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
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Thursday, September 3, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
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
"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
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
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
If there's and inspiration deficit in our politics, blame it on the young
- blenCOWe
Friday, June 26, 2009
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
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
Monday, June 1, 2009
Poll Shows People Favour Aid For Development Not Trade
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
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
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Canadian MPs Unhappy with African Diplomats
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
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
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
CIDA Minister Announces Strategic Vision for Foreign Aid
Today Bev Oda, Minister of CIDA, announced what she deemed to be Canada's new strategy for making its foreign aid more effective. This announcement sought to further clarify how Canada will be spending its foreign aid budget after announcing in February that aid would be shifted in focus from having small amounts of aid going to many countries to focusing 80% of its aid to just 20 countries whose needs were greatest and circumstances best fit into Canada's foreign policy priorities.
Here is a link to Minister Oda's speech about the changes at the University of Toronto
A few key points to note:
- Apparently Canada has met its G-8 committment to double its amount of aid to Africa. This sounds like a great step forward in Canadian aid but considering Canada has decreased the number of recipients as well as decided to focus its priorities in the America's so I am unsure whether this will be a long-term accomplishment.
- Apparently Canada is on track to doubling its amount of international assistance to $5 billion per year by 2010-11. This only represents a move from 0.28% of GNI to approximately 0.30%. This is still a far cry from the projected goal by the international community of 0.7%. Canada is still a long way away from reaching this goal.
- The target of untying all Canadian foreign aid is admirable and is definitely a step to making the aid budget go farther. The one major problem I see with this is that in doing so there is less incentive for the the private sector to become involved in public-private endeavours and such which can be especially effective ways to bring manpower and expertise into the field.
In the end, it is likely that only time will tell as to the effect of these strategic initiatives. Factors like how long the Conservative government stays in power and what shape the rest of the global economic crisis will take will play major roles in any success that Canada sees in its international development assistance.
On the edge of your seat yet? haha
- blenCOWe
Here is a link to Minister Oda's speech about the changes at the University of Toronto
A few key points to note:
- Apparently Canada has met its G-8 committment to double its amount of aid to Africa. This sounds like a great step forward in Canadian aid but considering Canada has decreased the number of recipients as well as decided to focus its priorities in the America's so I am unsure whether this will be a long-term accomplishment.
- Apparently Canada is on track to doubling its amount of international assistance to $5 billion per year by 2010-11. This only represents a move from 0.28% of GNI to approximately 0.30%. This is still a far cry from the projected goal by the international community of 0.7%. Canada is still a long way away from reaching this goal.
- The target of untying all Canadian foreign aid is admirable and is definitely a step to making the aid budget go farther. The one major problem I see with this is that in doing so there is less incentive for the the private sector to become involved in public-private endeavours and such which can be especially effective ways to bring manpower and expertise into the field.
In the end, it is likely that only time will tell as to the effect of these strategic initiatives. Factors like how long the Conservative government stays in power and what shape the rest of the global economic crisis will take will play major roles in any success that Canada sees in its international development assistance.
On the edge of your seat yet? haha
- blenCOWe
Monday, May 18, 2009
Is More or Less Canada a Good Thing?
Jim Creskey has an article in the Embassy magazine right now that expounds the negative aspects of Canada's recent foreign policies and calls for "Less Canada in the World." He brings up many good points against Canada's recent policies like our recent move to focus its aid away from the continent that needs it most (Africa), the poor track record of late in repatriating Canadians being held abroad and our lack of presence in recent discussions on disarmament.
However, the author's choice to label Canada's strong stance against Russia's recent foreign policies, especially military activities in the Arctic, as a "trumped up war of words" might lead one to believe that he is not viewing these activities as a part of a larger trend of Russian militarization across the world. To use Cold War era language, Russia appears to be defending and extending its "sphere of influence" around the world. It is defending its borders through recent actions against NATO expansion to states that sit along its borders like Georgia and other former Warsaw Pact states. In addition to this, Russia is stepping up Cold War reminiscent military activities including flight exercises over the Arctic that approach Canadian and Alaskan (U.S.) airspace like the one that curiously coincided with Obama's visit to Ottawa. Russia is complimenting these defence activities with forays into the Western Hemisphere like its growing ties (including arms deals) with Venezuala and of course Cuba. Both of which have strained, if not adversarial, ties with the major power in the hemisphere and our biggest ally: the United States.
