# CAN Says "No, Thanks" to Commanding UN Congo Mission



## The Bread Guy (2 Jun 2008)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Canada spurns UN plea on Congo*
Rejecting request to lead peacekeepers indicates Ottawa abandoning traditional role, ex-envoy says
Allan Thompson, Toronto Star, 2 Jun 08
Article link

Canada turned down a United Nations request to take command of the peacekeeping mission in Congo and will instead devote its resources to Afghanistan.

"Finding a lieutenant-general at this time can be a challenge, especially with Afghanistan going on," said Maj. Denys Guay, deputy military attaché at Canada's permanent mission to the UN in New York.

Guay confirmed in an interview that Canada was approached by the UN secretariat's department of peacekeeping operations about six weeks ago to submit a candidate to take charge of the massive UN force in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Canada was asked for a two-star general and limited support staff, not a contingent of troops.

The request was forwarded to the department of foreign affairs and defence department for review, Guay said, but Canada opted to contribute to Afghanistan instead of the mission in Congo.

Canada's former ambassador to the UN, Robert Fowler, said the decision signals Ottawa has all but given up on traditional peacekeeping.

"It is such a pity that we have withdrawn from UN peacekeeping to this extent when this used to be a signature for us, a Canadian brand," said Fowler, who was a special adviser on Africa to both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin and is now a senior fellow at the University of Ottawa.

Canada is now tied with Malawi as the 53rd largest UN peacekeeping contributor, Fowler noted.

The Congo force, known by the acronym MONUC, has nearly 17,000 troops from more than a dozen countries and at a price tag exceeding $1 billion a year is the biggest UN mission ever.

More than 5.4 million people died in Congo's five-year civil war and its aftermath, mainly from disease and starvation. The conflict officially ended with a peace deal in 2002.

One Canadian military insider who asked not to be identified said Canada's decision makes clear that we have all but abandoned traditional peacekeeping in places like Africa in favour of "playing with the big boys" in Afghanistan.

The Congo mission is huge but has been relatively ineffectual, the military insider said, in part because of a fractured leadership structure that pits divisional commanders against the force commander. The UN is finally moving to fix the command structure and had hoped for Canada to take charge.

The current commander, Senegalese Gen. Babacar Gaye, is nearing the end of his term and the UN is keen to replace him. The UN turned to Canada after several other nations declined the invitation.

"What they wanted was a francophone, from a country with no colonial or political baggage," said the military insider. "Canada could have made a real difference here."

This is not the first time Canada has turned down a UN request to take charge of the Congo mission. In February 2003 – at the start of its involvement in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan – Canada rejected a UN plea to lead the fragile peacekeeping force in Congo.

At the time, retired Canadian Gen. Roméo Dallaire, who commanded the ill-fated peacekeeping force in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, said Canada should have pounced on the request to go to Congo as an opportunity to save thousands of lives and promote human rights.

_Allan Thompson teaches at Carleton University's School of Journalism and heads the Rwanda Initiative, a program to train journalists in Rwanda._


----------



## TrexLink (2 Jun 2008)

Another thread was asking if the press was Canada's 'fifth column'.  The Star's loaded language headline was the first thing I noted.  "Spurns," indeed.

As to the Congo, MONUC may just be unfixable. You'll note that several other nations turned it down first.


----------



## GAP (2 Jun 2008)

Good, from the sounds of it, it has and will continue to be a cluster&^%*.......


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Jun 2008)

The way I read this was that we turned it down because of Afghanistan, but then later on the author says that we have already turned it down in the past.  I think this was just a cheep shot to get us back to a peacekeeping nation with the completely disfunctional UN  :


Just my 2 cents


----------



## geo (2 Jun 2008)

You have to ask yourself from the very beginning.... what are you expecting to accomplish during your mandate.... above and beyond the "showing of the UN flag".

