during his eight years in office. Most prominent on the agenda is definitely addressing the two wars that he will inherit from the previous administration. Obama campaigned on the desire to pull out of Iraq and re-commit to ending the security problems in Afghanistan. This follows the popular idea that entering Iraq was a mistake and that Afghanistan has greater legitimacy in terms of international security. This was definitely not in the considerations of the previous presidency.

Next, I believe that President Obama will use the aforementioned pullout in Iraq as a credibility booster so that he can take steps to re-invigorate the peace process in the Middle East. This re-invigoration will be in the form of multi-lateral diplomacy and will hopefully be more conducive to peace than invasion. This involves actually talking to Iran, working with the different actors, yet still acting as a strong ally of Israel. Obama will likely have greater success with this than his predecessor did. The hawk-like actions of President Bush and his administration greatly tarnished the sincerity of Mr. Bush to bring peace to the Middle East.

Lastly, the recent eight years have seen the United States drift away from many of its European allies (save Britain of course). Much of this falling out has concerned the US invasion of Iraq as well as other hawkish actions of President Bush. President Obama must reach out to these disgruntled allies and re-build ties with them. One easy way that this could be accomplished is to end the recent trend towards unilateralism by the United States. European states, because of their history mired with warfare, are stong proponents of multilateralism, especially using the United Nations framework and not just the NATO alliance. The United States must put greater trust and effort into the United Nations system rather than move unilaterally if it doesn't get the response it desires. Regaining this favour will be critical in the upcoming years for the United States and Obama if it is to rebuild its international image and reputation.

Funny enough, especially given its attention in foreign policy debates during the Canadian election, China has remained almost a non-issue in discussions of future US foreign policy. I have not heard much from President-elect Obama on the topic of China and am curious as to what, if any, plans he has for US relations with the world's most populus country.

There is little doubt that the next four years will be transformational for the United States, and subsequently for the international community. I do not think Mr. Obama's lack of practical experience in international relations will affect this. His intelligence and charisma will help to rebuild US relations with foreign leaders and citizens and will be an inspirational leader for the United States.

- blenCOWe

Taliban bombs Afghan government

2008-10-30T12:03:00.000-03:00

During the recent election and in the short period after, we have heard repeated calls from sources within the Canadian government as well as the international community to begin talks with the Taliban leadership in order to find an end to the conflict in Afghanistan.

My personal thoughts on this have pretty much bordered on the concept of "yeah right, like the Taliban will negotiate in earnest!" Well it seems like I wasn't too far off the mark with this one.

"Taliban militants stormed a government building in the centre of the Afghan capital on Thursday and one of them blew himself up inside, killing five people, officials and witnesses said" -- Globe and Mail

Clearly the Taliban is not interested in negotiating with the Afghan government if it is attempting to bomb it. The reality is, the Taliban do not recognize the authority of Hamid Karzai's government and will not cooperate with it in finding a peaceful solution. The Taliban want their rule restored, simple as that!

- blenCOWe

Canada's Next Foreign Minister

2008-10-29T12:32:00.000-03:00

Who will be Canada's next minister of foreign affairs?

That is one of the many questions that are running through the minds of Canadian political enthusiasts in the anticipation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet decisions. For those, like me, that closely follow foreign policy, this question is of great intrigue.

I believe David Emerson would have done an excellent job had he decided to run again but that is now moot. So who should Mr. Harper choose to guide Canada's foreign policies both home and abroad?

In this week's edition of the Embassy Magazine, there is a brief evaluation of those who might be considered for this position. It grades the candidates based on their credentials as well as lists the pros and cons of each person. I found this to be a great read and opened my eyes not only to the larger number of candidates than I had envisaged but also some names that I had not thought about.

Following the Maxime Bernier "scandal" this spring, I voiced my opinion on this blog that Secretary of State Jason Kenney was well deserving of a promotion to this important cabinet office. My opinion has not changed. He has shown himself to be a reliable junior minister who has also done well at gaining the support of Canada's ethnic minority populations. He was the Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian Identity in the last parliament and I, for one, think that these things have been lacking in Canada's recent foreign policies. This criticism has been echoed by many of the Conservative Party's critics. Mr. Kenney could bring his experience from this post to the Ministy of Foreign Affairs and re-unite many Canadians who have been dis-enfranchised by our recent foreign minsters and policies. Canada could return to the well-respected middle power leader that it has been in the past, and re-connect Canada to its heritage in international affairs.

In terms of the criticisms of Mr. Kenney, the overwhelming "black mark" has been his critical viewpoint of Chinese policies, specifically on human rights. China has been repeatedly targeted as a necessary focal point of Canada's future foreign policies. Canadian-Chinese relations may be strained by the promotion of a strong critic of China to such an important role, but then again, why should Canada essentially "put all its eggs in one basket?"

Also in this week's Embassy is an article that says that focusing on China would be detrimental to Canada's international successs. It argues the world community is evolving into a multipolar balance of power. China isn't the only power growing in the world. India, Brazil and, South Africa are just a few of the other power centres growing along with China. Furthermore, we are seeing the return of an old power, Russia, who has been actively trying to re-assert its pre-eminent place in world affairs. Canada would do well to incorporate a foreign policy that accounts for these multiple centres of power and not just China. China is an important state for Canada to deal with, but it is not the only game in town. This fact helps to offset the criticism of Jason Kenney and his remarks about China.

Wrapping up, there are a number of potential foreign ministers that could be shuffled from other A-list cabinet positions, but by promoting Mr. Kenney, PM Harper would be able to add a well-deserving and capable minister to this important role. He is well-suited for this post and, possibly more important, rather than merely shuffle his present ministers which would only maintain the cabinet's strength, Prime Minister Harper could add a strong, young minister to an important portfolio.

- blenCOWe

Ban Ki Moon's Calls for Disarmament Will Fall on Deaf Ears

2008-10-24T22:26:00.000-03:00

Today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the members of the United Nations community to re-invest themselves in the disarmament process to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He spoke mostly to those states that are part of the exclusive nuclear weapons club. These states, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty in 1968 which required them to take serious steps to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles. Also targeted in the Secretary-General's call for disarmament were the unofficial nuclear powers: North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India. Unfortunately though, Mr. Ki-moon's pleas will likely fall on deaf ears and for three main reasons. These reasons are that 1) states enjoy the power that nuclear weapons bestow on them, 2) disarmament does not reduce the threats states face and, 3) the NPT is not an effective tool for disarmament.

It is no coincidence that the states that have nuclear weapons, for the majority, are also the ones with vetoes in the UN Security Council. Like the vetoes, nuclear weapons allow states a certain level of freedom in their policies. Nuclear weapons provide states with a deterrent from its adversaries that also possess nuclear weapons and act as a source of fear for non-nuclear states. This results in a sort of perceived invulnerability and confidence that states can get away with almost any policy they want. These states know they can get what they want and have gotten used to it. As with the case of Security Council reform, those with the power are not likely to be eager to give it up, yet it is these states that determine how successful these reform initiatives are. This is the most likely reason that Ki-moon's pleas will not yield any real result; until these states can be offered some sort of reward for giving up one of their major sources of international influence.