If each state focused on its individual black marks then nobody would ever act internationally. Creskey suggests that Canada involve itself "in something the Jesuits call the twice-daily examination of conscience" to evaluate its foreign policies and he concludes that if Canada did a bit more of this then there would be less encouragement for Canada to act abroad. The problem with this is that this would lead to a "retreatist" agenda where Canada would have a much diminished presence in the world to the detriment of international trade (which is necessary for Canada's survival), public image, and security. The point of foreign policy evaluation is not to retreat from the world but to identify areas for improvment. Canada cannot become better by running and hiding. Despite the problems that Canada does have, it is still a beacon of good in the world and can and should be depended upon to help make this world a better place.
Don't be so quick to apologize for our mistakes without also acknowledging our accomplishments!
- blenCOWe
However, the author's choice to label Canada's strong stance against Russia's recent foreign policies, especially military activities in the Arctic, as a "trumped up war of words" might lead one to believe that he is not viewing these activities as a part of a larger trend of Russian militarization across the world. To use Cold War era language, Russia appears to be defending and extending its "sphere of influence" around the world. It is defending its borders through recent actions against NATO expansion to states that sit along its borders like Georgia and other former Warsaw Pact states. In addition to this, Russia is stepping up Cold War reminiscent military activities including flight exercises over the Arctic that approach Canadian and Alaskan (U.S.) airspace like the one that curiously coincided with Obama's visit to Ottawa. Russia is complimenting these defence activities with forays into the Western Hemisphere like its growing ties (including arms deals) with Venezuala and of course Cuba. Both of which have strained, if not adversarial, ties with the major power in the hemisphere and our biggest ally: the United States.
If each state focused on its individual black marks then nobody would ever act internationally. Creskey suggests that Canada involve itself "in something the Jesuits call the twice-daily examination of conscience" to evaluate its foreign policies and he concludes that if Canada did a bit more of this then there would be less encouragement for Canada to act abroad. The problem with this is that this would lead to a "retreatist" agenda where Canada would have a much diminished presence in the world to the detriment of international trade (which is necessary for Canada's survival), public image, and security. The point of foreign policy evaluation is not to retreat from the world but to identify areas for improvment. Canada cannot become better by running and hiding. Despite the problems that Canada does have, it is still a beacon of good in the world and can and should be depended upon to help make this world a better place.
Don't be so quick to apologize for our mistakes without also acknowledging our accomplishments!
- blenCOWe
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Some Canadian Diplomacy That Actually Makes Sense
For a while now, there has been a lot of talk about how under the Harper government Canada's strength and image in international relations have been woefully tarnished. Whether it has been the issues regarding repatriating Canadians being held abroad, like Omar Khadr, the inaction of the Canadian government in helping to address some of the many crises currently affecting international peace, or the way that Afghanistan has been dominating much of our foreign policy focus in the last 7 years, Canada's international presence has been taking hits left and right.
A while back I posted about my disgust at reports that the Harper government would not challenge for a seat in the upcoming UN Security Council elections for fear of losing that battle. A fear made realistic by many of the blunders and ill-conceived stances seen in recent years. Canada has done very well for itself when on the council in recent years and to not run for election because it would have been difficult or that there was the chance that we could lose would have been the ultimate sign of weakness and a step back from our storied internationalism. Fortunately, though, this has been a decision since reversed. Foreign policy is about using the resources one has to get what one wants. If your have the resources it does not make sense to not use them for the things you want.
My reason for bringing this up is that I am happy to see Harper's government finally taking a stand and pursuing its own foreign policy agenda and with force. Doug Saunders has an article in the Globe and Mail today that details the strong diplomatic push that Canada is making in Europe to show Europeans that the Arctic is Canadian territory. Canadian Embassies and diplomats are pushing Canadian images and Arctic policy wherever they can: sponsoring art exhibits, cultural displays and visiting officials like minister Lawrence Cannon and Governor General Michaelle Jean. Even better is the fact that this diplomatic push is avoiding the Cold War rhetoric of Arctic security and focusing on Canada's continued presence and cultural heritage in the Arctic. Its a softer type of diplomacy that is still being delivered with force. A diplomacy that will work for Canada (especially in Europe) and that Canadians can be proud of. Finally, the Harper government is "standing up for Canada" in a way that makes sense for Canada.
- blenCOWe
A while back I posted about my disgust at reports that the Harper government would not challenge for a seat in the upcoming UN Security Council elections for fear of losing that battle. A fear made realistic by many of the blunders and ill-conceived stances seen in recent years. Canada has done very well for itself when on the council in recent years and to not run for election because it would have been difficult or that there was the chance that we could lose would have been the ultimate sign of weakness and a step back from our storied internationalism. Fortunately, though, this has been a decision since reversed. Foreign policy is about using the resources one has to get what one wants. If your have the resources it does not make sense to not use them for the things you want.