If your mandate is weak and you are unable to respond with the application of some necessary force when it is needed, then you have to have to wonder.... What's the point?  I am not suggesting that a UN emergency force should go in there like a bull in a china shop BUT, given what the MONUC mandate...



> The United Nations Security Council established MONUC to facilitate the implementation of the Lusaka Accord signed in 1999. With a budget exceeding one billion dollars, it is the largest and most expensive mission in the Department of Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO).
> 
> MONUC’s mandate can be broken down into four phases:
> Phase 1 involved forcibly implementing the ceasefire agreement.
> ...



Given the major players who currently form MONUC: India (4400), Pakistan (3500), Bangladesh (1300) South Africa (1100), Nepal (1100), Uruguay (1300) You would think these guys would be the 1st countries to be approached for a Force commander....


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jun 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> The way I read this was that we turned it down because of Afghanistan, but then later on the author says that we have already turned it down in the past.  I think this was just a cheep shot to get us back to a peacekeeping nation with the completely disfunctional UN  :



Agreed, esp. when you consider the author is NOT a journalist or columnist (any more), but an academic/NGO type with experience/interest in African issues:  "Allan Thompson teaches at Carleton University's School of Journalism and heads the Rwanda Initiative, a program to train journalists in Rwanda."


----------



## PO2FinClk (2 Jun 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "Finding a *lieutenant-general* at this time can be a challenge, especially with Afghanistan going on," said Maj. Denys Guay, deputy military attaché at Canada's permanent mission to the UN in New York.
> 
> Canada was asked for *a two-star general* and limited support staff, not a contingent of troops.



Seeing this discrepency within the first 2 para's makes me question the vailidity of the rest of the article.


----------



## Danjanou (2 Jun 2008)

> "What they wanted was a francophone, from a country with no colonial or political baggage," said the military insider. "Canada could have made a real difference here."
> 
> This is not the first time Canada has turned down a UN request to take charge of the Congo mission. In February 2003 – at the start of its involvement in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan – Canada rejected a UN plea to lead the fragile peacekeeping force in Congo.
> 
> At the time, retired Canadian Gen. Roméo Dallaire, who commanded the ill-fated peacekeeping force in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, said Canada should have pounced on the request to go to Congo as an opportunity to save thousands of lives and promote human rights.



Well let him put the uniform on again and take the job. He seems qualified. 

As for comments by "Teflon Bob" Fowler on how bad it is that we have moved away form "traditional peacekeeping" maybe it's because he isn't running the place anymore, and we actually have the kit and the werewithall to do other things now.


----------



## TrexLink (2 Jun 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Given the major players who currently form MONUC: India (4400), Pakistan (3500), Bangladesh (1300) South Africa (1100), Nepal (1100), Uruguay (1300) You would think these guys would be the 1st countries to be approached for a Force commander....


Maybe they were.  The article does say others countries had been asked first. 

On the other hand, the UN wanted a francophone, which makes sense as the Congo was a Belgian colony and presumably French is still spoken there.  India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, S Africa, Nepal and Uruguay would likely be rather short of francophones right now.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jun 2008)

How many Lgen's do we have in Canada?


----------



## Armymedic (2 Jun 2008)

Better question: how many LGen's do we have willing to put thier career on hold to command a group of 2nd world armies in a little know UN mission?


----------



## Armymedic (2 Jun 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> As for comments by "Teflon Bob" Fowler on how bad it is that we have moved away form "traditional peacekeeping" maybe it's because he isn't running the place anymore, and we actually have the kit and the werewithall to do other things now.



He must be a sex addict. He can't help trying to f@*& the CF around even when he isn't in the country.