Secondly, disarmament does not prevent conflict. This is essentially the "guns don't kill people, people kill people argument." Disarmament assumes that by removing weapons, states will be less likely to engage each other in conflict. While I concede that states may, at times, build up their armaments/capabilities in response to other states' buildups, conflicts are not caused by the presence of weapons. International conflicts arise out of tensions over such things as natural resources and ethnicity. Long past are the times of the Cold War where the presence of weapons can create conflicts (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). A weapon is a merely a tool and is not a threat to anyone until a person makes it so. Therefore, disarmament is ineffective in attaining international peace because it only addresses the presence of the weapons and not the users or their intentions.

Lastly, to hold signatory states of the NPT to their treaty obligations to reduce their armaments is ineffective because it only regulates against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and not the vertical proliferation. Horizontal proliferation refers to increasing the total number of weapons while vertical proliferation refers to the expansion of weapon capabilities. The NPT has been somewhat effective in controlling the number of weapons that exist but has been ineffective in curtailing the expansion of these weapons' capabilities. There may be less nuclear weapons than in 1968 but the weapons that do exist are more deadly than ever so in effect the NPT has only been successful in strengthening the hierarchy of states in world affairs. Disarmament would be much more effective if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was to receive the kind of widespread support that the NPT has received. This treaty would address the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as some of the inherent environmental risks that are associated with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this has not happened as of yet and as such disarmament has remained largely ineffective in achieving international peace.

In conclusion, these three realities will prevent Ban Ki-moon's efforts for disarmament from any true realization or effect. For these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that disarmament is largely an academic concept and not practical for reducing the threat of international conflict.

- blenCOWe

A New Bretton Woods An Unlikely Outcome

2008-10-13T10:50:00.000-03:00

As the current financial crisis spreads to the corners of the world, many of the world's leaders and important thinkers are throwing out different ideas of how to fix the financial problems that are present in our current markets. This is obviously reasonable because governments will not be able to continuously bailout all the financial institutions that fall into trouble.

One concept that has been proposed that caught my attention was British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's idea to create a new Bretton Woods agreement with the intention to "reshape the world financial system." While this idea has good intentions and might have a beneficial impact, I don't believe that it would be the best response to this financial crisis. A look at the past results of the Bretton Woods system shows that a new agreement would be a short-term response.

The initial agreement helped to restore the international market in the post-World War II reality but this only lasted until 1971 when national interests began to take precedence. When the United States stopped their currency from being converted to gold, the Bretton Woods system crashed. This shows that when it comes to finances, states will usually act in the interests of their citizens before the interests of the international system. This cannot be overcome, simple as that. Domestic politics rule when it comes to the market. So when Prime Minister Brown says that "only by global action can we fully restore the confidence that is needed and build the international financial order", I believe he is wrong.

Instead I believe that more international action will only lead to further problems down the road. If one examines the current financial crisis, it is obvious that the much of the crisis can be traced back to the sub-prime mortgage problems of the United States. The downturn of the US market has affected the foreign markets because of the tremendous amount of foreign investment in the United States. When the US suffers, its investors suffer and thus the trickle down effect occurs.

So what then is the answer?

Well, first of all I do not claim to be an expert or even fairly proficient in terms of economic understanding. I try to avoid economics as much as I can in my studies but as this is almost impossible in studying politics and international relations, I have come to acquire some understanding of basic economics. With this in mind, I believe that the answer to this problem is apparent and is already beginning to show itself.

As of today, the markets are beginning to rebound a little bit across the globe. Much of this has been because of involvement by national governments to invest in their national markets. From this, I conclude that the best way to address the current crisis is for each government to take care of their own markets and not to worry about the economic fortunes of the the international market. I realize this must sound crazy coming from an internationalist and in the current reality of globalization but if each country acts to stabilize their own markets then the international market will begin to stabilize as a by-product. As I said, this has already begun to happen because as national governments begin to act to protect their economies, the markets have begun to rise again.

Furthermore, the already existent international financial bodies (that were created by the original Bretton Woods system) are acting to protect markets. Recently the IMF announced that it would help to protect poorer countries from the fallout of the international financial crisis. This is a tremendous move by a body accused (sometimes by myself) of working for the world's rich countries. The poorer countries of the world are the ones most at risk of suffering from this crisis. They are the ones that would have the greatest difficulty to rebound and so the efforts by the IMF will be extremely beneficial to these already fragile markets. With this in mind, I do not see a reason to create another Bretton Woods organization.

In the end, it is sometimes better to focus on the small things in order to right larger problems. The international crisis is a problem that affects the globe but in order to address it, we must look to our own backyards before building another international financial body.

- blenCOWe

Canada leads world in banking

2008-10-09T14:53:00.000-03:00

Today, the World Economic Forum released their evaluation of the banking systems of the world.Canada's financial system has been rated the best in the world. Way to go Canada!

This must come as a huge surprise to the leaders of Canada's opposition political parties as for the last week they have been attacking Stephen Harper over his failure to make changes to Canada's financial system in order to protect the nation from a similar meltdown to what the United States is experiencing. One popular criticism of Mr. Harper has been that "he must not truly understand Canada's economic reality." Well I guess the reality is that of all the leaders, Mr.Harper is the only one who truely understands Canada's situation!

- blenCOWe

Foreign Policy Platforms

2008-10-09T14:01:00.000-03:00

For the internationalist like me, the foreign policy sections of the parties' election platforms are what is really interesting in this election. Today, the Embassy magazine published a review of the four "national" parties' foreign policy platforms. I liked the way the magazine did it because it grouped all the foreign policy sub-topics together for the reader so that it it isn't necessary to search through the large platforms each party publishes for all the relevant foreign policy issues/proposals. Here are the links to the Embassy's reviews of each parties' foreign policies... enjoy

Liberal Party Foreign Policy

Conservative Party Foreign Policy

New Democratic Party Foreign Policy

Green Party Foreign Policy

- blenCOWe

P.S. This is a shout out to Justin Lundy who has been complaining that I don't blog about him.

Canada's Place in the World Determined

2008-10-03T13:11:00.001-03:00

One of the topics that has intermittently been discussed in the ongoing federal election has been concerning what is Canada's position in the world. Well I think this week we found our definitive answer: Canada is 180th out of 192 nations. Canada was the 180th nation to speak at the opening of the current session of the United Nations' General Assembly.

It is probable that a number of people will argue that this position is likely to have been influenced by the decision to send only a deputy minister to represent our nation instead of the Prime Minister or Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have already expressed my thoughts on this subject in a previous post. What I have to say this time is in reference to the message that Mr. Edwards presented to the UN Assembly.

Mr. Edward's presentation to the Assembly dealt with a number of topics from UN reform to human rights and the environment. One might say: "what's wrong with that? Those are important issues in the world today." Well that person would be correct but they also are not exactly new or groundbreaking. Those themes have been beat to death by almost every other nation in the UN. Why should Canada be positioned any earlier in the schedule of presentations if they are merely going to say what everyone else has to say? And this is not the fault of Mr. Edwards, it is the fault of the policy experts and bureaucrats within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade who have not been able to formulate a coherent and comprehensive plan for Canada's goals in the world. Nothing new was prepared for Mr. Edwards concerning Canada's position on climate change or Canada's intentions to compete for a seat on the 2010 Security Council.