My reason for bringing this up is that I am happy to see Harper's government finally taking a stand and pursuing its own foreign policy agenda and with force. Doug Saunders has an article in the Globe and Mail today that details the strong diplomatic push that Canada is making in Europe to show Europeans that the Arctic is Canadian territory. Canadian Embassies and diplomats are pushing Canadian images and Arctic policy wherever they can: sponsoring art exhibits, cultural displays and visiting officials like minister Lawrence Cannon and Governor General Michaelle Jean. Even better is the fact that this diplomatic push is avoiding the Cold War rhetoric of Arctic security and focusing on Canada's continued presence and cultural heritage in the Arctic. Its a softer type of diplomacy that is still being delivered with force. A diplomacy that will work for Canada (especially in Europe) and that Canadians can be proud of. Finally, the Harper government is "standing up for Canada" in a way that makes sense for Canada.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thoughts Concerning the Recent Debate on Multicultural and Immigration Policy
Clifford Orwin recently wrote an article in the Globe and Mail about Jason Kenney's concepts of immigration and multiculturalism in Canada that provoked a response from one of the bloggers at Canada's World.
I believe that both sides make excellent points but I think that there is an aspect of the discussion that has been largely ignored. When discussing multiculturalism it is important to understand that multiculturalism (and coincidentally Canadian culture) is almost maddeningly vague. To say that something is multicultural is merely to say that it its composed of the aspects of more than one or two cultures. It is not set in stone. So to argue about whether Canada's multicultural heritage is being respected in our current immigration and cultural policies is almost a moot point. Canada's multicultural heritage is that for the large part ( and I know some will definitely disagree with this) Canada has been accepting of the cultures of the people that move to our country. All that we can realistically ask of the people that want to immigrate to Canada is that they are willing to do the same. To try to regulate the kind of cultural representation that exists in our country would very much be like social engineering and the type of hysteria mentioned in these articles.
Canada is in not present risk of being dominated by any one or even two cultures to the point that our multicultural identity is at risk. Our multicultural and immigration policies should be focused on making sure that there are no structural barriers to the entry of immigrants to Canada, not about making sure that there are specific levels of representation. Don't worry so much about what the population statistics say but whether or not certain groups are being unfairly treated in their pursuit of Canadian residency. We don't have proportional electoral policies so why should we be expected to have proportional representation in our multicultural and immigration policies.
Furthermore, Orwin points out and agrees with Kenney's comments about how immigrants should be accepting of Canadian values including things like the supremacy of civil law and gender equality. Both Kenney and Orwin seem to be missing the point that both of those are things protected by law in Canada. Potential immigrants should obviously be willing to accept and follow Canada's laws if they are to move here, this is not too much to ask. Focus less on the fact that these are understood to be Canadian values but rather on their presence as law. To ask that immigrants respect our law is not discriminatory but necessary to the protection of peace and security in Canada.
In the end, the focus should be on maintaining Canada's heritage of accepting immigrants willing to abide by our laws. Canada's laws outlaw the discrimination of people based on cultural aspects (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), all other discussion of values will be based on an individual's perceptions which seem to always been discriminatory in some way or another. Do not over-think or -analyze topics like this more than necessary. Canada's heritage is built as a liberal democracy is built on the rule of law and Canada's laws criminalize discrimination. Accepting this should be more than enough to prevent discrimination from finding a place in our immigration laws.
- blenCOWe
I believe that both sides make excellent points but I think that there is an aspect of the discussion that has been largely ignored. When discussing multiculturalism it is important to understand that multiculturalism (and coincidentally Canadian culture) is almost maddeningly vague. To say that something is multicultural is merely to say that it its composed of the aspects of more than one or two cultures. It is not set in stone. So to argue about whether Canada's multicultural heritage is being respected in our current immigration and cultural policies is almost a moot point. Canada's multicultural heritage is that for the large part ( and I know some will definitely disagree with this) Canada has been accepting of the cultures of the people that move to our country. All that we can realistically ask of the people that want to immigrate to Canada is that they are willing to do the same. To try to regulate the kind of cultural representation that exists in our country would very much be like social engineering and the type of hysteria mentioned in these articles.
