Foreign Policy Platforms

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.

Election thoughts from Beausejour

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

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

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

The Electoral Blinders

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

Election Musings

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

In-and-Out Bitterness

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

Money doesn't fix everything!

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

Stand Up and Fight

The sham that was the Zimbabwean presidential "election" is over now and Robert Mugabe will be announced shortly as winning by a landslide. Mugabe will argue that the election is a fair representation of his support because the country's electoral commission refused to remove Morgan Tsvangirai's name from the ballot.

Now while it is obvious that this was not a free and fair election, I believe that there are better ways that this election could have been contested. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF thugs rounded up people and forced them to vote, Tsvangirai was hiding in the Dutch embassy. That doesn't really spark much belief in his commitment to his convictions.

I understand that Tsvangirai feared for his supporters and attempted to pull his name out of the election in order to protect them. His fears are understandable as both he and the members of his Movement for Democratic Change faced violence and detainment in the weeks leading up to the run-off vote. But this brings to mind to old axiom of "no risk, no reward." If he was truly committed to change then he would have continued to contest the election.

This brings to mind the ideas of Vaclav Havel who was a leader of the "Velvet Revolution" and the first president of the Czech Republic. He led a non-violent revolution against the Communist government in Czechoslovakia. He believed that people need to suffer for their beliefs. If Morgan Tsvangirai wanted to truly represent change and democracy for Zimbabwe then he should have continued to contest the election and Mugabe's governance by force. Realistically, with the worldwide attention that this election was receiving, Tsvangirai and his supporters would be less likely to suffer serious harm. They might get roughed up a little bit or detained but this would just add to the negative publicity that Mugabe's government was already receiving. Supporters of the MDC were not able to free themselves from the oppression of this election so why is it fair that Tsvangirai can run and hide while everyone else must suffer.

But this is all moot now that the election is over. So what is next for Zimbabwe?

I applaud Stephen Harper for coming out and denouncing the sham election, calling it an "ugly perversion of democracy" and for proposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. Not being short-sighted, I also applaud the other world leaders, including the UN Security Council, for denouncing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's actions.

But what to do? what to do?

I am in no means an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I tend to prefer Realist international theory and niche democracy. I feel that in following these directions, it is possible for a state's foreign policy to be efficient and beneficial for all parties concerned. But in terms of Zimbabwe, I believe some intervention is called for. Mugabe's government is maintaining its control through violence and oppression and this is something that peaceful democracies must vehemently oppose.

Human security should be the foremost concern and it appears that the only way to ensure this would be to intervene and return control of the country to the people. Like any other international action, there will be questions over the "legality" (if there is such a thing in international politics) of intervention. Jean Jacques Rousseau has written that,

"the uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone maintained him, force alone overthrows him."

I read this quote a couple days ago and my mind went instantly to thoughts of Mugabe and Zimbabwe. He has come out and said that he would die before succeeding control to Tsvangirai. This opens the door; it is clear that he does not believe in democracy and a fair electoral process. The only way to remove this oppression is to intervene.

But who? Who will answer the call to arms?