# Decide Foriegn Policy



## teltech (29 Jul 2004)

Hello everyone...

As mentioned in numerous postings, a lot of talk about procuring "this" and establishing "that" for the CF results in a "as determined by defence policy, which is determined by foreign policy" reply. So I was wondering... :warstory:

If it were up to you, and you alone, what would Canada's foreign policy be?


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2005)

I would like to add some background to discussions of future force structure, etc.

It seems to me that Gen. Hillier's plans are all very, very _airy fairy_ until we get a new foreign policy.   _Mr. Dithers_ has, we are told, rejected the policy proposals of his bureaucrats because they lack _pizzazz._   Prof. Jennifer Welsh, so we hear, has been engaged to add that vital component.

I suspect that Prof. Welsh and I might, and the bureaucrats in DFAIT and I certainly will disagree on directions in foreign policy.   I expect Prof. Welsh to trot out her _model citizen_ model for the 21st century nation-state and I expect the bureaucracy to tailor their policy proposals to the latest mumblings from the Québec _intelligentsia_ and the Liberal Party of Canada's _Women's Commission_. 

Despite those concerns I offer up a very brief, incomplete policy _framework_.   It does provide a platform upon which diplomacy, development, defence, trade and human security issues can be addressed.   It is not a framework which will be especially popular â â€œ especially *not* with the aforementioned groups in whose thrall we find the DFAIT bureaucracy.   It will be equally unpopular with the _Neanderthal_ wing which opposes diplomats and foreign aid.   If it manages to offend both the loony left and the self-righteous right then I think it is a fairly sound policy. 

This is, I believe, a sensible, practical, in other words realistic, policy statement which tells Canadians and the world at large what we are prepared to do: with whom, for whom and even to whom and why.

Two cautions:

As I have mentioned elsewhere within army.ca our defence policy does not rest exclusively on our foreign policy.   There are important, indeed crucial _domestic_ issues, including internal security, which call up a requirement for armed forces of some sort.   We need a clear, coherent foreign policy, however, to develop plans for e.g. _expeditionary_ forces.   The foreign policy has to use worlds and phrases like â Å“combat ready,â ? â Å“globalâ ? and â Å“full spectrum of operationsâ ? â â€œ it doesn't have to belabour the points: making them once is sufficient.

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to see the attachment.


----------



## paracowboy (13 Mar 2005)

before I could make any changes to Foreign Policy, I'd need to make a lot of changes to Internal Policy. I'd have 30 years of Socialist Cultural & Social Engineering to combat.

Then, I'd need to buy a pair of dueling pistols, and a slappin' glove...


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> not[/u] rest exclusively on our foreign policy.   There are important, indeed crucial _domestic_ issues, including internal security, which call up a requirement for armed forces of some sort.   We need a clear, coherent foreign policy, however, to develop plans for e.g. _expeditionary_ forces.   The foreign policy has to use worlds and phrases like â Å“combat ready,â ? â Å“globalâ ? and â Å“full spectrum of operationsâ ? â â€œ it doesn't have to belabour the points: making them once is sufficient.



Given the limited involvement of the CF in domestic security/defence concerns, I think defence policy (vis a vis the CF) and foreign policy may be inextricably linked. In other words, I think that these days, foreign policy really does dictate CF policy given the fact that the CF really isn't involved in the active domestic defence policies. 



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> before I could make any changes to Foreign Policy, I'd need to make a lot of changes to Internal Policy. I'd have 30 years of Socialist Cultural & Social Engineering to combat.
> 
> Then, I'd need to buy a pair of dueling pistols, and a slappin' glove...



What specifically do you want to combat regarding socialism? Universal healthcare? Social support programs like welfare, etc?


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> ... given the fact that the CF really isn't involved in the active domestic defence policies.



Is 'Oka' too big a word for you?

Operations in aid of the civil power are absolutely central to the CF and to its relationship with the rest of the nation-state.   That is domestic defence in policy and practice - defence against all threats, foreign and domestic.

We might get a new Trudeau with a totally supine foreign policy which would need no military forces at all; there would still be a requirement for forces for internal security.


----------



## paracowboy (13 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> What specifically do you want to combat regarding socialism? Universal healthcare? Social support programs like welfare, etc?


They're a start, anyway. They both need massive overhauls. I'd begin programs teaching silly concepts like Individual and Civic Responsibility, as opposed to suckling at the rapidly depleting teat of Government, and waiting to be told what to do, and receiving my handout. Bread and circuses are not the answer,


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Mar 2005)

Nicely crafted piece Edward.  Why the emphasis on Singapore?

Dave


----------



## trajectomologist (14 Mar 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> The CF should be organized to FIRSTLY address the needs of Canada, namely our safety and security (in terms of both war and civil needs), and SECONDLY the needs of others (ie foreign policy). Last I checked the reason a nation had an army was to protect itself.



We're all here to serve and support our country, to bad they don't support us.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Mar 2005)

trajectomologist said:
			
		

> We're all here to serve and support our country, to bad they don't support us.



Hmmm.  Perhaps the right way to say that is that they don't support us as much as they should, or as we would like.  We do have the suport of the public - it just isn't very deep, is relatively uneducated support, and supports us doing things that we would rather not do.

Dave


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Nicely crafted piece Edward.   Why the emphasis on Singapore?
> 
> Dave



I think we need to shift our _national emphasis_ towards Asia, which has displaced Europe in importance, to us, and which could challenge America in terms of economic importance if we seize the opportunities.   Singapore is our best entrée into Asia â â€œ not the only one, just the best.   Focusing on Singapore will, I hope, get people to consider the range and depth of Asia which, arguably, stretches from New Zealand through to Uzbekistan. 

We should not focus exclusively on Singapore; we must be sure, for example, to maintain good, friendly relationships with Malaysia which is a keystone in the struggle with _Arab extremist/Islamic fundamentalist_ movements which are, loosely, united in propagating one brand of Islam and trying to demonize the liberal-democratic, secular _West_.

Singapore has influence in China â â€œ considerable influence; many Chinese officials and leaders look to Singapore as a _model_ of some sort of _Confucian democracy_.

Further, not directly related to Singapore, but rather to Asia in general: one of the best ways to engage and _contain_ China (not in Kennan's sense) is to increase our trade and political support for India while we do the saame with China - including negotiating a free trade agreement.

Singapore is a gateway, not an end in itself. 

Regards

Edward


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we need to shift our _national emphasis_ towards Asia, which has displaced Europe in importance, to us, and which could challenge America in terms of economic importance if we seize the opportunities.   Singapore is our best entrée into Asia â â€œ not the only one, just the best.   Focusing on Singapore will, I hope, get people to consider the range and depth of Asia which, arguably, stretches from New Zealand through to Uzbekistan.