----------



## geo (2 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> How many Lgen's do we have in Canada?



something like 8 - in uniforms of blue & green colours


----------



## PO2FinClk (2 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> How many Lgen's do we have in Canada?


7 LGen's, or 9 "3 Stars" if you include the Navy's Vice-Admiral's.

http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/dsa/app_bio/engraph/FSeniorOfficerAddressBook_e.asp?mLimit=Gen&SectChoice=1


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Jun 2008)

The position is ranked as a Lieutenant General, but if the story is correct, Canada was asked to provide a MGen.  It's not much of a discrepancy as CF general officers/colonels (as well as from other countries) have previously filled international slots as Acting (WSE) _(fill in the rank)_.

The major force contributors to MONUC may have been asked (and declined) to fill this position and provide what essentially is a corps(-) staff.  However, the possibilty exists that one of the reasons that a new direction is being sought for the force commander is because of the problems of a non-military nature that have plagued MONUC and African peacekeeping (and aid) operations in general.  Some of those major force contributors are also the subjects of the recent sexual abuse and corruption allegations.  The sense that I get from reviewing the MONUC website is that many(most?) of the force commander's day to day problems are not of a strictly military operational nature.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jun 2008)

I see Mr. Fowler could not resist getting his digs into the Conservative government.

Mr. Fowler was part of the problem at NDHQ during the dark ages.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jun 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Just say "No" to Congo
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/just-say-no-to-congo.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (2 Jun 2008)

Our top stars have been turning down these kind of 'swan' tours like this ever since Rwanda.  There's no glory in being in charge as a country goes pear-shaped when you are supposed to be controlling the situation, or for being put on the hot seat when your bottom of the barrel third-world soldiers commit criminal acts...


----------



## Kilo_302 (3 Jun 2008)

Fowler is probably missing his office that he (ie the taxpayer) spent hundreds of thousands of dollars renovating. All of this at a time when the Forces couldn't afford ammo for training.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2008)

_Caveat lector_: I know Bob Fowler, he's an acquaintance rather than a friend or colleague - 

•	I first met him when he was DM of DND. I was on the staff of a very senior officer and, now and again, went with him and his boss to meetings with Mr. Fowler;

•	I see him still, occasionally, at conferences and symposia on international affairs. We usually find a few minutes to chat;

•	Over the course of a long career I also had a chance to meet other very senior civil servants and, as with Mr. Fowler, to sit in their offices;

•	I have read Scott Taylor's “Tarnished Brass” (the book that tries to stir up a "scandal" over Fowler's office renovations). I have been in Bob Fowler's office after the renovations. It is a nice office - well furnished, well decorated, comfortable and well equipped for the needs of a very senior executive. When Bob Fowler occupied it, the office was not better or nicer or more lavish than those of other DMs in Ottawa – it wasn't as lavish as those of some, maybe most civilian senior executives;

•	Fowler is a smart guy – maybe very smart. He is well educated, experienced at the most senior levels of national and international affairs, thoughtful, observant, widely travelled and even more widely read;

•	He is an insider's insider; and

•	He is firmly committed to the idea that Africa is a bigger and worse long term problem than is the _Islamic Crescent_ today. His case is convincing.

Bob Fowler is equally committed to the idea that it is strategically wrong to wait for Africa to blow up in our faces – to wait until the only solution is another long, bloody ground war far, far away from home. I agree with him.

I think his statement that we are backing away from traditional, baby-blue beret type UN peacekeeping is both accurate and consistent with what Gen Hillier has said. I do not agree that it is “pity,” _per se_, but properly conducted _peacekeeping_ missions can be, should be an alternative to full scale combat. The problem, one that Mr. Fowler may be too diplomatic to state in public, is that the UN is inept and corrupt – it cannot conduct a mission “properly.”


----------



## leroi (3 Jun 2008)

As an ignorant (but not-too-stupid-Canadian civilian) I have a few questions and thoughts on this.  Please correct me if my thinking is wrong and I will certainly stand down.