We all know the areas of concern in the world and rough comprehensions of what the goals should be. What does need to be addressed is how these things are accomplished. This is the area where bureaucrats dwell (so it should have been beneficial to send a bureaucrat!). Politicians come up with the goals and bureaucrats are supposed to figure out how to accomplish these goals so don't blame the politicians (they have enough blame flying at them in this election).

So the next time you hear a federal candidate questioned on Canada's place in the world, remember the role that bureaucrats play in determining where Canada is in the world for it is not always a question of what but how.

- blenCOWe

Election thoughts from Beausejour

2008-09-29T11:05:00.000-03:00

Last night was the first candidates debate in the Beausejour riding. It took place at the Brunton auditorium on the campus here at Mount Allison University. The place was filled for the most part and pretty evenly split between students and regular residents of Sackville.

The candidates of the four parties contesting this riding were all there. Representing the Liberals was incumbent Dominic Leblance, Omer Leger for the Conservatives, Mike Milligan for the Green Party and my fellow classmate Chris Durrant for the NDP. Each candidate was given the floor for ten minutes and this was then followed by a question and answer period with questions coming from the audience.

Omer Leger greatly emphasized his level of experience in New Brunswick provincial politics. He played mostly on the strength of leadership of Stephen Harper but argued vigorously that it was time that Beausejour was represented by someone other than the Liberal party. He proposed that he would put in "aggressive effort to create opportunities for young people and young professionals" to stop the hemhorraging of New Brunswick's young workforce to Canada's West.

Dominic Leblanc's ten minute introduction largely parroted the views of Liberal leader Stephane Dion, further strengthening my belief that Mr. Leblanc is merely a mouthpiece for Dion and does not really represent his riding. He focused on the two issues of the national campaign; economy and the environment. The only thing he said that I believe truely would benefit this area was the re-investment in post-secondary education by way of the Millenium Bursury Foundation. As a past recipient of a Millenium Bursury, this spoke to me because of the great help my bursury had on relieving my student debt.

Mike Milligan didn't really impress me in his speech. He conveyed his past experiences, not in politics but in life and while he showed considerable insight it was not enought to instill the kind of confidence that one should have in their elected representative. In terms of political views, he stuck to the generic Green Party dialogue.

As for Chris Durrant, I've known him for a while now, being in more than a few classes with him and through my extensive involvement in politics on campus. I knew he would be entertaining and intelligent but the force at which he presented himself with onstage caught me by surprise. Chris easily had the best opening speech of all the candidates, utilizing the French language more than the others, probably in preparation for the upcoming debates in the more heavily francophone areas of this riding. I believe he connected with many of the youth in the crowd on what he and the NDP saw as Canada's future, both home and abroad, as well as his willingness to fight for families augmented by a personal experience that all could identify with.

At this point I could conclude that the majority of the crowd were either won over by Chris' presence or were supporters of him from the beginning. Either way, it was clearly evident that the majority of the crowd were behind Chris.

The question and answer period was politically risky for the candidates as the floor was open to any and everyone in the crowd. I had a pretty good idea of what questions would be asked of the candidates and the people in the audience did not disappoint. We heard questions about sustainability, nuclear power/waster, Omar Khadr, Insite as well as justice and childcare. Mr. Leblanc had mentioned in his opening statement that he was looking forward to some questions on Canada's role in the world. I was looking forward to this subject but the only topic that was really breached was Canada's foreign aid. I had a couple tough questions for the candidates in theis area but unfortunately the debate had a curfew of 9:30pm so I missed out. But this, like I have written about in the past, is a perfect example of how this election is narrow sighted, concerning mainly subjects of domestic importance.

As for how each candidate did, this may be debatable but the way I see it, Chris showed intelligence and presence that far exceeded his experience. I truely think that like the opening statements, he excelled and was at the top. Joining him up there was Dominic, who used his tremendous amount of experience to provide well articulated and polished answers. As for Mr. Milligan, the question period exposed even more his lack of experience and knowledge in federal politics. Unfortunately, the worst performance of the day was by Omer Leger who appeared to be unprepared, dodging many questions that are of great interest in this election.

I will be following this election closely as it is the riding that I will be voting in and I try to give updates as more events happen.

- blenCOWe

Great Article on the Election and Foreign Policy

2008-09-25T11:03:00.000-03:00

This article came across my RSS feed today. It comes from a group called Canada's World. They're interested in Canada's role in the world and how we come to achieve this. It argues the point that I have previously made that the current election is ignoring the importance of foreign policy to Canada's direction in the next couple years. Check it out, it's intelligent and it offers links to more sources on the topic.

Canada's World

- blenCOWe

Mr. Edwards on the Largest Stage

2008-09-24T12:39:00.000-03:00

Jeff Davis reports today that the Canadian government will be sending the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonard Edwards, as the Canadian official who will be attending the opening of the United Nations General Assembly next week.

The decision to send Mr. Edwards has drawn some ire from Canadian foreign policy experts because of his low level of seniority. While most states usually send either their head of state/ambassador or their foreign affairs minister, Canada will only be sending a civil servant – a high ranking one at that but still a civil servant and not an official of the government.

Lloyd Axworthy says he can’t understand why there won’t be at least a senior minister at the important diplomatic event. That surprises me because I can fully see why Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson will not be able to attend.

Turn on the television for five minutes and you will probably see an advertisement from one of the major political parties or a news story covering the election. This means Canada must be going through a federal election! This is quite an important time in Canadian politics and the direction our country moves in, but that’s not the whole story: Canada doesn’t really have a government right now!

The way I understand it, when the Prime Minister goes to the Governor General to ask him or her to dissolve parliament and the GG agrees there technically is no longer a government until after the election results are in. We do not have a system like the United States where the election occurs three months before the new president takes office. With this in mind, it would be inappropriate to send Mr. Harper or Mr. Emerson to speak to the UN because they do not actually hold office right now. They are the incumbents (well not Emerson because he is not running again) but they are not the actual Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister at the time. Because of this, Canada’s next highest foreign affairs official would then have to be Mr. Edwards because the civil service is separate from the political leaders and is not affected by the election. Therefore, by sending Mr. Edwards to the UN, Canada is actually sending its highest CURRENT foreign affairs official.

I will admit that this is unfortunate timing as there are extremely important issues to discuss at the UN, for example the Security Council elections and the UN mission in Afghanistan. It would be better if Canada could send its Prime Minister or Foreign Affairs Minister to the meetings but this truly isn’t possible. I believe that the chosen path is the most responsible because any elected official that would go to the meetings would not be able to say for certain that they will be in the next parliament let alone the governing party. By sending Mr. Edwards, other countries can have the assurance that Mr. Edwards will be around Oct. 15 to pass on their messages.

Think about it; what is worse for Canada’s international image: to send an official that is technically low ranking in seniority or to send someone who can make all kinds of promises but may not even be in parliament three weeks from now?