Got it.  IIRC, we tried an emphasis on the Pacific Rim in the 90s (didn't we join ASEAN or somesuch?), but the initiative quickly fizzled out, as we focused more and more on the US.  One could also argue that we are not playing a big enough partt in the Americas writ large.



> We should not focus exclusively on Singapore; we must be sure, for example, to maintain good, friendly relationships with Malaysia which is a keystone in the struggle with _Arab extremist/Islamic fundamentalist_ movements which are, loosely, united in propagating one brand of Islam and trying to demonize the liberal-democratic, secular _West_.



A policy of active engagement?  Silken bonds?



> Singapore has influence in China â â€œ considerable influence; many Chinese officials and leaders look to Singapore as a _model_ of some sort of _Confucian democracy_.



Damn.  Something else I didn't know!



> Further, not directly related to Singapore, but rather to Asia in general: one of the best ways to engage and _contain_ China (not in Kennan's sense) is to increase our trade and political support for India while we do the saame with China - including negotiating a free trade agreement.



As opposed to sending Development dollars into the maw of the world's largest economy...



> Singapore is a gateway, not an end in itself.



Got it.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Is 'Oka' too big a word for you?
> 
> Operations in aid of the civil power are absolutely central to the CF and to its relationship with the rest of the nation-state.  That is domestic defence in policy and practice - defence against all threats, foreign and domestic.
> 
> We might get a new Trudeau with a totally supine foreign policy which would need no military forces at all; there would still be a requirement for forces for internal security.



Good point, though I'm not sure the level of involvement that the CF plays in internal security (be it intervention or routine) is such that a major revision of domestic defence policy (in relation to the CF, not elsewhere) would really be called for. From what I understand, the CF are there if they're needed (domestically) but the overwhelming majority of domestic security policies and programs are handled by agencies such as CSIS, the CSE, RCMP, provincial/local police, Customs, etc. Thus, wouldn't the CF primarily function as a foreign policy resource? It doesn't seem (though I could be wrong) that the CF is really geared to any substantial role in everyday domestic defence issues - especially given the emergence of more unconventional threats recently. I suppose a new domestic policy could be made to increase the CF's role in domestic security but would it be necessary, as opposed to putting the focus on the non-military agencies that usually handle it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> ... From what I understand, the CF are there if they're needed ...



The point is that, as a former CDS said, when (not if) they are needed they *cannot lose*; all the other agencies may throw in the towel, saying, _"Sorry, too many Indians with too many guns,"_ etc, as the SQ did in '90, or _"Sorry, no one's available,"_ as the RCMP did in '90, but, when the Attorney General of a province calls the CF *must* respond and win.   Any failure to win it all means that our sovereignty as a liberal, constitutional democracy is a farce - we have surrendered _government with the consent of the governed_ to armed thugs and Canada no longer exists as a sovereign state - not a sovereign state that is worth 25 ¢ to a two-bit whore, anyway.

Sounds like domestic defence to me; sounds like our role is important, too.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> The point is that, as a former CDS said, when (not if) they are needed they *cannot lose*; all the other agencies may throw in the towel, saying, _"Sorry, too many Indians with too many guns,"_ etc, as the SQ did in '90, or _"Sorry, no one's available,"_ as the RCMP did in '90, but, when the Attorney General of a province calls the CF *must* respond and win.   Any failure to win it all means that our sovereignty as a liberal, constitutional democracy is a farce - we have surrendered _government with the consent of the governed_ to armed thugs and Canada no longer exists as a sovereign state - not a sovereign state that is worth 25 ¢ to a two-bit whore, anyway.
> 
> Sounds like domestic defence to me; sounds like our role is important, too.



I understand the importance of the CF performing when called upon, I just doubt that there's a sufficiently large domestic threat to defeat the CF. I'm not sure that it's a realistic concern.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I understand the importance of the CF performing when called upon, I just doubt that there's a sufficiently large domestic threat to defeat the CF. I'm not sure that it's a realistic concern.



My house is statistically unlikely to burn down.  I'm not sure that having fire insurance, and for that matter a fire department is a realistic concern.

See the problem?  Don't confuse the likelihood of something happening with the impact should it happen.  Basic risk analysis.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2005)

As well, the CF has been an essential part of domestic Homeland Defence in the last decade or so.

FLQ crisis, Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Kananskis (just in case), Abbacus (just in case) come off the top of my head.  The Navy and the Air Force are active all the times off our littoral and in our airspace.

If the Army gets deployed to a serious domestic problems every 5 years or so within Canada, I'm sure there is both realistic concern and serious enough threats to justify the importance of including Homeland Defence as an essential and seriously regarded task.

Enemies both foreign and domestic is important - it should be, like in the US, part of our Oath; threats to sovereignty do not have to come in the form of Soviet Bear Bombers.


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> My house is statistically unlikely to burn down.   I'm not sure that having fire insurance, and for that matter a fire department is a realistic concern.
> 
> See the problem?   Don't confuse the likelihood of something happening with the impact should it happen.   Basic risk analysis.



I understand your point but I see worrying about a domestically produced/occuring threat that could defeat the CF about even with worrying your house will be hit by a meteorite. It could happen, yes, but it's extremely unlikely. Having a small clause in your insurance may be sound, but a major re-evaluation and reformation of your housing structure and insurance policy to anticipate such an event is taking things a bit far. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As well, the CF has been an essential part of domestic Homeland Defence in the last decade or so.
> 
> FLQ crisis, Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Kananskis (just in case), Abbacus (just in case) come off the top of my head.   The Navy and the Air Force are active all the times off our littoral and in our airspace.
> 
> ...



I understand there's involvement and importance of the CF in domestic defence and I believe that it's correct to do so, I'm just not clear in why we need any major revision of the policy or programs regarding domestic CF usage. I think focusing efforts more on the appropriate civilian and policing agencies might be a more efficient and practical way to go. As it stands, I can't think of anything short of the entire Quebecois nationalist population taking up arms against the government that could pose any serious risk to governmental stability in Canada. Oka was a disturbing event, yes, but it and similar occurences are hardly so substantial that they call for an expansion or revision of CF domestic deployment policy. Rather, shouldn't efforts concentrate on ensuring the CF isn't needed - like revising and organizing more efficient and effective responses by the RCMP?

I may be out to lunch on this, I don't know. I may be reading the suggestions wrong - maybe people aren't advising what I think they are (IE expansion/major revision of CF domestic defence policies).


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I may be out to lunch on this, I don't know. I may be reading the suggestions wrong - maybe people aren't advising what I think they are (IE expansion/major revision of CF domestic defence policies).



Not at all!   If I have given that impression please accept my apologies.

I think you are at least half right.   I do not believe we should _custom tailor_ our armed force for domestic operations, but ...