I think it would be better at this point in time for Canada to not take up the Congo mission and instead, focus on the learning curve in the Middle East: concentrate on training, increasing the force, buying badly needed equipment--hoping that learning loop travels back to NDHQ as wisdom and support to those in theatre.
Am I wrong in thinking that part of the (political) problems that trickled down to the CF in the mid-nineties happened because politicians made too many peacekeeping  commitments which overextended your resources? Wouldn't it be better for the time being to focus on the Afghanistan mission while also have the foreign affairs experts, analysts, politicians etc. continue tracking problems in Africa in preparation for a possible future deployment?

E. R., I agree with the point you are making regarding the need for possible Canadian intervention in parts of Africa; but is this the right time for us to do this? I'm not sure we can do this effectively from my understanding of problems facing the CF.  I hope if Canada commits the CF to this mission that the CF will demand very clear directives that will be communicated clearly from the top down to the lowest ranks putting themselves in harms way.

Although I certainly don't know Mr. Fowler personally, what I have read about him is that he was responsible for a lot of upper echelon miscommunication during the dark days: mid-nineties for the CF. He was portrayed as a rather villanous Iago-like creature responsible for withholding information, pitting people against each other, etc.  
Perhaps, he has been demonized by the media ...  ? 

(Mods feel free to delete this comment if it's too inflamatory and off-topic: I sincerely hope that Canada will never need to witness the disbanding of an entire regiment again: the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment (in retaliation for the actions of a few) is , to my mind, one of the greatest travesties of Canadian history--in fact--it was an attempt to erase a piece of history--I say this with the deepest respect for all those who served in that regiment.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2008)

I think you’re right, leroi, in this order of priorities – Canada should:

1.	“Not take up the Congo mission”

2.	“Focus on the learning curve” in the Middle East from West Asia

3.	“Concentrate on training, increasing the force, buying badly needed equipment.”

To this I would add – Canada should, in no particular order:

A.	_*Engage*_ Africa and the Africans – helping the Africans, themselves, to make the changes in how their vast, diverse continent governs itself;

B.	Seek an alternative to ‘traditional’ (baby-blue beret type) peacekeeping – one sanctioned or authorized by but not *managed* by the UN – that can be used to help Africa make necessary transitions without the need for large scale combat operations, especially not those requiring American, Belgian, British, French, Portuguese or Spanish participation;

C.	Reform our foreign aid programme to reach our oft-promised 0.7% of GDP level (about $10 Billion next year) and to change how we spend the money; and, despite al these things

D.	Be prepared to fight in and for Africa longer, harder and with far less public support than is the case, now, in and for Afghanistan because Africa is going to explode in our face and simple humanity will not allow us to ignore a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions.

Mr. Fowler is thoroughly disliked by a whole lot of people in Ottawa; the extent of the dislike seems to be inversely proportional to how well those people know him. I know a few people who disagree, vehemently, with what he said and says, did and does, but still respect and even like the man.


----------



## Greymatters (3 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A.	_*Engage*_ Africa and the Africans – helping the Africans, themselves, to make the changes in how their vast, diverse continent governs itself;



Im all for that.  Why is that we are not judged as doing anything unless we've got rifle butts on the ground there?   (After which they cant stop complaining, but thats another issue).  Why do we have to do 'peacekeeping' in order to be seen as doing anything there?  Instead of just sending money, why not open a school there where our foreign affairs types can teach the locals all they need to know about running a country, among other things...


----------



## AlphaQup (3 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Caveat lector_: I know Bob Fowler, he's an acquaintance rather than a friend or colleague -
> 
> •	I first met him when he was DM of DND. I was on the staff of a very senior officer and, now and again, went with him and his boss to meetings with Mr. Fowler;
> 
> ...


Great post, you sound like one of my professors. Besides engaging Africa, can't the same arguement be made that other countries in other poor continents around the world are a powder keg waiting to explode?


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2008)

AlphaQup said:
			
		

> ... Besides engaging Africa, can't the same arguement be made that other countries in other poor continents around the world are a powder keg waiting to explode?