I think the question answers itself…

- blenCOWe

Sanctions Falling on Deaf Ears

2008-09-23T23:46:00.000-03:00

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York speaking to the United Nations this week. He is spouting off his usual rhetoric about the great powers "bullying" Iran over its nuclear program and so on.

In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.

In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.

- blenCOWe

Some Good News for the Afghan Mission

2008-09-23T20:46:00.000-03:00

In the debates between John McCain and Barack Obama in the lead up to this November's presidential election we have heard how the United States must re-commit to the mission in Afghanistan. Typically, this has involved a surge of US troops that is supposed to help combat the ongoing insurgency, especially in the troublesome Kandahar region.

I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.

With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.

Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!

Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.

Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.

- blenCOWe

The Electoral Blinders

2008-09-17T09:51:00.000-03:00

I read an article in the Globe and Mail today that really got me thinking. For those, like me, who consider ourselves internationalists the current Canadian federal election is shaping up to be quite a bore. It seems that none of the parties are truly concerned about Canada's place and/or role in the World. This causes me great concern when I consider both our national history and our current realities.

In the past, Canada has shouted from the highest mounts about its involvement and achievements in international affairs. From its surprising military achievements in the World Wars to its involvement with the creation of the United Nations or Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize winning work in the Suez Crisis to the decades of involvement by the Canadian Forces in UN peacekeeping missions. Now we've all heard this before; it has been repeatedly beaten into our brains about Canada and its peacekeeping and such but there are other areas of involvement that are beginning to dwindle. One prime example of this is with the Security Council elections. Canada has been very successful, for a middle power, at "punching above its weight" in many areas of international affairs. One way it has done this has been to place itself in positions that give it importance that its strength may not bestow. A seat on the Security Council has traditionally been one of those positions. Recognizing the importance and power that the Security Council has in world affairs, Canada has traditionally launched strong campaigns to win one of these seats of prestige when its name came around in the election cycle.

Unfortunately, of late, Canada's history of presence and involvement in international affairs has be relegated to an afterthought. Beginning with the previous Liberal regime and continuing through the most recent parliament, Canada's involvement has dwindled. Our nation has gone from one of the leading contributors to UN peacekeeping missions to contributing less than 100 people worldwide. Now I am not narrow minded, I realize that Canada is deeply involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan and with our limited military strength, in both supplies and manpower, it is necessary to pick and choose our battles. I wish Canada could contribute more but we just do not have the ability to do so currently.

I have been a big supporter of viewing Canada's involvement in Afghanistan not as a military mission but as a development/peacebuilding mission that requires the use of force because of the difficult situation the aid workers are in. Without the presence of our military and the rest of the NATO forces, the aid workers would be greatly at risk from those radicals who are intent on maintaining the stranglehold on the Afghan people. This type of work is necessary as less and less we see peacekeeping as being relevant and more and more we find that peacebuilding is required. The mission in Afghanistan is a peacebuilding mission and should be recognized as not a solely military endeavour.

As for the Security Council, the recent remarks released about how the Conservative government was not going to contest for the open seat unless it was sure it could win straight up pissed me off. This type of politics sends the message that Canada is afraid and unwilling to participate in the knitty gritty aspects of world politics. Canada should have been a lock to win this seat but its recent trend of pissing people off and not using its resources have created the situation of doubt we now are faced with. It strikes me that our recent officials have been unwilling to "play the game" so to say when it comes to these international elections. These seats confer great influence and power but one must sacrifice to get them. It may be necessary to give out some favourable votes in return for support come election time. However, Canada has largely just pissed off everyone except the US, Israel and a few key allies. In the past Canada would have easily had the support it would need to get a Security Council seat but now Canadian officials don't want to incur the necessary upfront costs that later benefit our nation's stature.

Then there was the recent revelation by Stephen Harper that Canada will be out of Afghanistan in 2011. I consider this a complete flip flop on the part of Mr. Harper. Last winter/spring, when the whole subject of renewal was the topic de jour, the Conservative government was against putting down a firm withdrawal date for both military and politically strategic reasons. This made sense; it is stupid to tell an enemy that you are only willing to fight until a certain date for they will just bide their time until that day and then once you leave they essentially win.

This just exacerbates what I believe to have been a debacle in the handling of the quest for support from NATO in return for Canada staying in Kandahar. The goal was to push for greater commitments of support from its fellow NATO members (of which I think France and Germany are showing how truely weak they are and how far they have fallen as world powers) but Canada could not gain solid support and ended up settling for a scenario (US troops are freed up to move to Kandahar) that will probably make things worse. Canada's troops are doing a good job in the conflict that everyone else is too afraid to engage in there but they are not getting the political support they need because of a lack of will from their political representatives.

Now I'm not saying that the opposition leaders are better; neither Layton nor Dion strike me as being people capable of leading Canada back to its strong international stature of the past. Both men have called for a complete pullout of Afghanistan which would leave Canada with just its paltry current commitments to UN peacekeeping missions. Then they want Canada to take part in global warming remedies that would hurt our nation's economy and stresses the inequalities amongst developed and underdeveloped states.

In the end, Canada's political leaders appear to be concerned with their electoral survival first and foremost and do not have a greater image for Canada and its place in the world. Stephen Harper did for a while but his recent direction has made me begin to wonder. I believe it's a sad day when Canada's place in the world is relegated to an afterthought. Canada cannot continue to prosper in this increasingly globalized world without a strong and coherent plan for its place in the world.

I might be mistaken, but I believe this kind of plan is supposed to be called "foreign policy." It's one of those little topics that are supposed to be discussed in elections!

- blenCOWe

Ambition Without Reality for the New UN Assembly President

2008-09-16T22:37:00.000-03:00

The General Assembly of the United Nations has just announced its new president. Former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann has been selected after running unopposed by anyone from the Latin American states of whose turn it was to hold the position. Upon the announcement of his selection Mr. Brockmann revealed his own plans to make the United Nations a more democratic institution. That's a pretty high and mighty position considering the fact that he didn't really have to compete agains anyone to gain his elected position!

Anyway...

The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.

I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.

Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.

- blenCOWe

Election Musings

2008-09-11T12:14:00.000-03:00

Here are a few things that have been going through my mind while watching coverage of the Canadian Federal Election:

Women

I applaud Stephane Dion for his initiative to nominate 106 female candidates in this election. I agree with the fact that there are not many women in Canadian politics but that is pretty much the only thing that we agree upon. Women are just over 51% of the population but held only 58 seats (at my last count) in the 304 seat House of Commons (which is less that one fifth of the seats). Clearly these percentages do not match up... but should they? Canada's parliamentary system follows the "First Past the Post System." This system has many advantages and disadvantages which are largely influenced by whether or not one benefits or suffers from this system. Despite the many calls for electoral reform, Canada, currently, does not employ any facet of proportional representation in its voting practices. This probably has some influence in determining how many women are elected each election. But then again, maybe not.