Canada is in not present risk of being dominated by any one or even two cultures to the point that our multicultural identity is at risk. Our multicultural and immigration policies should be focused on making sure that there are no structural barriers to the entry of immigrants to Canada, not about making sure that there are specific levels of representation. Don't worry so much about what the population statistics say but whether or not certain groups are being unfairly treated in their pursuit of Canadian residency. We don't have proportional electoral policies so why should we be expected to have proportional representation in our multicultural and immigration policies.
Furthermore, Orwin points out and agrees with Kenney's comments about how immigrants should be accepting of Canadian values including things like the supremacy of civil law and gender equality. Both Kenney and Orwin seem to be missing the point that both of those are things protected by law in Canada. Potential immigrants should obviously be willing to accept and follow Canada's laws if they are to move here, this is not too much to ask. Focus less on the fact that these are understood to be Canadian values but rather on their presence as law. To ask that immigrants respect our law is not discriminatory but necessary to the protection of peace and security in Canada.
In the end, the focus should be on maintaining Canada's heritage of accepting immigrants willing to abide by our laws. Canada's laws outlaw the discrimination of people based on cultural aspects (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), all other discussion of values will be based on an individual's perceptions which seem to always been discriminatory in some way or another. Do not over-think or -analyze topics like this more than necessary. Canada's heritage is built as a liberal democracy is built on the rule of law and Canada's laws criminalize discrimination. Accepting this should be more than enough to prevent discrimination from finding a place in our immigration laws.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Russia Maybe Misfires
In expelling two Canadian diplomats working with the NATO office in Moscow, Russia may have misfired in expressing its anger over the ongoing military exercises taking place in neighbouring Georgia.
Russia has informed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia, Ralph Lysyshyn, that it would be expelling Isabelle Francois, Director of NATO information, and her deputy. It seems, though, that Russia could have made a wiser, more targeted decision to show its displeasure. It is no real secret that the United States is a major ally of Georgia and is pretty much the central cog in the NATO machine. If Russia wanted to make a truely strong statement about what it deems to be "muscle flexing" then it should have flexed its muscles and expelled an American diplomat, or someone from one of the other world powers.
On the other hand, Canada has become more vocal, recently, on Russia's activities. By choosing to expel Canadian diplomats it could be Russia's version of "killing two birds with one stone." The problem with this being Russia's intent would be that it would be an unclear message to Canada, especially after this much time. Sending mixed messages is not the way to conduct international diplomacy and one would hope that Russia would understand that.
The result, then, is essentially that in the best case scenario Russia has misfired in directing its displeasure and the worst case being that it is sending mixed messages concerning Canada.
- blenCOWe
Russia has informed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia, Ralph Lysyshyn, that it would be expelling Isabelle Francois, Director of NATO information, and her deputy. It seems, though, that Russia could have made a wiser, more targeted decision to show its displeasure. It is no real secret that the United States is a major ally of Georgia and is pretty much the central cog in the NATO machine. If Russia wanted to make a truely strong statement about what it deems to be "muscle flexing" then it should have flexed its muscles and expelled an American diplomat, or someone from one of the other world powers.
On the other hand, Canada has become more vocal, recently, on Russia's activities. By choosing to expel Canadian diplomats it could be Russia's version of "killing two birds with one stone." The problem with this being Russia's intent would be that it would be an unclear message to Canada, especially after this much time. Sending mixed messages is not the way to conduct international diplomacy and one would hope that Russia would understand that.
The result, then, is essentially that in the best case scenario Russia has misfired in directing its displeasure and the worst case being that it is sending mixed messages concerning Canada.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, May 2, 2009
More Than Just Words
This week in the Canadian foreign affairs periodical Embassy, Jeff Davis writes that the Stephen Harper government is building up the perception of a Russian threat for political gains at home. Davis makes reference to a number of different arguments including the the Conservatives' history of strong opposition to communism and the USSR, and opposition claims that the Conservatives are trying to villify the Russians for their recent military endeavours. What the author fails to realize are the current realities in Canada-Russia relations.
First of all, the reality is that Canada does not benefit from any weakening of its relations with the resurgent Russia. One of the major reasons that Russia's international power is growing again is its possession of vast supplies of energy resources. Now while Canada itself is not exactly short in its supply of energy, it does not benefit from making an enemy that could be useful in the future if ever Canada should need to gain access to energy reserves. Oh and the remarks about Conservatives being strict opponents of communism should be irrelevant considering that Russia is now one of the major capitalist economies in the world. With the global economy suffering, Canada cannot afford to isolate itself from a major economic power.
