So the National Intelligence Council has released a report predicting what the global society will look like by 2025. Predictably, the report forsees that the United States' dominance will decline in response to the growth of competitors like Brazil, China, India and Russia.
Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.
However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".
This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.
Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Canada's Next Foreign Minister
Who will be Canada's next minister of foreign affairs?
That is one of the many questions that are running through the minds of Canadian political enthusiasts in the anticipation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet decisions. For those, like me, that closely follow foreign policy, this question is of great intrigue.
I believe David Emerson would have done an excellent job had he decided to run again but that is now moot. So who should Mr. Harper choose to guide Canada's foreign policies both home and abroad?
In this week's edition of the Embassy Magazine, there is a brief evaluation of those who might be considered for this position. It grades the candidates based on their credentials as well as lists the pros and cons of each person. I found this to be a great read and opened my eyes not only to the larger number of candidates than I had envisaged but also some names that I had not thought about.
Following the Maxime Bernier "scandal" this spring, I voiced my opinion on this blog that Secretary of State Jason Kenney was well deserving of a promotion to this important cabinet office. My opinion has not changed. He has shown himself to be a reliable junior minister who has also done well at gaining the support of Canada's ethnic minority populations. He was the Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian Identity in the last parliament and I, for one, think that these things have been lacking in Canada's recent foreign policies. This criticism has been echoed by many of the Conservative Party's critics. Mr. Kenney could bring his experience from this post to the Ministy of Foreign Affairs and re-unite many Canadians who have been dis-enfranchised by our recent foreign minsters and policies. Canada could return to the well-respected middle power leader that it has been in the past, and re-connect Canada to its heritage in international affairs.
In terms of the criticisms of Mr. Kenney, the overwhelming "black mark" has been his critical viewpoint of Chinese policies, specifically on human rights. China has been repeatedly targeted as a necessary focal point of Canada's future foreign policies. Canadian-Chinese relations may be strained by the promotion of a strong critic of China to such an important role, but then again, why should Canada essentially "put all its eggs in one basket?"
Also in this week's Embassy is an article that says that focusing on China would be detrimental to Canada's international successs. It argues the world community is evolving into a multipolar balance of power. China isn't the only power growing in the world. India, Brazil and, South Africa are just a few of the other power centres growing along with China. Furthermore, we are seeing the return of an old power, Russia, who has been actively trying to re-assert its pre-eminent place in world affairs. Canada would do well to incorporate a foreign policy that accounts for these multiple centres of power and not just China. China is an important state for Canada to deal with, but it is not the only game in town. This fact helps to offset the criticism of Jason Kenney and his remarks about China.
Wrapping up, there are a number of potential foreign ministers that could be shuffled from other A-list cabinet positions, but by promoting Mr. Kenney, PM Harper would be able to add a well-deserving and capable minister to this important role. He is well-suited for this post and, possibly more important, rather than merely shuffle his present ministers which would only maintain the cabinet's strength, Prime Minister Harper could add a strong, young minister to an important portfolio.
- blenCOWe
That is one of the many questions that are running through the minds of Canadian political enthusiasts in the anticipation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet decisions. For those, like me, that closely follow foreign policy, this question is of great intrigue.
I believe David Emerson would have done an excellent job had he decided to run again but that is now moot. So who should Mr. Harper choose to guide Canada's foreign policies both home and abroad?
In this week's edition of the Embassy Magazine, there is a brief evaluation of those who might be considered for this position. It grades the candidates based on their credentials as well as lists the pros and cons of each person. I found this to be a great read and opened my eyes not only to the larger number of candidates than I had envisaged but also some names that I had not thought about.
Following the Maxime Bernier "scandal" this spring, I voiced my opinion on this blog that Secretary of State Jason Kenney was well deserving of a promotion to this important cabinet office. My opinion has not changed. He has shown himself to be a reliable junior minister who has also done well at gaining the support of Canada's ethnic minority populations. He was the Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian Identity in the last parliament and I, for one, think that these things have been lacking in Canada's recent foreign policies. This criticism has been echoed by many of the Conservative Party's critics. Mr. Kenney could bring his experience from this post to the Ministy of Foreign Affairs and re-unite many Canadians who have been dis-enfranchised by our recent foreign minsters and policies. Canada could return to the well-respected middle power leader that it has been in the past, and re-connect Canada to its heritage in international affairs.