Unlike the recent surges in political activity that the US Presidential election has seen, female politicians in Canada have not been able to attract a near level of response. Canada has had its share of female political leaders from Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough to current Green Party leader Elizabeth May. None of these leaders though have been able to rouse the same level of support and activity that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Pallin have. It is probably stands to reason that a majority of voters in Canada do not focus on gender when choosing who to vote for. This educated guess leads me to make another hopefully educated ;) assumption in that Canadian voters tend to vote for who is most qualified and represents their interests the best. This is to say that if a female candidate is well qualified and truely connects with the interests of their electorate then she is likely to garner a fair amount of support. On the other hand, campaigning on the platform of being a woman and gender representation is not likely to garner as much support. As a voting citizen of Canada, I would like to think that we are voting for the most qualified candidate in elections and not based on factors of proportional representation.

Note: If I offend anyone with these views I am sorry but these thoughts are based on my recent years of political study and not because I believe women lack the capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the position or that women belong in the private sphere as opposed to public office.

The Carbon Tax

While watching one of Liberal leader Stephane Dion's recent speeches on CPAC, the thought hit me: "Okay so if we decide to accept your Carbon Tax plan, how would we know that it is working?" The Carbon Tax that Dion is proposing has no legitimate means of evaluation to determine if it is effective in its endeavour or even doing what it says it will. Examining Greenhouse emissions would not be the proper the indicator of this as the two things are not directly connected. Greenhouse Gases are likely to lessen in the next few years with the recent attention that global warming has received. Clean technology is growing in capabilities and becoming less expensive to own which increases the public's ability to access it and incorporate it into their lives. This will have a positive effect on decreasing GHG's. Also, the astronomical oil prices of late are forcing people to conserve their dependence on carbon based fuels and towards more environmentally friendly and cheaper means so that they do not go broke paying for the petroleum-based products we have grown to use so readily. These shifts in consumption will lower GHG's independently of the Carbon Tax, so any success by the tax would be undetectable.

Introducing a policy so invasive and costly without a reliable means of monitoring its efficacy is wreckless and irresponsible. This renegade tax would be used to fund a Liberal governments excessive spending and would unjustly add to the increasing cost of living for Canadians. When the next election would be called the Liberals would likely yell from mountain top so that everyone could hear how their Carbon Tax was so effective in reducing Green House Gases when their decline would largely be a separate phenomenon. In the end, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party are using the environment as a crutch to raise taxes and increase their ability to spend.

One final thought: I LOVE NOT HAVING CLASS ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS!!!!!!

- blenCOWe

I'm Baaaaaaack!!!!

2008-09-07T23:12:00.000-03:00

After a long absence from blogging, I am back. Football camp is over and I am back to school and have more time on my hands. This is a great thing because I am excited for the election that finally became official today.

Watching the leaders on television today was interesting. Some thoughts I had this morning while watching them were:
- Dion is still uninspiring
- Layton is pushing harder than ever to become the choice of the left wing
- Duceppe is ... well... he's just there
- May speaks well but strikes me as any other Green Party candidate: someone who is entertaining but will not be taken seriously (as an option) by the majority of voters
- Harper seems strong and well prepared for this election

I can't wait to see how this election plays out. I expect a lot of slander from the opposition parties and a harsh dose of reality, provided by the Conservatives, as to how successful the other leaders would be as Prime Ministers.

In my mind, there is no doubt the Conservatives will become the government again. The question in my mind is whether or not a majority will be reached.

Oooooh the election fever is growing

- blenCOWe

Excused Absence

2008-08-25T23:07:00.000-03:00

To anyone that reads this blog,

I'm taking a bit of a hiatus from posting because I'm in the middle of football camp getting ready for the season.

I realize news and politics never sleeps but at the end of the day I'm banged up and bruised and all I want to do is lay down with a bag of ice.

I'll be back in a couple of days.

- blenCOWe

Russia's already won

2008-08-12T22:27:00.000-03:00

According to the BBC, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been able to broker a deal between Russia and Georgia to come to a peaceful resolution to the recent fighting in and around South Ossetia.

This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.

I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.

- blenCOWe

Russia's true intentions

2008-08-10T23:31:00.000-03:00

Like most people around the world, my recent free time has been dominated by watching the Olympics and cheering on my home nations (Great Britain and Canada). Nevertheless, my ears perk up when I hear the few stories that are reported concerning the war in Georgia/South Ossetia.

The more I think about it, I truly believe that Russia's intervention has had nothing to do with protecting the separatists in South Ossetia. Okay, so Russia has allowed the granting of passports to the people of the breakaway region and battled the Georgian forces who were attempting to restore stability in the area. If this was all that Russia was doing I would believe that their intentions were honourable. But that's not all that Russia is doing...

Recent stories about the conflict have shown that the conflict as is stands now has engaged in more than protectionist movements. Russian forces have sunk a Georgian boat, destroyed a civilian airport and refused a Georgian offer for a ceasefire. In taking these actions, Russia is showing a desire to expand the conflict into the rest of Georgia and have it continue.

Also, Russia has attacked a major pipeline that provides oil to the West. This pipeline is a major economic source for the Georgian people and pumps approximately 1% of the world's oil. This show's a deliberate attempt to further this conflict past not only the people of South Ossetia but the rest of Georgia and the West.

But why are they doing this? South Ossetia cannot be that valuable to the Russian Federation and as already mentioned, this conflict is going beyond just the separatist ambitions of the small area.

Well what about the oil? Unlikely. The pipeline is not that strategic of a target.

So why does Russia believe this such an important situation to escalate what could have remained relatively benign?

Just throwing this out there... but as I've already posted, we're seeing a return to Cold War style politics.

Russia's determination to destabilize the Georgian state might be Russia's bloody response to the missile shield currently being built by NATO in central Europe. Russia has already broached the subject of placing strategic bombers in Cuba and has agreed to sell $2 billion worth of weapons systems to Venezuala and Hugo Chavez.

These first two moves came in response to the missile shield but why this move, and why now?

Well the last one is easy: the Olympics provides cover for the Russians to avoid being crucified in the media for the moves they have made beyond protecting the separatists. By the time the world awakens from its Olympic daze, the majority of the damage and atrocities of war will have already taken place.

Now for the other why...

Georgia is a strong ally of the United States and is campaigning for its inclusion into the membership of the NATO alliance. If that were to occur then Russia would have to feel more threatened than it ever has because a member of the western alliance and strong ally of the US would be right up on its doorstep. I realize the Russia already is member of NATO that shares a border with Russia (Latvia) but Georgia has the increased likelihood of having missile systems placed on its soil because of its geographic proximity to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. This will increase the fear already instilled in Russia by the missiles going into Poland.

Georgia's membership however is not guaranteed. While a promise has been given that it will become a member, there is no timeline attached to it. This is what is likely enticing the Russians to take this plan of action. As long as Georgia is in this destabilized state, it will not be invited into full membership in NATO because to do so would embroil NATO into the conflict based on its collective security agreements. Therefore, the members of NATO will not vote to include Georgia if it will mean that they will be involved in battling the Russians because of the large scale conflict that would likely ensue despite the already existing commitments to Afghanistan. Georgia, in effect, would be the fuse to the next world war.

So much for Russia's benevolent intentions!

-blenCOWe

Defending Louise Arbour

2008-08-04T15:35:00.000-03:00

Outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour has been receiving a lot of negative press lately as she prepares to end her term without an attempt for re-appointment. Watchdog NGO, Human Rights Watch has been recently critical of her time in office, claiming that she was not critical enough of major powers Russia and China.