I assume that most people read many threads here on army.ca (and I do not even attempt to read them all) and would, therefore, be aware that I am a bit of a fanatic about _reserves_ â â€œ not the _militia_, but reserves for forces which are committed to (generally) _expeditionary_ operations.     Those _reserve_ forces (two to one, in some cases: one unit having returned form overseas and being rested and _reduced_ as people are posted out, sent on course, etc, the second overseas â â€œ on operations, and the third one gearing up to go overseas and replace the unit which is there) should have _domestic_ operations _standby_ taskings and they should train for it, too.

Some countries, notably France with it CRS, actually design and assign forces to domestic security and the French model means that you are correct when you suggest that the military does not have to be the only solution.   That being said, every country, even Costa Rica and Iceland must have some _armed_ forces â â€œ even if they are not military forces to *guarantee* the domestic sovereignty of the country.   If there is no military then there must be a beefed-up RCMP which, also, cannot lose.

I hope that makes my point clear.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I assume that most people read many threads here on army.ca (and I do not even attempt to read them all) and would, therefore, be aware that I am a bit of a fanatic about _reserves_ â â€œ not the _militia_, but reserves for forces which are committed to (generally) _expeditionary_ operations.   Those _reserve_ forces (two to one, in some cases: one unit having returned form overseas and being rested and _reduced_ as people are posted out, sent on course, etc, the second overseas â â€œ on operations, and the third one gearing up to go overseas and replace the unit which is there) should have _domestic_ operations _standby_ taskings and they should train for it, too.


  

I just looked at this with a little different thought, this fine morning and your post advocating the current "three point rotatation" could be improved to a "Four Point Rotation".  When we use your example, we have one 'Unit' working up for a deployment, one deployed, and one having returned and 'resting'.  The flaw, as I see it, is that the two 'Units'; the one doing workup and the one on 'rest', are both posting personnel in and out.  What we are finding is, due to manpower shortages, personnel are being posted from the 'Resting Unit' into the 'Workup Unit' and heading back out on a deployment with less than a year between deployments.  

If we were to go to a Four Point idea instead, we could have the fourth 'Unit' as the "Neutral".  It would be the Unit to which the Resting and Workup Units would post personnel into and out of.  It would be the Unit where personnel would have the opportunity to be put on courses and other auxiliary training.  Hopefully, this would allow the returning units to properly get the rest they require, the workup units would have fresh and well qualified troops, and there would be a better opportunity to carry on with coninuation training.  This may be the way to cut down on the burnout of our troops.

GW


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Mar 2005)

The current methodology is 1+4=5.  One out, one on its way in, one doing training for the next op, one doing general training, and one in reconstitution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2005)

Thanks, dave.

Glorified Ape: please amend my comment to read "four to one".


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Mar 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Not at all!   If I have given that impression please accept my apologies.
> 
> I think you are at least half right.   I do not believe we should _custom tailor_ our armed force for domestic operations, but ...
> 
> ...



Crystal. I think you're right - some training on responding to domestic situations would be a good idea for the CF. A focus on beefing up the RCMP, with their already existing training, would be a good way to ensure we don't have to employ the military to put down emergencies that should be manageable by the RCMP. Considering we don't even have enough RCMP resources to properly monitor sections of the border on the St. Lawrence, it would seem there's a need for SUBSTANTIAL beefing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2005)

This, from yesterday's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050318.wco-manning19/BNStory/National/ is, I suppose, a bit of a _cri de coeur_ and I, personally, agree with much of Manning's recitation of the _problem_; what I don't find, however, is anything much in the way of a *solution*.



> Sleepless in Flanders fields
> 
> By PRESTON MANNING
> Friday, March 18, 2005 Updated at 11:32 PM EST
> ...



What, I wonder, does Manning counsel as a programme to instil the _â ? courage, honesty, and statesmanshipâ ?_ which, I agree, should be the hallmarks of all governments, not just the next one.   Manning argues that politicians, on both sides of the aisle, should have built _â ? a bipartisan consensus on Canada's long-range interests in foreign and defence policy, including continental defence.â ?_   Yes, indeed! But where were the Conservatives?   They were hiding in the weeds, playing politics, trying to move their support in Québec from absolute zero all the way up to next to nothing.   They failed and in the process they failed a fundamental test of _â ? courage, honesty, and statesmanshipâ ?_.

I'm just a wee tiny bit tired of superannuated _elder statesmen_ squawking about the falling sky.   If it is, indeed, falling then how does Preston Manning suggest that we shore it up?   What should be the pillars of our foreign policy?   How can we, should we display _â ? courage, honesty, and statesmanshipâ ?_?   How do those values translate in, say, a 3D (diplomacy, development, defence) model of foreign policy?   How does one apply _â ? courage, honesty, and statesmanshipâ ?_ to Welsh's 'model citizen' version of acting in the world?

Nice words; heartfelt but empty, I'm afraid.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Mar 2005)

> I'm just a wee tiny bit tired of superannuated elder statesmen squawking about the falling sky.



I would add elder academics (a la Granatstein) and elder military types (think Mackenzie) to that list.

Dave


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2005)

There is a good editorial in today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050321/ETORIES21/TPComment/Editorials 

It is long so I will not repeat it here; it is not a _subscriber only_ item so army.ca members can go read it for themselves.

Here is one excerpt, however, which is germane to this discussion.   I have reordered the items for clarity but all the words belong to the _Good Grey Globe's_ editorial board:



> Leaner government. Better relations with the United States. A more competitive economy. Here are three obvious, conservative themes for the Tories to take into the next election. All the party needs now is some leadership ...
> 
> "¢	Mr. Harper must make it his obsession to campaign for tight fiscal control, not outdo the Liberals in promised spending, as he did in last year's election campaign.
> 
> ...



I think the _Globe_ is spot on but I also think that life is not so simple for those in political parties - if they adopt the _Globe's_ sensible *proposals* to DO something then they will have to figure out how to form a government, and survive non-confidence motions - without any base of support from Québec or much of the Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver areas.

But, at least it sounds like a plan and saying that Ottawa does need _â ?... the ability to send Canadian peacekeepers and relief resources to troubled parts of the globe. Ottawa needs to put its military where its mouth is, and the Conservatives should keep saying so till they're Tory blue in the faceâ ?_ is a a good start and it is a lot more than Preston Manning was willing to say.

On the other hand, the _Globe and Mail_ is not famous for being a supporter of the *New Conservative Party*.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I would add elder academics (a la Granatstein) and elder military types (think Mackenzie) to that list.



Granted, but at least many of the academics (say, the CCS21C) and elder military types (MacKenzie's testimony to the Senate Standing Committee on Defence) are willing to provide potential solutions to the mix.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Mar 2005)

Fair enough - I guiess I have become jaded by the same ol same ol-ness of their rants commentary.

Dave


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2005)

In my sketch of _A New Foreign Policy for Canada_ I proposed that we should, as a matter of policy, adopt a _concentric circle_ system of defence measures, beginning with surveillance of our own territory, territorial waters and airspace and _expanding_ through continental defence, to expanded military roles in the North Atlantic, Caribbean and the Pacific Rim.