Furthermore, in terms of the upcoming United Nations Security Council elections, it would not be advisable for Canada to provoke a permanent, veto-wielding member. Academics and foreign affairs observers (including the Official Opposition) have routinely noted that Canada's place in the world has suffered from the actions and in-actions of the Harper government, and as such, Canada's path to re-election will be a difficult one. Given this, it would not make sense for the Canadian government to be provoking a giant power that could stand in the way of its re-election.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, Davis fails to acknowledge the bigger picture in his assessment of Canada's recent dialogue regarding a resurgent Russia. Examining the individual events by themselves highlights the politics of the situation; but the politics has not been the driving factor behind Canada's stance on Russia. The real driving force is the threat to the international order and security by the actions of the resurgent power. Many of Russia's recent actions have shown that Russia's unchecked growth may have a destabilizing effect on international politics. The recent war in Georgia, Russia's push for control of the Arctic, the revitalization of a Russian military presence in the Arctic in addition to the growing Russian presence in the western hemisphere (most notably in Latin and South American) shows that Russia is no longer content with its post-Cold War status. Russia appears to be determined to end the unipolar balance of power that is based on American power.
Then, of course, there is the NATO factor to consider. Russia's strong opposition to the expansion of NATO into parts of eastern Europe (including the proposed missile shield) must be accounted for by Canada, who is a founding member of the NATO alliance.
The reality of the situation that Davis and other observers should realize is that the world is heading towards another Cold War. This time, however, the battle will not be over ideological differences like the last one but over power and security. A resurgent Russia is a threat the current status quo (like all resurgent powers are) and that is what is driving this new confrontation.
This means that Mr. Davis and his fellow thinkers should take good note of the current realities of international peace and security when examining Canada's recent relations with Russia. There is no benefit from poor relations with Russia and this is why claims that the Harper government is pushing this agenda for their own benefit are so far off the mark. Political gain is not the driving force, peace and security is and any political points scored are only secondary to the greater issue.
- blenCOWe
First of all, the reality is that Canada does not benefit from any weakening of its relations with the resurgent Russia. One of the major reasons that Russia's international power is growing again is its possession of vast supplies of energy resources. Now while Canada itself is not exactly short in its supply of energy, it does not benefit from making an enemy that could be useful in the future if ever Canada should need to gain access to energy reserves. Oh and the remarks about Conservatives being strict opponents of communism should be irrelevant considering that Russia is now one of the major capitalist economies in the world. With the global economy suffering, Canada cannot afford to isolate itself from a major economic power.
Furthermore, in terms of the upcoming United Nations Security Council elections, it would not be advisable for Canada to provoke a permanent, veto-wielding member. Academics and foreign affairs observers (including the Official Opposition) have routinely noted that Canada's place in the world has suffered from the actions and in-actions of the Harper government, and as such, Canada's path to re-election will be a difficult one. Given this, it would not make sense for the Canadian government to be provoking a giant power that could stand in the way of its re-election.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, Davis fails to acknowledge the bigger picture in his assessment of Canada's recent dialogue regarding a resurgent Russia. Examining the individual events by themselves highlights the politics of the situation; but the politics has not been the driving factor behind Canada's stance on Russia. The real driving force is the threat to the international order and security by the actions of the resurgent power. Many of Russia's recent actions have shown that Russia's unchecked growth may have a destabilizing effect on international politics. The recent war in Georgia, Russia's push for control of the Arctic, the revitalization of a Russian military presence in the Arctic in addition to the growing Russian presence in the western hemisphere (most notably in Latin and South American) shows that Russia is no longer content with its post-Cold War status. Russia appears to be determined to end the unipolar balance of power that is based on American power.
Then, of course, there is the NATO factor to consider. Russia's strong opposition to the expansion of NATO into parts of eastern Europe (including the proposed missile shield) must be accounted for by Canada, who is a founding member of the NATO alliance.
The reality of the situation that Davis and other observers should realize is that the world is heading towards another Cold War. This time, however, the battle will not be over ideological differences like the last one but over power and security. A resurgent Russia is a threat the current status quo (like all resurgent powers are) and that is what is driving this new confrontation.
This means that Mr. Davis and his fellow thinkers should take good note of the current realities of international peace and security when examining Canada's recent relations with Russia. There is no benefit from poor relations with Russia and this is why claims that the Harper government is pushing this agenda for their own benefit are so far off the mark. Political gain is not the driving force, peace and security is and any political points scored are only secondary to the greater issue.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Walt's Achievers in International Politics
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
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
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Someone at DND is Thinking!
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
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
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Go Canada!
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
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
Friday, December 12, 2008
Just A Thought...
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
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
Thursday, December 11, 2008
We Knew This Was Coming!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