Her record shows that she did not criticize either of these global giants during her term but she has been effective in criticizing some of the worst human rights violaters in the world. The list of her most criticized violaters includes Burma, the DRC, Iran, Israel, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Uganda. I don't know about anyone else but when I think of places where human rights violations are prevalent the aforementioned are the places that first come to mind.

Furthermore, it has become increasingly made public that the Human Rights Council suffers from bloc voting. This has been able to curtail some of the things that the Council could have done. Much like the Security Council, the states protect their allies even if they are violaters of human rights. Currently China and Russia are both on the Human Rights Council which places the Human Rights Commissioner in a difficult position; if he or she (in this case) is critical of powerful states like China and Russia then those states are likely to make life difficult in the Council in order to protect themselves. This doesn't mean that the Commissioner abandons the pursuit of human rights in those countries, just that they do so in a way that doesn't leave stranded the human rights of those in more troubling areas.

Commissioner Arbour has been outspoken against some of the worst violators in the world, which has been her job. Rather than try to tarnish her term and the work she has done with useless diatribe let's honour her contribution and then look to the future.

- blenCOWe

More of the Same

2008-07-31T18:58:00.000-03:00

This summer has been rife with stories of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and his new election campaign strategy based on his new Carbon Tax plan and "strong leadership" (HA!). Dion has claimed that he feels confident contesting an election on this and in the last couple days, during the recent Conservative caucus meetings, Prime Minister Harper has dared Dion on to bring down the government in the fall.

Well what does this mean for the average Canadian citizen?

Facing prominent issues like the environment, the economy, and crime it looks like we are likely to see another session of parliament plagued by the threat of party politics and poor policy discussion.

The opposition parties pay little or no attention to the actual benefits of the Conservative policies, only to their own fates, completely ignoring the actual welfare of the Canadian people.

The only good thing that would happen with fall election would be that the Conservative party gained a majority in the House of Commons and this recent period of limited minority governance would be over.

Here we go again!

- blenCOWe

Broken Promises

2008-07-31T18:21:00.001-03:00

I just wish the IOC could break its promises like the Chinese have broken theirs; just to give them a taste of their own medicine. When Beijing was campaigning for the upcoming Olympic Games Chinese officials promised that their human rights record and public access to the Internet would be bettered.

OOPS!!!

China's human rights record has not gotten better and may have even been further tarnished in the recent months. The so-called "increased access" is limited to sites that the Chinese government deem legal; so in other words: no improvement there. And then China has been "cleaning up" Beijing lately by removing those people they consider "undesirable" and replacing them with little pieces of artwork to beautify the city.

China really hasn't fulfilled its commitments to the IOC. In a fair world, the IOC would be able to withold the Games from Beijing but with just over a week until the opening ceremonies there is no chance of that.

China: 1 Olympics: 0

Do you feel proud about what you've done China?

- blenCOWe

China's Bountiful Blunders

2008-07-30T18:22:00.000-03:00

For the last couple months I have been left speechless (sort of ... lol) about the decisions that China has been making that have international ramifications. Personally, I don't understand how China can continue to make poor decisions that deteriorate its international image.

The short and probably incomplete list of poor decisions that come to mind are:

1. Blocking effective action from taking place in the crisis in Darfur because of the oil connections China has with Khartoum.
2. The over-excessive response to the Tibetan protesters in Lhasa.
3. Selling arms to Robert Mugabe's abusive ZANU-PF in the period leading up to the presidential elections. Arms that were probably used to oppress MDC supporters.
4. Blocking UN sanctions against the fraudulent Mugabe regime.
5. It's extensive military buildup including the ballistic missile capabilities on their new submarines.
6. It's lack of cooperation in fulfilling its Olympic promises to better its human rights record and to increase internet acess and openness for its citizens.
7. Taking action to prevent the ICC from taking action against the Sudanese president who is accused of crimes against humanity.

In the global arena, China is active in trading its products and finding ample sources of oil abroad. It cannot afford to make itself so unpopular based on its oppressive and ill-advised foreign policy choices. It is unlikely that China will be able to support its population if it only befriends the "rogue" or oppressive regimes. China needs to be able to endear itself to other democracies and the best way to do that is to show a sincere concern for human rights and to pursue good policies in that area.

It just appears that China is creating a negative image for itself and one that is likely impact China's future foreign successes. This image is driven by the deliberate yet senseless negative policies of the Chinese government. I realize China has always been a bit different in its political philosophies but it's about time it took a step back and evaluated the impression it is giving in its policy decisions.

- blenCOWe

Cold War Memories

2008-07-24T01:27:00.000-03:00

I realize I wasn't really around for the Cold War, I was born in the mid 80's so technically I was alive for the last couple years but I was a toddler so that doesn't really count. That said, I have become a big fan of studying Cold War history and politics and I am beginning to see some things in the news that lead me to think that the United States and Russia are tangled in a Cold War-styled struggle right now in international relations.

There are the little disputes between the two powers over topics like certain independence movements (Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc.), arctic sovereignty and UN Security Council sanctions for Zimbabwe. These are not really devastating to US-Russian diplomacy, but it still adds to the tension between the two.

Then last week Russia announced the possible deployment of some of its strategic bombers in Cuba. This re-surfaced memories of the crisis surrounding Russia's placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Cuba is notoriously anti-American and it doesn't matter that Fidel Castro has retired because the person now in charge is his brother Raul. These bombers would easily be able to reach targets in the United States (Florida is 90 miles away) and are intended to be a Russian response to the United State's move to introduce a missile shield in central Europe.

The missile shield is intended to be a defense against terrorism and rogue states not as a move against the Russia Federation. The missiles would be located in NATO member states and as of the last time that I checked Russia and NATO are not at war with each other. Like the missiles did 46 years ago, the strategic bombers and their placement in an opponent's backyard poses a credible threat to the United States security. If a situation of war was to arise, the bombers create a risk of attack that the homeland of the United States is unused to (one of the reasons 9/11 was so profound in its impact on US security).

Russia's move to re-introduce a Russian threat to US homeland security is an intentional threat to the US. Following the 1962 crisis, President Kennedy pledged that the United States would never invade Cuba. This means that Cuba has no need to defend itself against the US and thus would not need the added arsenal. In addition, in the months since the retirement of Fidel Castro, US tension towards Cuba has softened a bit, thus making the escalation poorly timed.

Adding more fuel to the fire, today it was reported that Russia will be selling $2 billion worth of arms to Venezuela at the request of, US opponent and president,Hugo Chavez. The deal includes the sale of submarines and the necessary equipment for missile defense systems. This is the latest of deals that Chavez and Russia have had, which have already totaled $4 billion. This presents a possible threat to the US because Hugo Chavez is quite possibly the biggest and loudest opponent of George W. Bush and the United States of America that currently exists.

These latest moves are of strategic concern because it would appear that Russia is building alliances with those states that can be classified as the enemies of the United States. Russia is uniting together a new sphere of influence targeted against the United States. This time, however, it is not communism that binds its members but their opposition to the United States of America. This reality is potentially more dangerous than the previous one because the target is not just the economic system or infrastructure but the citizens and culture of the United States. Dangerous means costly and the price that would be paid would be the lives of innocent American civilians.