In terms of the criticisms of Mr. Kenney, the overwhelming "black mark" has been his critical viewpoint of Chinese policies, specifically on human rights. China has been repeatedly targeted as a necessary focal point of Canada's future foreign policies. Canadian-Chinese relations may be strained by the promotion of a strong critic of China to such an important role, but then again, why should Canada essentially "put all its eggs in one basket?"
Also in this week's Embassy is an article that says that focusing on China would be detrimental to Canada's international successs. It argues the world community is evolving into a multipolar balance of power. China isn't the only power growing in the world. India, Brazil and, South Africa are just a few of the other power centres growing along with China. Furthermore, we are seeing the return of an old power, Russia, who has been actively trying to re-assert its pre-eminent place in world affairs. Canada would do well to incorporate a foreign policy that accounts for these multiple centres of power and not just China. China is an important state for Canada to deal with, but it is not the only game in town. This fact helps to offset the criticism of Jason Kenney and his remarks about China.
Wrapping up, there are a number of potential foreign ministers that could be shuffled from other A-list cabinet positions, but by promoting Mr. Kenney, PM Harper would be able to add a well-deserving and capable minister to this important role. He is well-suited for this post and, possibly more important, rather than merely shuffle his present ministers which would only maintain the cabinet's strength, Prime Minister Harper could add a strong, young minister to an important portfolio.
- blenCOWe
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Broken Promises
I just wish the IOC could break its promises like the Chinese have broken theirs; just to give them a taste of their own medicine. When Beijing was campaigning for the upcoming Olympic Games Chinese officials promised that their human rights record and public access to the Internet would be bettered.
OOPS!!!
China's human rights record has not gotten better and may have even been further tarnished in the recent months. The so-called "increased access" is limited to sites that the Chinese government deem legal; so in other words: no improvement there. And then China has been "cleaning up" Beijing lately by removing those people they consider "undesirable" and replacing them with little pieces of artwork to beautify the city.
China really hasn't fulfilled its commitments to the IOC. In a fair world, the IOC would be able to withold the Games from Beijing but with just over a week until the opening ceremonies there is no chance of that.
China: 1 Olympics: 0
Do you feel proud about what you've done China?
- blenCOWe
OOPS!!!
China's human rights record has not gotten better and may have even been further tarnished in the recent months. The so-called "increased access" is limited to sites that the Chinese government deem legal; so in other words: no improvement there. And then China has been "cleaning up" Beijing lately by removing those people they consider "undesirable" and replacing them with little pieces of artwork to beautify the city.
China really hasn't fulfilled its commitments to the IOC. In a fair world, the IOC would be able to withold the Games from Beijing but with just over a week until the opening ceremonies there is no chance of that.
China: 1 Olympics: 0
Do you feel proud about what you've done China?
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
China's Bountiful Blunders
For the last couple months I have been left speechless (sort of ... lol) about the decisions that China has been making that have international ramifications. Personally, I don't understand how China can continue to make poor decisions that deteriorate its international image.
The short and probably incomplete list of poor decisions that come to mind are:
1. Blocking effective action from taking place in the crisis in Darfur because of the oil connections China has with Khartoum.
2. The over-excessive response to the Tibetan protesters in Lhasa.
3. Selling arms to Robert Mugabe's abusive ZANU-PF in the period leading up to the presidential elections. Arms that were probably used to oppress MDC supporters.
4. Blocking UN sanctions against the fraudulent Mugabe regime.
5. It's extensive military buildup including the ballistic missile capabilities on their new submarines.
6. It's lack of cooperation in fulfilling its Olympic promises to better its human rights record and to increase internet acess and openness for its citizens.
7. Taking action to prevent the ICC from taking action against the Sudanese president who is accused of crimes against humanity.