Yes, indeed. And, arguably, we could have and should have *engaged* Afghanistan while the Taliban was in power in an effort to persuade them not to allow _al Qaeda_ to use Afghanistan as a base.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But, wait - we did that. We did *engage* Afghanistan and the Taliban didn't listen. That's why, indirectly, we're fighting and killing and dying there now.

That's why I expect that even if we do everything 'right' we are still going to end up fighting and killing and dying in an astonishingly difficult series of wars throughout Africa.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, wait - we did that. We did *engage* Afghanistan and the Taliban didn't listen. That's why, indirectly, we're fighting and killing and dying there now.  That's why I expect that even if we do everything 'right' we are still going to end up fighting and killing and dying in an astonishingly difficult series of wars throughout Africa.



But at least we understand this.  Too many others in this country act and believe outside of reality, thinking 'just a bit longer' or 'the right person' would have been successful, regardless of the intentions and ideology of the side we are trying to deal with...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2008)

AlphaQup said:
			
		

> Great post, you sound like one of my professors. Besides engaging Africa, can't the same arguement be made that other countries in other poor continents around the world are a powder keg waiting to explode?



This is a variation of the Thomas P.M. Barnett argument about the "Core and the Gap". While the argument can indeed be made, the reality is that neither Canada or even the collective "West" has the resources available to deal with this problem, much less the will or interest.

The practical second best solution is what we are doing now; pick and choose according to how our limited resources can best serve the national interest. The establishment of reasonably robust moderate regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan serve as means to direct the energy of the Jihadis and radical Islamists away from us, and also to serve as a rallying point for those in that part of the world who also wish to live free from "Islamofascism"


----------



## GAP (4 Jun 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Instead of just sending money, why not open a school there where our foreign affairs types can teach the locals all they need to know about running a country, among other things...



Because, that would interfer with the leaders/rulers/despots having to actually work to fill their Swiss Bank Accounts....


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jun 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Because, that would interfere with the leaders/rulers/despots having to actually work to fill their Swiss Bank Accounts....



I should have added a smiley for 'rolling eyes' on my comment.


----------



## Korporaal (4 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think you’re right, leroi, in this order of priorities – Canada should:
> 
> 1.	“Not take up the Congo mission”
> 
> ...




With all due respect I find the above points from A to D laughable in its naivety, spoken as only a Western Liberal can say it.
While I sit and type this response I think of my old homeland, the country that the whole world held up as a shining example of Democracy, good honest governance implode by the sheer weight of theft from the public coffers, corruption within the highest ranks of the government and police force, with judges on the take, incompetance of monumental proportions which has thrust the country into a situation whereby it has electricity blackouts on a daily basis, where foreigners are now being murdered, and white commercial farmers are being forced off the land which will result in food shortages in the future...so while SOUTH AFRICA fails, you really think that you can change the continent of Africa by bringing Western ideals to it.

My advice to Canada...stay out of Africa, by all means assuage your guilt by giving aid in the form of building hospitals, schools an education system (just dont give the governments the cash though, it will only end up in bank accounts in Luxembourg and Switzerland), but dont send the troops to stand between tribes who have a hatred of each other going back for more years than Canada has been a nation.

Oh...and one more thing...do not get sucked in by the Politically Correct Liberals who will try and convince you that a few troops with BLUE helmets from Canada will actually make any differance in the long run.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jun 2008)

As an infanteer, when we "engage" its usually through the sights of a C7, C9, C6 or similar weapon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2008)

Korporaal said:
			
		

> 1 ... so while SOUTH AFRICA fails, you really think that you can change the continent of Africa by bringing Western ideals to it?
> 
> 2. My advice to Canada...stay out of Africa, by all means assuage your guilt by giving aid in the form of building hospitals, schools an education system (just dont give the governments the cash though, it will only end up in bank accounts in Luxembourg and Switzerland), but dont send the troops to stand between tribes who have a hatred of each other going back for more years than Canada has been a nation.
> 
> 3. Oh...and one more thing...do not get sucked in by the Politically Correct Liberals who will try and convince you that a few troops with BLUE helmets from Canada will actually make any differance in the long run.