I would like to expand these policy _thrusts_ into something more _militaristic_ as befits contributions to army.ca.   My 1st DRAFT _outline_ of some of the things which I think ought to be in a defence policy review is below.   The footnotes are my own thoughts and comments.

I need to emphasize that this is *not* a DRAFT White Paper; that is a much more comprehensive document which must develop, and price, concrete plans, including numbers and force structures, etc.   This is a *policy*, essentially a political, document which underlies a White Paper which is a _*plan*_ â â€œ imperfect though it may be.

It is this sort of policy and my proposed New Foreign Policy (attached to: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17947/post-182791.html#msg182791 ) which led me to conclusions such as those I offered at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25365/post-136769.html#msg136769 and elsewhere.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2005)

To my mind a country that wants to have a prominent role in the foreign policy arena that country needs to have sufficient military capability to make a potential enemy take pause. Foreign policy and defense policy are not mutually exclusive. They have to compliment one another. Most of the time diplomacy works because of the threat of military action is always in the background. Most countries when the chips are down do not want to face off with a major military power. Countries that might want to oppose another but are militarily weak might now do so using asymetric warfare which can take the form of terrorism or may use other means to attack another's economy [internet attacks or target one's trading partners].

If a country has plenty of money it can play a prominent role through the use of well placed foreign aid. Training assistance to countries that one seeks to influence is another good way to go. Every country has its own priorities and interests which drive its policies and provides the funds necessary to pursue those policies. But if domestic priorities overshadow its foreign interests then it will be difficult to be taken seriously when the it comes time to face down an over reaching dicatator or to prevent a smaller country from poaching one's fish.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (29 Mar 2005)

Canadian foreign policy and military policy must be linked into a cohesive whole. We give money one place, that won't accept troops, send troops another place, that never gets rebuilt.  It is pointless.  We should only send aid to further our foreign policy.  If we wish to support democracy, then our aid will be tied to guarantee's of certain minimum standards by recipient gov'ts.  If the nations getting aid do not have the will not permit international oversight, they get nothing.  No more toy's for warlords.  If our troops are sent to keep or make the peace, then follow them with our aid workers, our engineers, our medical staff and police to build and train the infrastructure to leave a lasting and viable region behind us, a legacy of Canadian involvement.  Let us start our aid to nations that are trying to keep afloat, and stop throwing money at lost causes.  In Africa, there are dozens of nations that are already lost; money spent there may as well be thrown away, no possible funding can put them back together again.  Spend money on the nations that are trying to make a go of it.  Use our diplomats to explore the option of using Canadian troops and police to train local forces to the standards necessary to defend the small pockets of Africa that really are trying to be "developing" nations.  Likewise, do not be afraid to send peacekeepers to help keep the peace along the borders of nations trying to survive against the internal problems of their neighbors spilling over their own borders.  Peacekeeping can mean the defence of a nation from problems spilling over from its neighbors, it does not have to be only in civil wars, and unresolvable border disputes.  There are places in the world, in Asia, Africa, the Caribean, and South/Central America where Canadian aid would be welcome, where Canadian civil, police, and military aid could turn the corner for a country poised between development and dissolution.  Aid to countries that have a future leaves a legacy of nations with debts to Canada, and whose people and leaders are disposed to listen to Canadian views, and mayhap even follow our lead in international affairs.  Canada will not be a superpower, but we have the ability to become a major influence in individual nations in troubled areas, we can shift the balance in many regions if we use trade, diplomacy, military and civil aid to further a single objective.  By treating each type of aid in isolation, we get full effect from none of them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2005)

DFAIT ran a public policy discussion during Jan/Feb of this year.  There were over sixty submissions â â€œ fewer actual contributors as several contributed more than once.

Here is the DFAIT staff's summary from http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cip-pic/library/securitysummary-en.asp :



> From January 24 to February 25, 2005, Canadians were invited to share their thoughts on Canadian and global security through the Canadian International Policy site. Webcast interviews with various experts on the topic were hosted on the site to stimulate and inform the debate. In all, 60 responses were received, with an average length of 500 words. Participants included academics, students, representatives from the NGO community and other Canadians. Below is a summary of their key arguments:
> 
> In general, participants championed the allocation of more resources to Canadian intelligence, security, diplomatic and military agencies. This reflects a larger consensus on the need for a more proactive Canadian approach to domestic and global security threats.
> 
> ...



Although it is now early April, the Department's _response_ promised by late March is still missing in action.


----------



## Acorn (3 Apr 2005)

Foreign policy by poll is just as effective as military strategy by poll. We all know that opionins share a charateristic with a certain body orifice.

Acorn


----------



## bossi (4 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> ... Although it is now early April, the Department's _response_ promised by late March is still missing in action. ...



Hmmm ... I wonder if this is a good, or a bad thing ... ?
http://www.canada.com/national/nati....html?id=2cdf17f1-2b38-46ee-89b5-ab2504625b99
PMO lets global policy author go
OTTAWA - Jennifer Welsh, the Saskatchewan-born author and Oxford scholar recruited by Prime Minister Paul Martin to salvage Canada's much-delayed international policy review, has parted company with the Prime Minister's Office. ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2005)

There are two articles in Today's _Globe and Mail_ which are germane to a foreign policy discussion.  I have posted both below.

The first, authored by a distinguished quartet proposes, _inter alia_:

"¢	A timetable for reaching the 0.7-per-cent official development assistance/GNP target, preferably by 2015. _I agree this, see my comments and paper near the top of this thread._

"¢	Endorse the emerging norm of the "responsibility to protect" as part of a continuum from prevention of conflict to reaction to severe abuses to rebuilding. _I am, at best, reluctant to endorse this and I think I may be actively opposed.  My basic sense of human decency - I have a wee bit - bumps up against my respect for history.  Our 'modern' view of sovereignty has been around since the Peace of Westphalia - which happened, to Europe, at about the same time as 'we' gave effect to a vital constitutional principle by lopping off King Charles' head.  I am reluctant to toss out models which have served fairly well for over 350 years and replace them with one of Pink Lloyd Axworthy's 'ideas'._

Those favouring R2P should consider the questions Simpson poses in the second article:

What constitutes a "failed state"?

If the world community can define one, what should it do?