The chance for a new conflict, especially one in the western hemisphere, is troubling but the worst part about it is the escalation factor that would be involved. If something were to happen, the alliances and partnerships that exist in this hemisphere would likely bring the entire hemisphere to war. Add in NATO and Russia and this regional conflict now spreads out across the world. Welcome to World War 3!

This all stinks like the many little proxy disputes the littered the Cold War era. As a citizen of a western hemisphere nation, this growing situation and the chance for escalation worries me. The world need not return to the shadow of a war between great powers. Small scale conflicts are giving everyone enough trouble as is, in this case bigger is not better.

- blenCOWe

A Final Push for Peace?

2008-07-20T01:03:00.000-03:00

I fully appreciate the gravity of the United States sending William Burns to the nuclear talks with Iran but it seems to me that a lot of the recent discussion on the subject might be a little over-ambitious.

In the waning months of the his final term in the presidency, George W. Bush is attempting to create visions of peace to include in his legacy. He has pushed for a peace agreement between Syria and Israel and has ended 30 years of US unwillingness to work with the Iranians towards an amicable agreement.

These endeavours are admirable but unfortunately both of these actions will probably take longer than the remaining months that he has in office. To begin involvement in these situations knowing full well that they will last beyond his term is both ignorant and unrealistic. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, is under no obligation to continue whatever works he starts. Mr. Bush SHOULD know this and his foreign counterparts do too so what is Bush going to offer these people? The foreign leaders that Bush is trying to work with have no incentive to deal with Bush in earnest because they know that in five months they will be dealing with someone else. This is especially troublesome because of the distance the candidates are attempting to place between themselves and Bush's practices and record. The chance for continuity is slim and considering the volatile and rapidly shifting nature of international politics, the effort that Bush is putting in now is unlikely to produce lasting results.

For example, recent remarks have indicated that, in the Iran case, if the multilateral talks break down, the Iranians can expect conflict from the United States. How is Iran supposed to react to these comments? And how credible a threat can it be from the United States if the threat of conflict only lasts five months? This situation has the same effect as trying to place a withdrawal date in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a foreseeable end in sight, opponents need only bide their time so that at the right time they can disrupt the ongoing process.

Rather than attempting to forge deals himself, Bush could work with Congress and the Senate to create policy that can continue past these next presidential elections. This would be a much more effective use of his time and the taxpayers' money.

In the end, Bush has set high expectations for his final months in office and possibly might have set the bar a bit too high. It is beginning to look more and more like a last ditch effort to leave some remnants of peace in his lasting legacy.

- blenCOWe

In-and-Out Bitterness

2008-07-16T22:39:00.000-03:00

I'm beginning to think that the resulting furor from the opposition over the supposed in-and-out scandal is getting out of hand.

Realistically, what have the Conservatives really done? They found a way to get as much out of their election financing as they could. It wasn't something completely new, they just used it more than it had been in the past. There was no conscious attempt to break election law; the Tories acted within the exact wording of the law.

So why the furor?

This is just another example of the Liberal Party's greater focus on trying to distract Canadians with delusions of scandal and corruption rather than positive policy discussion... kind of like the last government... a Liberal government!

The Liberals are just sore that the Conservatives have shown themselves to be able to play the "politics" game better than they do. This is quite a blow for the "natural governing party!

Before the witch hunt torches are further lit, let's just think about what the responsible and constructive solution to this problem might be. If this type of financial practice is no longer desirable then why not just reform electoral law to say as much. Address the framework that has allowed this so that it doesn't happen again. This will do much more to prevent future scandal than the Liberals current smear campaign in the media.

You know, the funny thing about witch hunts: they were usually fed by propaganda and misinformation and its not like they stopped witchcraft.

- blenCOWe

Big Step for Kosovo

2008-07-15T21:08:00.001-03:00

Kosovo's succession gained another supporter today when the International Monetary Fund recognized its separation from Serbia and will now go through the membership application process.

The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.

Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.

Money speaks again!

- blenCOWe

Bad Tactics

2008-07-15T18:09:00.000-03:00

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has come out and proposed recently that the tactics that the United States has employed in Iraq should be applied to battle the insurgency in Afghanistan. These tactics would include increasing the number of deployments of US forces in Afghanistan.

In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."

Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.

Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.

"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "

If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.

If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.

Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.

- blenCOWe

Whose Victory is it?

2008-07-13T18:07:00.000-03:00

A victory over racism? Not quite!

The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."

This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.

What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,

"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."

This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.

And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,

"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."

That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.

Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.

In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.

This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.

- blenCOWe

This is Getting Old!

2008-07-12T02:33:00.000-03:00

I don't even know why the United Nations even bothers sustaining the Security Council anymore. It continues to show that it is a toothless relic of an idealist era. The presence of the five veto votes makes it almost impossible for the Security Council to act when and where it is needed the most.

First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.

Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.

For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.

I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.

Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.

That is some foreign policy!

- blenCOWe

Liberal Math

2008-07-09T17:10:00.000-03:00

The mathematics of Liberal politics:

$3.5 million libel law suit from Stephen Harper + $8.5 million lawsuit for damages over "greenshift" + poor fundraising = empty election coffers.

I guess we won't be seeing that election anytime soon!

- blenCOWe

Further Proof

2008-07-09T02:12:00.000-03:00

I have found further proof that money dominates the politics of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Yesterday, I posted about how the Liberal Party is in dire need of money and that filling the party coffers is one of their major goals for the summer. In doing so, I made reference to how their ability to force the rumoured fall election will be dependent on how much and how quickly they are able to fundraise.

In the period between now and the next session of parliament, four by-elections are supposed to take place. The seats to be filled are in the Guelph, Don Valley West, Saint Lambert and Westmount ridings. It had originally been planned that the elections to fill these seats would be held simultaneously in the first week of September. This approach makes sense to me as it would make it easier on Elections Canada and would allow the parties to coordinate with, and help, the campaigns easier and just seems logical.

Unfortunately, though, this plan doesn't work for the Liberal Party. The current party line is that the current member for the Don Valley riding, John Godfrey (who is resigning for a teaching position) is not set to resign until August 1, and that date was chosen by him. According to election law, this would not provide enough campaign time to conduct the vote in the first week of September.

The funny thing about this is that Mr. Godfrey could leave his position earlier. Its not like parliament is in session or that he is conducting summer meetings with his constituents. There is absolutely no need for him to stay until August when he is currently void of any representative duties.

So why would he continue to hold his seat later than necessary, probably fully aware of the effect in doing so?

Maybe because the Liberal Party is not ready for the by-elections, let alone a regular general election. It is becoming more and more clear that the Liberal Party is doing all they can to avoid having to face the public in an election. They have upheld a government that they are fiercely critical of, they are spending more time and energy promoting scandal concers rather than fruitful policy discussion and now they are dragging ass on filling empty seats in the House.

By the first week of September Dion should have had enough time to promote his Carbon Tax plan to the people of Canada. Having an extra two weeks would not have that much of an influence on convincing the electorate. So why wait then? It must be the money! It's always the money!