1. Nope. Africa, including South Africa, Black Africa and all the North African countries is in no way ready for "Western ideals" or ideas. Maybe we can transplant some of the more successful 'Second World' ideals and ideas, but it will be a century (three or four human generations) before Africa will be ready for 'First World' ideas.

2. I agree, *but* I doubt common sense will prevail. Africa - all of it - is about to explode in three great crises:

a. AIDS will cause demographic, social, political and economic chaos. What little leadership and management here is now will collapse. Rwanda in 1994 will be the norm for most of Black Africa;

b. African economies, probably even South Africa's, will collapse under the weight of inept governments and a near total inability to make the global marketplace work for Africa. Starvation will become the norm - further exacerbating the AIDS induced crisis; and

c. Islam will continue to grind up against other religious and social systems – often bloodily.

The consequence is that we *will* get sucked into Africa. Our own basic humanity will make us unable to resist.

3. Agreed, again. I don’t think anyone – not even in the UN - thinks that the UN can keep the peace with _Pearsonian_ baby-blue beret wearing _peacekeepers_. That’s why the UN is trying, unsuccessfully thus far, to convince Sudan to accept a non-UN force.

As to South Africa: I’m not trying to be overly rude but we have nothing to learn from its experiences. For over 40 years South Africa was resolutely and obtusely on the wrong side of history. White South African are the authors, the sole authors, of its current troubles.


----------



## Korporaal (6 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As to South Africa: I’m not trying to be overly rude but we have nothing to learn from its experiences. For over 40 years South Africa was resolutely and obtusely on the wrong side of history. White South African are the authors, the sole authors, of its current troubles.



No offence is taken as regards your comments RE white SA`s, because this is a common refrain expressed by those in the "West" who on the whole have never lived in Africa at all, and their only experience and knowledge regarding this socially complicated continent is through the latest Discovery Channel program and select sound bytes as put out by a Liberal media particularly from countries ilike Canada, Australia and certain European countries.
I am by no means an apologist or was I a supporter of APARTHEID, I in fact come from a quite "Liberal" family who voted for the UNITED PARTY (which was the legal Anti Apartheid party in Parliment) and this  fact comes as a surprise to friends of mine in Canada and the rest of he 'Western world", they were not even aware of the fact that there was such a party in SA.
The point I`m trying to make is that you cannot tar every  WHITE SA`n with the APARTHEID SUPPORTER brush merely because they happen to be white, which is the way I read your above text. If that were the case and using the same yard stick I would have to blame every white Canadian for their role in the annihalation of the cultures and very people of the Native Indian tribes .

Yes, white SA`s as you state were on the wrong side of history, but the Nationalist Party (the designers of Apartheid) were in the main Afrikaaners, in fact the " BROEDEREBOND" and its members had to be Afrikaans..not English speaking SA, and they held the real power ; out of the approx. 4 Million Whites whites, 3 Mil were Afrikaans, and about 800,000 were English speaking and not really considred South African by the Afrikaaners...we were considered "English" and therefore Liberal and therefore ANTI APARTHEID.

Yes, there are problems in SA which were as a result of Apartheid...but it is rather simplistic to say its ALL DUE TO APARTHEID...because that is not true, you have to stop blaming the past and admit that you messed up, which the current government is incapable of admitting

The current government was handed a functioning Democracy, functioning Judicial system, functioning public health service,functioning Defence Force, functioning Police force, funcioning education system  ( an example regarding the education system, under Apartheid 35 -40% of black SA`s graduated High School which had a higher standard, last year ONLY 3% passed, ( and the standard of education has been dumbed down), and this after nearly 15 years of ANC  governance, I can go on ...public hospitals in the rural areas set up by the APARTHEID government have fallen into dis-repair with the equipment, beds, pillows, sheets , etc having been stolen; the Police force which has been "transformed" a wonderfull word which basically means if you`re white dont bother applying for a job , has got to the point that less than 50% of black policeman can speak, read or write English...a major problem when you want to make a statement ( as we found out when my Brother in law was murdered 5 years ago), foreigners streaming acroos the borderwith NOT ONE CHECK being done, the borders have been basically thrown open to all of Africa.

