Lost in the Global Economy

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

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

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?

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?"

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?

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

Back in the Game

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

- blenCOWe

Speaking a Different Language Than Everyone Else

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

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

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

True Canadian-Style Foreign Policy

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

Sovereignty Revoked!

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

More Cuts Threaten Canada's Foreign Policy Priorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

My Spin on Drezner's IR Zombies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

I Guess It's Not Easy Being A Rising Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

Another Published Essay

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

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

Trust me, check it out!

- blenCOWe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- blenCOWe

My First Published Article

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

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

- blenCOWe

Great Article on Youth and Politics

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

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

- blenCOWe

Vacation Interrupted

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

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

- blenCOWe

Former Diplomats See Security Council Seat in Reach For Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- blenCOWe