With specific regard to Canada, Simpson asks: _ And for Canada, with its large Haitian diaspora? If the world community can define one, what should it do? Could we do something more? With what, however, given our military capabilities, stretched aid budget and demands for more for, say, Darfur and AIDS in Africa?_

Martin is vote buying when he talks to the _Haitian diaspora_ in Montreal.  Are we really ready or able to colonize Haiti?  I think not and I hope not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2005)

From the _Globe and Mail_ at: 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050608/COREFORM08/TPComment/?query=Eight+steps+to+UN+reform 


Eight steps to UN reform
Our plan can work if world leaders act for the common good, say international experts GARETH EVANS, JOHN ENGLISH, GORDON SMITH and FRASER CAMERON

By GARETH EVANS , JOHN ENGLISH and GORDON SMITH AND FRASER CAMERON  

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 Page A17

When world leaders meet at the United Nations in September for the five-year follow-up to the Millennium Summit, they will have a rare political opportunity, one that comes once in a generation. On the table will be Secretary-General Kofi Annan's report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. The UN and the conduct of international relations would be truly transformed if the report's package of reforms were adopted.

Perhaps inevitably, UN members are divided on the report's recommendations. Some are apprehensive that change will constrain their power and dilute their influence. Others feel the status quo is unsustainable. Some worry about undermining the principle of national sovereignty and lowering the normative barriers to unwarranted interference in internal affairs. Others fear there will be too little intervention and the wretched will be left to suffer what they must. None of these problems are simple, and addressing them will not be business as usual. Leaders will be sitting down in New York with the moral obligation to rise above narrow interests and act for the common good. That's what leaders are for.

Only they have the crosscutting authority to resolve inter-institutional and interdisciplinary issues beyond the mandates of existing international organs and portfolios of individual ministers. Frank dialogue and problem-solving by the leaders can bring impetus and coherence to the reform imperative.

We believe that, with the requisite statesmanship, many of the Secretary-General's recommendations can be adopted. The way forward is a package approach, in recognition that generating agreement entails give and take.

We recommend that leaders agree to:

1. A timetable for reaching the 0.7-per-cent official development assistance/GNP target, preferably by 2015. With respect to the Millennium Development Goals, we endorse the "quick wins" actions identified by the independent UN Millennium Project (free bednets as protection against malaria mosquitoes; an end to primary-school user fees; the three-million-patients target for AIDS anti-retroviral treatment; expansion of school-meals programs, soil-nutrient replenishment, and national campaigns to reduce violence against women). But the bednet shortage in Africa alone is vast, and a lot more community resolve (including the Group of Eight) will be required for this to be a "quick win."

2. An international finance facility, enabling front-loading of official development assistance, necessary for infrastructure investments. This innovative action would facilitate the provision of the requisite finance for development.

3. Guidelines on the use of force. The Security Council should come to a common view on guidelines (not criteria) for intervention -- that is, "the seriousness of the threat, the proper purpose of the proposed military action, whether means short of the use of force might plausibly succeed in stopping the threat, whether the military option is proportional to the threat at hand, and whether there is a reasonable chance of success." It is now increasingly accepted, including in Africa, that development and security are interdependent, and that both repose on human rights.

4. Endorse the emerging norm of the "responsibility to protect" as part of a continuum from prevention of conflict to reaction to severe abuses to rebuilding.

5. Accept the definition of terrorism by the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change that "in addition to any actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

6. Action with respect to civilian nuclear fuel-cycle technology, especially guarantees of supply of the fissile material necessary for peaceful nuclear uses in return for making the Optional Protocol mandatory, as part of a package including "negative security assurances," the fissile material cutoff treaty, and extension of the moratorium on test explosions. Such a package should provide both a fair and balanced outcome and enhance everyone's security.

7. The establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission, the Democracy Fund and the Human Rights Council, as recommended by the Secretary-General.

8. Action on regulating the marketing of arms and negotiation of an instrument on illicit brokering. Combined with effective export controls on small arms, the harmonization of national regulation of arms brokers and a mechanism to "name and shame" those involved in illicit exploitation of natural resources, these steps will prevent or diminish the carnage caused by future conflicts.

We believe that concerted action in these eight areas to be in the national interests of all member states and in the common, global interest at the same time. Only leaders can make it happen. In New York, they will be bolstered by the aspirations of humanity.

_Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister, is president of the International Crisis Group. John English, a senior professor of history and political science at the University of Waterloo, is executive director of the Centre for International Governance Innovation. Gordon Smith, a former deputy minister of foreign affairs, is executive director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria. Fraser Cameron is director of studies at the Brussels-based European Policy Centre._


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2005)

From the _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050608.wxcosimp08a/BNStory/specialComment/


Hello, my name is Haiti and I really need your help

By JEFFREY SIMPSON  

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 Updated at 8:08 AM EDT 

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

We have become accustomed in recent years, especially since 9/11, to hear of "failed states" --breeding grounds for instability and terror where governments cannot ensure the safety of citizens. These failed states are over there somewhere: in Africa or Central Asia or the Middle East.

It turns out, however, that one state that just about qualifies as a "failed state" is almost next door: Haiti, a country racked by violence, endemic poverty and drug trafficking, ills that have persisted and even grown worse despite a United Nations military and police presence and hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid, including $180-million pledged over two years from Canada.

Next week in Montreal, Canada has convened a meeting of donor countries and the transitional Haitian government to discuss how things are evolving in that country as it prepares for anticipated elections this fall. If participants are honest, the update will be sobering, even frightening. If these elections don't work, or don't happen, then don't count out the possibility of Haiti's temporarily becoming a United Nations protectorate.

Anybody tempted by optimism concerning Haiti should read the May 31 report on Haiti from the Brussels-based and highly credible International 
Crisis Group (http://www.crisisgroup.org). It's a look at Haiti on the eve of the elections and a year after the launch of the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti, with 6,200 troops (the largest number being from Brazil) and 1,300 police officers, about 100 of whom are Canadians, now on the ground.

A few citations from the ICG report convey its flavour. It opens: "Haiti is ensnared in a deep political, social and economic crisis, despite 7,400 UN military and police peacekeepers and the resumption of multilateral aid." Law enforcement is "virtually non-existent." Drug trafficking is rampant, and spawns gang violence. The police force is "seriously discredited, corrupt and allegedly involved in criminal activities and serious human rights violations." In Port-au-Prince, the capital, "life is characterized by constant fear of organized crime, urban gangs, police violence, sniper attacks on civilian and UN targets, and kidnappings."

This week, The New York Times described in gruesome detail how kidnappings, or fear of them, pervades Port-au-Prince. The newspaper also reported that, since Saturday, the French honorary consul has been shot dead, and at least 10 people have been killed after gunmen chased police officers into a market and set it alight. Diplomats estimate that six to 12 kidnappings occur daily. Canada, the United States and a handful of other countries have told all but essential personnel to leave and warned their nationals not to visit the country.

What constitutes a "failed state"? If the world community can define one, what should it do? These were among the issues recently analyzed by a special UN panel that tried to define "failed states" and recommend steps to prevent states from falling into that category. Haiti could be a test case. Which raises the question: What can the world community do, since what it has done thus far -- pledging $1-billion in aid and organizing the UN stabilization mission -- hasn't worked. Would a multinational protectorate work, along the lines of Australia taking temporary charge of the Solomon Islands?