I can go on, I`m intimately involved with SA and what is actually going on their as I still have family there.

A family friend told us a few months back...and I quote .." the way SA is now, is not what we imagined when we started the ANC". she wa alluding to the current screw ups caused by the present government ..who was this person...she is the wife of one of the 5 guys who along with Nelson Mandela started the ANC, she was the one time head of the Womans ANC League, (she lost this role to Winnie Mandela), I count amongst my family friends the ANC Ambassodor to the UN, ANC Ambassodor to Switzerland, and so on.

If a founder member of the ANC is saying WE ARE  f #$ 5#%@ g up, you had better believe it.


----------



## TrexLink (6 Jun 2008)

ER Campbell - With respect, your last typifies the Bytown Myopia that brought us such laughs as ‘soft power’.  ‘Blame it all on the whites’ is so convenient, so PC, so easy - and, like so many generalizations, so misleading, so skewed, so stale.

It's been what, 14 or 15 years since the ANC was elected? Big promises, big hopes, big boasts and, above all, big possibilities. Since then, the country has been in a steady downhill slide. The UN's Human Development Index for SA looks like a ski hill.  The country is now run by a certifiable whack job who spent years denying any connection between HIV and AIDS (something about a racist plot...), thereby condemning unknown thousands of his people to a slow death.  He’s the one man who probably could have turned off his Frankenbuddy to the North, Robert Mugabe – no luck there.  A once-strong economy is crumbling due to government interference and crime is sky high.  The country was just racked by a series of bloody riots (pogroms might be a better term) against refugees now living there.  The main difference between South Africa and the other sinkholes of Africa such as Zimbabwe or Uganda is that the rest of them fell apart sooner. 

Apartheid was an affront against the human soul, but apartheid and white rule in general are long gone.  Just how long will Western_ intelligencia _continue to try to blame everything that goes wrong in Africa on the previous white regimes?   How long will it be before leaders of once-prosperous African nations are held accountable for their own actions and failures?  I can just see it - 200 years from now and people will still be penning apologetics for incompetent tyrants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> ER Campbell - With respect, your last typifies the Bytown Myopia that brought us such laughs as ‘soft power’.  ‘



Soft power is anything but laughable.

When coupled with enough ‘hard’ power and used wisely – as the USA did for about 50 years post 1945 and as Britain did for about 100 years post 1815 – it is a cheap and easy way to project real, measurable power and influence.

The problem with soft power discussions is that hardly anyone ever bothers to read Nye and e.g. Kurlantzick.

Despite the wishes of the loony-left, Canada doesn’t have any soft power, yet, because we have negligible hard power – so far. As Nye points out, soft power is available only to those who have and are known to be ready, willing and able to use hard power. Thus, America, Britain, China and France all have soft power. Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Japan and Russia all have little to none.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jun 2008)

E.R. Campbell: One reason why Canada does not have "soft power"--we're essentially unknown with no brand recognition, unlike the Aussies.  How many people outside Canada know that Bombardier and Nortel are Canadian companies?  Their foreign advertising goes to considerable length to avoid any Canadian connection.  And I doubt that many foreign buyers realize that their Blackberries are made by a Canadian company.

To the Chinese, Canada's a fuzzy hodgepodge, poll finds
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080606.OLYMPICS06/TPStory/?query=china+

Mark
Ottawa


----------