The Liberals are showing their continued inability/unreadiness to contest an election. They are downright fearful of it (Remember when Dion said that they party was ready to contest an election? That was a while ago! LOL). Assuming that its not that they don't believe in their Carbon Tax platform, it remains that their biggest concern is ... their lack of money.

So why do they not have any money? Because they generated fewer financial supporters and generated less money for the party. Maybe that means the message they are spreading and the actions they are taking are not that well liked by the citizens of Canada.

Uh oh, there goes the "green shift" ... and the election (if it ever comes)!

- blenCOWe

Money doesn't fix everything!

2008-07-07T21:13:00.000-03:00

As the country's political leaders descended on Calgary for the Stampede, public relations and fundraising were never far out of thought. Now, building up financial support is always a forethought for political parties, whether or not an election looms. But for the Liberal party, its ability to plump up its coffers will be influential in determining when the next election will occur.

This summer is being touted as the run-up to a fall election that will determine the fate of Stephane Dion as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. With this in mind, he is devoting these summer months to promoting his Carbon Tax plan and filling those campaign coffers.

How will Dion and the Liberals accomplish their fundraising aims? The Victory Fund of course!

Supporters may contribute to the Liberal Party, either directly to the party or their local riding association, in monthly increments ranging from $5 to $91.66.

But why should people take part in this? Well, according to Dion, "giving to your party is the best way to give to your country." HA!

To me this would imply that contributors would receive something out of their monetary donation.

That brings me to another colourful tidbit by Dion, "The Liberal Party of Canada needs money, but has a lot of courage and determination."

That must be the courage and determination to sit on their hands when it comes to representing their constituents. To not show up and to not take a stand based on your stated beliefs. Or maybe its the courage and determination to ask for money from the people whom you are supposed to represent, yet don't.

Imagine the nerve of the Liberal Party to place the onus for electoral victory onto the shoulders of their financial supporters. As if the record of the party and its representative in the House have nothing to do with electoral victory. That it won't matter that the Liberals have sat in the House with their tails between their legs as long as Joe or Jane Taxpayer send them monthly donations.

But wait, does this mean that money means everything? That it is true that money is what actually drives politics?

This is the message that the Liberals are spreading with their summer campaign. Money will lessen global warming and money will ensure electoral victory.

In the 2006 election, the Conservatives were clearly the party most ready to govern. Not much has changed since. Good governance does not come from money. It comes from good policy and strong leadership, neither of which the Liberals have.

- blenCOWe

Canada position on Human Rights: Principles vs. Interests

2008-07-07T02:32:00.000-03:00

Reading a recent article on Canada's participation in the Human Rights Council, some words by current Prime Minister Stephen Harper cause me to worry a bit.

The phrase that has stirred me concerns Canada's support of Israel of the HR Council. Mr. Harper stated that "he will not be 'bullied' into changing his position, 'whatever the diplomatic or political cost.' "

Now don't go classifying me as an anti-Semite or anything like that. I am no such thing; I believe in Israel's right to existence and outside that I generally prefer to avoid discussions on the topic because of the stubborn positions that opponents tend to take. What really worries me about this comment is the last section that states "whatever the diplomatic or political cost."

As a citizen of this great country and an international politics enthusiast, I would hope that the positions and actions of our government would take into account the inherent costs of each. Even the most indoctrinated idealist, I believe, would be worried by this stance.

I think back to my days in POLS 1000 with Dr. Michael Tucker and his teachings on Hans J. Morganthau. More specifically, the idea that politics consists of calculations of interests and the power and ability to serve these interests. Basically, Morgenthau believed that states should act in their best interests based on their abilities or power to accomplish them. This thinking exists in the realm of Realist IR theory but it is my hope that those who follow other theories of international relations pay at least some respect to its concepts.

The article that brought that brought this quote to my attention reported the findings of the Senate Committee on Human Rights. According to them, Canada's voting record has increasingly marginalized Canada amongst other nations on the Council and, of late, has isolated Canada.

If this assessment is a fair and accurate one then Canada's ability to accomplish things in the international system is threatened and diminished. In following this path, states are more likely to side against them in other subjects based on our track record in the Human Rights Council. To think that one thing will not affect others is absurd and naive.

There is nothing wrong with taking a stand on issues based on principles but only if that stand is smart for our nation. This is not an endorsement for voting against Israel or with a certain voting bloc, but rather that the costs of each decision are weighed with each decision and the most beneficial direction is taken.

Principles are important, but not at the sacrifice of our nation's abilities to act in its best interests.

- blenCOWe

G-8 Reform: What should Canada do?

2008-07-05T19:13:00.000-03:00

In the next couple days, the G-8 will meet in Japan to discuss the major issues of the world, including food and oil prices. One topic that will receive great discussion will also be the future existence of this select club of "economic powers."

In an era where international institutions increasingly face legitimacy and efficacy issues, the G-8 reflects the current problems facing the international system. Like many of the other institutions still around, the G-8 reflects the powerful nations of a previous lifetime. The current membership does not include emerging economic powers like China and India. Another problem it faces is that due to the systemic problems facing other international institutions, the G-8 is increasingly being turned to to deal with issues beyond its original design.

Facing problems like these, it is natural to begin to question the continued viability of such an organization. One potential avenue would be to completely disband the group in future hopes of a more legitimate and effective organization filling the vacuum left behind.

This avenue is an understandable reaction to the problems facing international institutions and likely to please the organization's most stringent opponents. However, it may not be the most constructive approach to the organization's future.

Another possible avenue would be to expand the group's membership to be more inclusive and representative of the current international economy. To include the Group of Five, a smaller group of emerging economic powers including China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, would make the organization more reflective of current realities. However, this path would not change the fact that the organization is charged with issues it was not created for.

But what would be in the best interests for Canada?

Canada's current membership affords it membership in a close-knit fraternity of current and former powers and an increased ability to "punch above its weight." If the G-8 were to be disbanded it would loose much of the stature it has from its membership. Although, if the G-8 were to be increased in size, Canada's influence would likely diminish because there would be more voices to be heard.

Obviously , it is not in Canada's best interests to diminish its ability to have its voice heard in world affairs. However, there are benefits for Canada in increasing the size of the G-8, whereas, disbanding the G-8 would not have benefits for Canada.

One benefit for Canada would be that it could cement itself as a champion for developing nations. Rather than continue to passively participate in the divide between North and South countries, Canada could become a leader in the campaign to include the Group of 5 nations. Doing so would create favourable relations with these emerging economies; ties that could become increasingly fruitful for Canada.

Secondly, this could further open up new markets to the Canadian economy. Canada has attempted, of late, to create better relations between China and itself. The actions of current Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Emerson, have been successful in this endeavour and campaigning to include China into the economic elite would further this cause. Reasonably, similar growth into expanding markets could be expected from future allies, like China's compatriots, Mexico, India, South Africa and Brazil.

It seems unlikely that the G-8 can exist as currently organized and of the two proposed reforms, it would be better in the long run for Canada to be a member of a larger economic body. For it makes obvious sense that some positives is better than no positives. Both possess negatives but in the end, it would be better for Canada to create more allies and open up more markets for itself.

- blenCOWe