Chances are, the international community won't go that far, the problems of Haiti being so intractable. The U.S. is preoccupied with bigger problems. For the Europeans, Haiti is far away. For the Latin Americans, it's a sad but not dangerous case. And for Canada, with its large Haitian diaspora? If the world community can define one, what should it do? Could we do something more? With what, however, given our military capabilities, stretched aid budget and demands for more for, say, Darfur and AIDS in Africa? But, without taking anything away from these tragedies, Haiti is in our own backyard.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, to his credit, has tried jawboning. He went to Haiti soon after becoming Prime Minister and urged national reconciliation. He convened another meeting last December of Haitian government officials and Haitian diaspora in Montreal, where he again told them that reconciliation was essential. He's raised the Haitian problem at other meetings and announced $180-million in aid. It's hardly his fault the situation has become worse.

What's to be done? Canada will bring people together next week in Montreal, hoping to keep the Haitian election timetable intact and praying that, from those elections, something remotely resembling a stable government emerges that can at least take control of an increasingly lawless place. The prospects of success, at least for now, look slim at best.


----------



## Reccesoldier (8 Jun 2005)

> What constitutes a "failed state"?
> 
> If the world community can define one, what should it do?



The moment (if) the UN does define such a thing then it will enter the great abiss with other words like genocide which is not spoken for fear of having to live up to the lofty resolutions passed on said subject.  :


----------



## Acorn (9 Jun 2005)

The "world community" cannot define Terrorism. How can we expect it to define a failed state?


Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2005)

How can we define "failed state" when the majority of the world's societies have little or no cultural conception of the *state*?


----------



## jmacleod (9 Jun 2005)

Canadian politicians, particulary the for life natural governing Party, define "policy" by what appears
in Canadian media. The Liberal Party, with the notable exception of the Trudeau years has no real
intellectual depth, nor does the rank and file yearn for anything but election victory - but there are
problems. A recent study by the Fraser Institute cites anti Americanism (and anti Israelii bias)in the
CBC. Have often cautioned friends in the US and Israel that they have no friends in the CBC, where
news is "motivated" - it is indeed a haven for the socialist, left wing, anti conservative graduates
of Universities in Canada whose curriculums are far from the main stream of traditional Canadian
values, and many tenured professors are war resistors and draft dodgers from the Viet Nam War
whose perspectives of the United States is colored by their histories. I think the CBC carefully recruits
those who agree with a perspective of the world through CBC colored glasses - and this reflects
in reaction by the Liberal government, who are supported by the largely "liberal" media in Canada
- Globe and Mail, Halifax Herald, CTV - the net result, shallow foreign policies, designed to maintain
the liberal media's preception of Canada, as a kindly, do gooder type of society, epitomiized by the
various voices of CBC reporters and commentators - one known in our offices as "ms. menopause"
Twenty plus years ago, Canada was a better country - my rant for today. MacLeod


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2005)

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Canadian politicians, particulary the for life natural governing Party, define "policy" by what appears in Canadian media. The Liberal Party, with the notable exception of the Trudeau years has no real intellectual depth ...



I disagree â â€œ this generation has some good, solid people.   I don't agree with most of what most of them espouse but I respect a good many of them.   I think Trudeau had an exceptionally _shallow_ cabinet and party.   He disliked _deep_ people â â€œ even those who agreed with him and he drove them away, out of politics.   Mulroney's front bench was very strong, by comparison.



			
				jmacleod said:
			
		

> ... the net result, shallow foreign policies, designed to maintain
> the liberal media's preception of Canada, as a kindly, do gooder type of society, epitomiized by the various voices of CBC reporters and commentators - one known in our offices as "ms. menopause" Twenty plus years ago, Canada was a better country - my rant for today. MacLeod



That _kindly, do gooder type of society_ is precisely what Trudeau and Ivan Head espoused.   I agree with MacLeod  that the mainstream media is shallow â â€œ because it is a reflection of its shallow hero: Pierre Trudeau.

The 'rot' lies in the deeply flawed 1969 foreign policy White Paper which is still much loved by the _commentariat_ and large parts of the foreign policy establishment.   It entrenches a _Little Canada_ position which has weakened Canada and continues to do so to this day.   Tony Blair's recent snub just highlights the point: he is trying hard to drum up support for his Africa position at the forthcoming G8 meeting, trying everywhere except in Ottawa because he knows that, despite all the rhetoric, Canada will not â â€œ because it cannot â â€œ play any useful role.   We are a faded, toothless _cheerleader_ with a weak, off-key voice.   Trudeau did that to us; Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin helped, but Trudeau did it because he was too intellectually vacuous to think things through.

I think Trudeau was a puffed up petty little provincial â â€œ he had a good education but he preferred the very, very small pond of Québec where is pretensions passed for depth.   He had charisma and that, his handlers learned from Theodore H White's _Making of the President_ (1960), was all that one needed to win elections in Canada.   We, Canadians, were desperate for a _Kennedy_ of our own in the mid '60s (we always want a Canadian ______ - fill in the blank with whatever _celebrity_ the Americans worship this week);   we had _Dief the Chief_ and boring old Mike Pearson.   Coutts and Davey _et al_ could, and did, run a fool and win so long as they ran a young, hip, photogenic, TV savvy, charismatic fool. _Trudeaumania_ was and, I guess, still is real and few, way too few Canadians ever looked at the man.   Those who did saw a lightweight and a poltroon but that didn't matter: he had charisma.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2005)

Slightly off key here, but ideas like _R2P_ and intervening in "failed states" is really a not so subtle return to Imperialism. It is also amazingly hypocritical coming from the mouths of Canadian politicians; they certainly are not too eager to follow the Americans into the fray when _they_ choose to take action against a "failed state" or enforce the "_R2P_".

OF course, the desire to take action and intervene also seems pretty proportional to the desire to "take action" and "intervene" at home as well. The slew of intrusive taxes, laws and regulations aimed at *us* is also symptomatic of an Imperial state (a very small and petty empire, to be sure), so it should be no surprise that they are starting to look outwards as well. 

The analogy is not exact. Empires require "legions", and generally the Legion is loyal to the state or the Imperator, not "the people". We have no legions, and our professional soldiers, by and large, are either apolitical or not very fond of the ruling party. (A sub digression; what would happen if a future government actually came through with their promises and showered the CF with tangible support? I can think of one historical example where a military was rehabilitated, and became a very loyal tool for the Party in power....). Republics with civil militias are not aggressive as a rule (Madison's plans to invade Canada during the war of 1812 came to repeated grief as the various State militias refused to go, or even leave their state boundaries, and one of the key problems for Lincoln in the American Civil War was the difficulty in raising and keeping troops for the duration of the war. Many Union troops enlisted for a limited term, and were quite adamant about going home at the end of the term. A lot of manpower was also tied up in State Militias which were reluctant to leave their states.)

