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

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

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

More of the Same

This summer has been rife with stories of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and his new election campaign strategy based on his new Carbon Tax plan and "strong leadership" (HA!). Dion has claimed that he feels confident contesting an election on this and in the last couple days, during the recent Conservative caucus meetings, Prime Minister Harper has dared Dion on to bring down the government in the fall.

Well what does this mean for the average Canadian citizen?

Facing prominent issues like the environment, the economy, and crime it looks like we are likely to see another session of parliament plagued by the threat of party politics and poor policy discussion.

The opposition parties pay little or no attention to the actual benefits of the Conservative policies, only to their own fates, completely ignoring the actual welfare of the Canadian people.

The only good thing that would happen with fall election would be that the Conservative party gained a majority in the House of Commons and this recent period of limited minority governance would be over.

Here we go again!

- blenCOWe

Stand Up and Fight

The sham that was the Zimbabwean presidential "election" is over now and Robert Mugabe will be announced shortly as winning by a landslide. Mugabe will argue that the election is a fair representation of his support because the country's electoral commission refused to remove Morgan Tsvangirai's name from the ballot.

Now while it is obvious that this was not a free and fair election, I believe that there are better ways that this election could have been contested. While Mugabe's ZANU-PF thugs rounded up people and forced them to vote, Tsvangirai was hiding in the Dutch embassy. That doesn't really spark much belief in his commitment to his convictions.

I understand that Tsvangirai feared for his supporters and attempted to pull his name out of the election in order to protect them. His fears are understandable as both he and the members of his Movement for Democratic Change faced violence and detainment in the weeks leading up to the run-off vote. But this brings to mind to old axiom of "no risk, no reward." If he was truly committed to change then he would have continued to contest the election.

This brings to mind the ideas of Vaclav Havel who was a leader of the "Velvet Revolution" and the first president of the Czech Republic. He led a non-violent revolution against the Communist government in Czechoslovakia. He believed that people need to suffer for their beliefs. If Morgan Tsvangirai wanted to truly represent change and democracy for Zimbabwe then he should have continued to contest the election and Mugabe's governance by force. Realistically, with the worldwide attention that this election was receiving, Tsvangirai and his supporters would be less likely to suffer serious harm. They might get roughed up a little bit or detained but this would just add to the negative publicity that Mugabe's government was already receiving. Supporters of the MDC were not able to free themselves from the oppression of this election so why is it fair that Tsvangirai can run and hide while everyone else must suffer.

But this is all moot now that the election is over. So what is next for Zimbabwe?

I applaud Stephen Harper for coming out and denouncing the sham election, calling it an "ugly perversion of democracy" and for proposing sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. Not being short-sighted, I also applaud the other world leaders, including the UN Security Council, for denouncing Mugabe and the ZANU-PF's actions.

But what to do? what to do?

I am in no means an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I tend to prefer Realist international theory and niche democracy. I feel that in following these directions, it is possible for a state's foreign policy to be efficient and beneficial for all parties concerned. But in terms of Zimbabwe, I believe some intervention is called for. Mugabe's government is maintaining its control through violence and oppression and this is something that peaceful democracies must vehemently oppose.

Human security should be the foremost concern and it appears that the only way to ensure this would be to intervene and return control of the country to the people. Like any other international action, there will be questions over the "legality" (if there is such a thing in international politics) of intervention. Jean Jacques Rousseau has written that,

"the uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone maintained him, force alone overthrows him."

I read this quote a couple days ago and my mind went instantly to thoughts of Mugabe and Zimbabwe. He has come out and said that he would die before succeeding control to Tsvangirai. This opens the door; it is clear that he does not believe in democracy and a fair electoral process. The only way to remove this oppression is to intervene.

But who? Who will answer the call to arms?