This is Getting Old!

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

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

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!

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

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?

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

141!!

Happy Birthday Canada

- blenCOWe