This willingness to throw our weight around in the outside world is most likely going to get us in trouble, since we cannot do this in any realistic fashion, and the motivations for doing this are suspect to begin with. Certainly we need a force with the capabilities to deal with any clear and present danger to Canada and her interests, and I am in favor of assisting people when possible, but not at a disproportionate cost in blood and treasure, and certainly not if there is no compelling national interest for doing so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Slightly off key here, but ideas like _R2P_ and intervening in "failed states" is really a not so subtle return to Imperialism. It is also amazingly hypocritical coming from the mouths of Canadian politicians; they certainly are not too eager to follow the Americans into the fray when _they_ choose to take action against a "failed state" or enforce the "_R2P_".
> ...
> This willingness to throw our weight around in the outside world is most likely going to get us in trouble, since we cannot do this in any realistic fashion, and the motivations for doing this are suspect to begin with. Certainly we need a force with the capabilities to deal with any clear and present danger to Canada and her interests, and I am in favor of assisting people when possible, but not at a disproportionate cost in blood and treasure, and certainly not if there is no compelling national interest for doing so.



Spot on, a_majoor.

I have ranted and raved a bit about this at "Next up for the CF? Sudan?â ? - see, especially: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30415/post-222824.html#msg222824 

A couple of points:

"¢	Canadians, in general and the _commentariat_ and chattering classes in particular want to talk about _doing something_ but they almost all sputter and stall whenever there is a real, concrete proposal to spend money on anything except 'free' healthcare at home.

"¢	As a general rule, my general rule anyway: the louder and more strident the Canadian voice, the less practical the proposal.

"¢	There is a huge _domestic_ concern here.  There is a perceived need to talk and talk and talk with all the various ethnic groups in Canada about _doing something_ for their failed or failing state _old countries_ but it is politically dangerous to actually promise, much less do something - helping group A will alienate group B. Unless you know the voting patterns for certain then actions must be feared as they will likely backfire.  (e.g. most Canadians of Tamil descent will continue to vote Liberal so long as the _Tigers_ are not declared to be terrorists but no one will switch from Tory to Liberal if the _Tigers_ are properly identified (as murdering terrorists)).

"¢	By and large the Canadian media will interpret a _â ?this is very important, a high priority for my governmentâ ?_ from Paul Martin as an action completed and they will move on to the real 'news' like spotting American celebrities in Toronto.


----------



## jmacleod (9 Jun 2005)

Canada is in fact shallow - probably coould not avoid it. The Canada I see out the front door was created for the most part in the media - both previous posts are substantillay correct in most areas
and agreed - but I must take exception to the preception to PM Pierre E Trudeau - a close friend
and relative, himself a PhD in law, was an EA to PET - was, and remains in awe of his massive
intellect. Trudeau's main focus was on creating a Canada which opened the entire country to
French (Quebec) Canadians - which he did. The former President of the Liberal Party and Senator
Keith Davey were not Trudeau's "handlers" - they were, most days intimidated by him - knew them
both well. When I was a teenager in Halifax, during WWII, I did'nt realize the fact until later in my
lfe that there were no Naval Officers (RCN/RCNVR) serving from Quebec - at least not, in my fathers
house, a gathering place for Navy types (commissioned and otherwise) - a house of many parties
never to my recollection, had a visitor serving in the Navy from Quebec - learned in later life that
the Navy of the era did not want them. Trudeau changed that. MacLeod


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (11 Jun 2005)

When sending troops to intervene, Canada needs to change the way they are employed.  We should only contribute troops if they are to be committed in whole integrated formations.  There should be no penny-packet deployments of Canadian troops relying on third world Sepoy's to defend their positions.  Canadian troops should only be employed under UN leadership either drawn from Canada, or other NATO nations who can be trusted to allow the troops the freedom to do their job properly, not hamstrung by the kind of civilian oversight we saw in Rwanda, and dozens of similar missions.  Lastly, if ROE's cannot be agreed to that will allow Canadian troops to seek out and eliminate threats to the mission, then they should not be sent.  It does no good to have patrols and recce elements identify insurgent elements, and the buildup of arms and troops preparatory to attack or "ethnic cleansing" if they are unable to act preventively.  Canada is committed to too many missions, with too few resources.  If we restrict ourselves to fewer missions with more forces and resources, we can make a real difference.  We have to take a look at the success in Afghanistan, and realize that our peacekeeping may not always be done under the UN blue beret, and may be done more effectively (as during the pre-League of Nations era) by NATO or other ad-hoc coalitions of first world powers stepping in to restore order.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jun 2005)

I'm going to use the article, below, by Lewis MacKenzie, from today's _Globe and Mail_ to ride an old hobby horse of mine.

Reforming, trying to reform the UN, especially the UNSC, is a mugs' game.  There are many, many good and valid reasons to keep the UN in being - things which involve helping people are, broadly, within the UN's competence.  Matters dealing with _security_, it seems to me, are beyond the UN's ken because:

"¢	It has no _dispute resolution mechanism_; and

"¢	The _entry bar_ is set too low - the one _nation-state_ (no matter how failed)/one vote concept guarantees paralysis and failure.

Anyway, here is _Uncle Lew_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050629.wxcolew29/BNStory/National/


> Lewis MacKenzie
> *UN reform takes two steps back *
> 
> BY LEWIS MACKENZIE
> ...



The way to reform the UN is to transfer many of its functions to the WTO - beginning with several of the economic/trade oriented UN agencies like the International Telecommunications Union (which is, itself, far _senior_ to the UN or even the old League of Nations) and the World Intellectual Property Organization.  When the WTO has been strengthened then it, too, can have a Security Council without the impediments to which people like Acheson and St. Laurent acquiesced under pressure from Molotov and Eleanor Roosevelt.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jun 2005)

Wouldn't it be a curveball if Canada just up and pulled out of the UN one day.... ^-^


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be a curveball if Canada just up and pulled out of the UN one day.... ^-^



The scary and far more probable scenario is the US just stands up and leaves the UN one day.......Who gets Turtle Bay when the US revokes the lease?


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Jun 2005)

I'm going to actualy try to answer the question   Hold on! :dontpanic:

*Foreign policy:* 

First off I would advocate a Canada centric foreign policy designed around the furtherance and improvement of Canadian interest and political capital on the world stage. Years of schizophrenic foreign policy (caused by a complete lack of political will in this country to) have degraded Canada's status as a moderate voice in international politics and led to increased polarization between nations. 

I would advocate continuing and increasing our international commitments to defense and economic partnerships such as WTO, WB, OAS, NAFTA, NORAD, NATO and even the UN but in each of these (and especially the UN) we would carve out a proactive role vice the prostrate one our current government advocates. This would not affect our standing for the most part, but a more vocal Canada may ruffle the feathers of those who have taken advantage of our silence in the past. As a corollary to this I would however, deny that any international body, agency or institution has the â Å“rightâ ? to overrule, usurp or trump Canada's sovereignty or the sovereignty and rights of Canadian Citizen's wherever they may be. 