In the global arena, China is active in trading its products and finding ample sources of oil abroad. It cannot afford to make itself so unpopular based on its oppressive and ill-advised foreign policy choices. It is unlikely that China will be able to support its population if it only befriends the "rogue" or oppressive regimes. China needs to be able to endear itself to other democracies and the best way to do that is to show a sincere concern for human rights and to pursue good policies in that area.
It just appears that China is creating a negative image for itself and one that is likely impact China's future foreign successes. This image is driven by the deliberate yet senseless negative policies of the Chinese government. I realize China has always been a bit different in its political philosophies but it's about time it took a step back and evaluated the impression it is giving in its policy decisions.
- blenCOWe
The short and probably incomplete list of poor decisions that come to mind are:
1. Blocking effective action from taking place in the crisis in Darfur because of the oil connections China has with Khartoum.
2. The over-excessive response to the Tibetan protesters in Lhasa.
3. Selling arms to Robert Mugabe's abusive ZANU-PF in the period leading up to the presidential elections. Arms that were probably used to oppress MDC supporters.
4. Blocking UN sanctions against the fraudulent Mugabe regime.
5. It's extensive military buildup including the ballistic missile capabilities on their new submarines.
6. It's lack of cooperation in fulfilling its Olympic promises to better its human rights record and to increase internet acess and openness for its citizens.
7. Taking action to prevent the ICC from taking action against the Sudanese president who is accused of crimes against humanity.
In the global arena, China is active in trading its products and finding ample sources of oil abroad. It cannot afford to make itself so unpopular based on its oppressive and ill-advised foreign policy choices. It is unlikely that China will be able to support its population if it only befriends the "rogue" or oppressive regimes. China needs to be able to endear itself to other democracies and the best way to do that is to show a sincere concern for human rights and to pursue good policies in that area.
It just appears that China is creating a negative image for itself and one that is likely impact China's future foreign successes. This image is driven by the deliberate yet senseless negative policies of the Chinese government. I realize China has always been a bit different in its political philosophies but it's about time it took a step back and evaluated the impression it is giving in its policy decisions.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, July 12, 2008
This is Getting Old!
I don't even know why the United Nations even bothers sustaining the Security Council anymore. It continues to show that it is a toothless relic of an idealist era. The presence of the five veto votes makes it almost impossible for the Security Council to act when and where it is needed the most.
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
First, China blocked the Council from taking action in Darfur. Now China and Russia have vetoed a resolution to sanction Mr. Mugabe's fraudulent government in Zimbabwe. In both cases, oppressive regimes have used violence and human rights violations, numerous people have been killed, beaten or forced into hiding, received international attention through activism and news, and... have faced little or no action from the UN Security Council. Also relevant has been the fact that China have used its veto both times to prevent any action from being taken.
Unlike events of the past (e.g. Iraq, Cold War), these situations have nothing to do with imperialism or hegemonies. Darfur and Zimbabwe are humanitarian crises. They involve oppression through force and should be easily condemned by the rest of the international community. Unfortunately, though, this has not been the case. The existence of these vetoes prevents the Security Council from fulfilling its full potential.
For as long as the Council has existed, it has been ineffective. It was understandable (and by this I don't mean acceptable) because of the realities of the Cold War period. But the world has changed since then. No longer do spheres of influence dominate world politics in the same way that they used to. The countries of the world should be able to stand up and fight against those that commit these humanitarian attrocities. This has nothing to do with the arguments that the Security Council is an apparatus of the victors of WWII. What this has to do with is the sheer inability for the Council, as it is constructed, to be able to function effectively with the task it was entrusted with.
I think it is time to seriously approach reform or disbandment of the Security Council and in such a way that those who currently wield the power are unable to stop the change. To do so would re-invigorate both the Council and the UN and would provide a more capable framework for international security.
Furthermore, China is showing again that is will not protect human rights. Preventing the Council from acting in Darfur and again in Zimbabwe and the fact that is was caught selling arms to Mugabe's enforcers in the lead up to the election. And then, of course, there is the Tibet issue! China is showing its support to the those who use violence to take away the human rights of its victims/opponents.
That is some foreign policy!
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
