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
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Thursday, September 3, 2009
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
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, July 7, 2008
Money doesn't fix everything!
As the country's political leaders descended on Calgary for the Stampede, public relations and fundraising were never far out of thought. Now, building up financial support is always a forethought for political parties, whether or not an election looms. But for the Liberal party, its ability to plump up its coffers will be influential in determining when the next election will occur.
This summer is being touted as the run-up to a fall election that will determine the fate of Stephane Dion as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. With this in mind, he is devoting these summer months to promoting his Carbon Tax plan and filling those campaign coffers.
How will Dion and the Liberals accomplish their fundraising aims? The Victory Fund of course!
Supporters may contribute to the Liberal Party, either directly to the party or their local riding association, in monthly increments ranging from $5 to $91.66.
But why should people take part in this? Well, according to Dion, "giving to your party is the best way to give to your country." HA!
To me this would imply that contributors would receive something out of their monetary donation.
That brings me to another colourful tidbit by Dion, "The Liberal Party of Canada needs money, but has a lot of courage and determination."
That must be the courage and determination to sit on their hands when it comes to representing their constituents. To not show up and to not take a stand based on your stated beliefs. Or maybe its the courage and determination to ask for money from the people whom you are supposed to represent, yet don't.
Imagine the nerve of the Liberal Party to place the onus for electoral victory onto the shoulders of their financial supporters. As if the record of the party and its representative in the House have nothing to do with electoral victory. That it won't matter that the Liberals have sat in the House with their tails between their legs as long as Joe or Jane Taxpayer send them monthly donations.
But wait, does this mean that money means everything? That it is true that money is what actually drives politics?
This is the message that the Liberals are spreading with their summer campaign. Money will lessen global warming and money will ensure electoral victory.
In the 2006 election, the Conservatives were clearly the party most ready to govern. Not much has changed since. Good governance does not come from money. It comes from good policy and strong leadership, neither of which the Liberals have.
- blenCOWe
This summer is being touted as the run-up to a fall election that will determine the fate of Stephane Dion as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. With this in mind, he is devoting these summer months to promoting his Carbon Tax plan and filling those campaign coffers.
How will Dion and the Liberals accomplish their fundraising aims? The Victory Fund of course!
Supporters may contribute to the Liberal Party, either directly to the party or their local riding association, in monthly increments ranging from $5 to $91.66.
But why should people take part in this? Well, according to Dion, "giving to your party is the best way to give to your country." HA!
To me this would imply that contributors would receive something out of their monetary donation.
That brings me to another colourful tidbit by Dion, "The Liberal Party of Canada needs money, but has a lot of courage and determination."
That must be the courage and determination to sit on their hands when it comes to representing their constituents. To not show up and to not take a stand based on your stated beliefs. Or maybe its the courage and determination to ask for money from the people whom you are supposed to represent, yet don't.
Imagine the nerve of the Liberal Party to place the onus for electoral victory onto the shoulders of their financial supporters. As if the record of the party and its representative in the House have nothing to do with electoral victory. That it won't matter that the Liberals have sat in the House with their tails between their legs as long as Joe or Jane Taxpayer send them monthly donations.
But wait, does this mean that money means everything? That it is true that money is what actually drives politics?
This is the message that the Liberals are spreading with their summer campaign. Money will lessen global warming and money will ensure electoral victory.
In the 2006 election, the Conservatives were clearly the party most ready to govern. Not much has changed since. Good governance does not come from money. It comes from good policy and strong leadership, neither of which the Liberals have.
- blenCOWe
Friday, June 20, 2008
Fiberals!
I love this.
I thought the website www.willyoubetricked.ca was good but this site was sent to me and I love it even more.
In my opinion, www.theshiftygreen.ca is a work of art. It looks extraordinarily similar to the Liberals' thegreenshift.ca. The template is similar and the buttons look the same but the message is contrary. It has been composed so well that at first I thought I had accidentally clicked on the wrong site.
And that is the pure genius of it. It can easily be mistaken as the Liberals' site, yet providing the opposing point of view for the reader. Also, its critique of the Green Shift plan is more subtle (and thus less polarizing) than the vibrant and hard line site created first by the Conservative Party.
Argue the politics all you want, I think this is a creative and clever response to the Green Shift plan announced yesterday. Somebody's earned their money today!
-blenCOWe
I thought the website www.willyoubetricked.ca was good but this site was sent to me and I love it even more.
In my opinion, www.theshiftygreen.ca is a work of art. It looks extraordinarily similar to the Liberals' thegreenshift.ca. The template is similar and the buttons look the same but the message is contrary. It has been composed so well that at first I thought I had accidentally clicked on the wrong site.
And that is the pure genius of it. It can easily be mistaken as the Liberals' site, yet providing the opposing point of view for the reader. Also, its critique of the Green Shift plan is more subtle (and thus less polarizing) than the vibrant and hard line site created first by the Conservative Party.
Argue the politics all you want, I think this is a creative and clever response to the Green Shift plan announced yesterday. Somebody's earned their money today!
-blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