With particular regard to our military alliances I would increase our activity in NATO considerably. This would mostly involve our naval forces but I would also attempt to reestablish Canada as a center of aviation training for NATO in places like Gander and Cold Lake. 

While we already have a substantial seat at the table with regards to NORAD I would examine the missile defense shield for utility and practicality before removing Canada from the equation. This goes for any and all defense projects for that matter.

The UN is another can of worms. As an international body made up of sovereign states the UN is hamstrung by it's inability to reach consensus between those states and therefore is more often than not paralyzed by it's own lack of legitimacy on the world stage. All the resolutions in the world are useless unless there are moderate states, like Canada, willing to stand up to this international debating team and state simply and clearly that â Å“the emperor has no clothesâ ?.

I do not believe that the UN can be immediately formed into the active and productive institution that it was supposed to be so Canada must have the will, and the ability to take a page out of our southern neighbors playbook and act in coalition with other like-minded states in the face of UN obstructionism and dithering.

With regard to foreign economic policy Canada must not be kept from developing free trade with other states by the increasingly protectionist sentiments of the USA. We must also be willing as a nation to stand up and indeed fight back against the sort of hypocritical stance taken by some in the US on the issue of Mad Cow. In addition the dispute resolution process in NAFTA is seriously flawed and we should fix it rather than just complain (again) when another challenge is launched against our softwood lumber or some other resource. If the US is bent on dominating NAFTA and dealing in an unfair manner we should also explore removing ourselves from the agreement and seek to create/join similar trade arrangements in the emerging markets of Asia, South America and even Europe.

Our disastrous foreign aid policy has forced us to forgive Billions in third world debt. This is a result of investment in failed programs in failed states. Much of our aid money never gets to those that need it because the governments of the nations in question are little more than corrupt tin-pot-dictatorships who live lavishly in palaces while the people of their nations starve in abject poverty. The solution to this conundrum is simple. Canada will not as a state provide foreign aid to any nation that has not proven itself committed to democratic reform, democratic rights, religious toleration and the dismantling of any and all groups within that nation which support, aid or advocate terrorism.

_ *The interconnected nature of Foreign Relations and Defense Policy requires that these two disciplines be considered not in isolation, but in conjunction with one another.  The aim should be to produce coherent and viable solutions to the operational, administrative and monetary concerns of both departments simultaneously. But that is another topic completely*_

 Fire away, Zip


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2005)

I shot my wad on page 1 but I will take issue with just one of your points: NATO.

I think NATO is _yesterday's alliance_ â â€œ we should not abandon it, not just yet, anyway, but it is not, in my view, that 'answer.'  NATO is too big and bureaucratic and too _political_.

I think we want a role in a leaner, meaner _global_ alliance which, I believe, should start with the existing, loosely tied together but highly _interoperable_ anglosphere (America, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore) plus a few (like Fiji, Iceland (for political reason), Malaysia, maybe, and  Netherlands and Norway).  Such a grouping â â€œ let's not call it an alliance and let's avoid a treaty if we can â â€œ can be highly responsive to political direction and the requisite political direction can be achieved if the grouping is fairly small, generally like minded, and â â€œ being unencumbered by a treaty â â€œ not bound to unanimity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2005)

Several good articles in today's papers, including two from the _Globe and Mai;l_ re: the overexposure of Bob Geldof at al and their crusade for more and more poorly focused spending on Africa.

See here, it is not 'subscriber only' so I will not repeat it all: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050630.wxgeldof30/BNStory/National/ and here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050630.wgeldofanswer0630/BNStory/International/

The key point, it seems to me, is made by David Dodge (who is immensely smarter than Geldof and Martin, combined) from today's _National Post_:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ab7d01e2-8b6d-41d2-baa7-9ac9b6ca0fa0


> G8 being 'hijacked': Concern grows that Live 8's Africa agenda is overtaking bigger economic hazards
> 
> Jacqueline Thorpe
> National Post, with files from news services
> ...



My emphasis added.

Some army.ca members will know that I favour increasing our foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP but I also insist in major overhauls in our aid programmes before any more money is sent off.  In my opinion Bob Geldof  is an ignorant man who wants to waste our money.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Jun 2005)

I found this opinion on Geldof/Live 8 interesting:



> *Live 8... Opportunity or moronfest?*
> Perry de Havilland (London)  Globalization/economics
> 
> The usual collection of fabulously rich but economically illiterate show biz twits are going to assemble for Bob Geldof's Live 8 event  ...
> ...


 http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007608.html

when viewed in the context of these comments (from a conference call with some bloggers):





> 12:28 - Another concert would be pointless, Geldof says. What is needed is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a workable plan and a significant amount for the effort. He feels that Bush is more responsive than widely thought on this issue and has an opportunity to surprise the world. Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, and other evangelicals have signed a letter asking for Bush to make this a top priority ...
> 
> 12:33 - Todd Zwicki wants to know about the concept of "trade justice". *Geldof: The EU is a protection racket that Al Capone would love. The trade cartels exist to protect domestic production ...
> 
> ...


 http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004650.php

Calculated posturing, maybe ... but at least _he_ seems to have some idea of what needs to be done, even if most of the show's supporters don't.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2005)

Here's an idea. If all these multi millionaire bands are so upset about the funds going to Africa, maybe they should all put in 1 million of their own money first. Personally, my gov't has already taxed me to death, taking over 50% of my earnings already. Sorry, but I just can't get behind these elitists who pressure for me to pay and all they do is sing a couple of songs and spout empty rhetoric from their soapbox. Where's their commitment?


----------



## paracowboy (30 Jun 2005)

pouring money into Africa at this point is like putting a Band-Aid on a cancer patient. Ask ol' Bob where the money from his grand adventure with Ethipia went. Ask him about the sacks and sacks of food that rotted on the docks. Without major overhauls to the "political system" in that continent, any money spent will be wasted. just like the money he raised back in the '80s. "Feed the World", pfffft! 

Geldoff is a fool. A well-meaning fool, but a fool. Like Amnesty International. Bless 'em all for their ideals, but they're completely out of touch with the grim realities.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Jun 2005)

He's got a long way to go, but I think he's at least _starting _to get the picture (which puts him a million miles ahead of most of these morons).  At the very least this time he recognizes and is drawing attention to the need for political and economic reform, rather than simply throwing money at the problem (as in Live Aid) and thinking it would be solved.  FWIW, he's got his priorities wrong: African countries (generally) need open and honest government far more urgently than *more* aid money, and the lowering of trade barriers (along with all this horsesh*t about "Fair Trade") would provide far more benefit than any amount of money, BUT he is acknowledging and drawing attention to these aspects of the problem.


----------

