# About Turn! Time to Revise Canada’s Foreign Policy



## ruxted (7 Dec 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Link to Original Article on Ruxted.ca

*Part 1: CORNERSTONE TO STUMBLING BLOCK*

*ANCIEN RÉGIME*

For most of the past 40 years Canada has, metaphorically, “looked North.”  In so doing it has turned its back on its friend and neighbour, America and offered its right hand to Europe.

Our disinclination to embrace the Americans is older than Canada itself.  It is rooted in our French colonial past when 'les habitants' looked South, at the British colonies, with fear and distrust.  Our institutionalized anti-Americanism was reinforced when the 'loyalists' fled revolutionary America seeking the safety of the familiar British crown.  French and English Canadians were united in opposing American efforts, in the war of 1812, to incorporate Canada into the vigorous new republic.  

Equally, our ties to Europe are quite natural.  Most Canadians (but a steadily shrinking majority) regard themselves as being of European stock.  Europe is familiar.  For many it is the soil in which family roots are sunk.  Twice in the 20th century Canadians answered Europe's call for help; 100,000 of the Greatest Canadians lie in European graves – they died protecting Europe from itself.

*NATO*

Canadians were instrumental in imagining and then creating the North Atlantic Alliance.  For decades Canadians sent their young men and women to stand on guard for Western Europe against a very real threat from the former USSR.  Today a much expanded North Atlantic Alliance seeks new relevance – having been completely successful in its avowed aim of safeguarding “the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law” by seeking “to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area” and resolving “to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.” The expanded, post Cold War NATO stretched its wings by playing a lead role in dealing with the crisis in the Balkans but many observers saw that as NATO's final act in 'securing' Europe rather than a new beginning.

For some European members the North Atlantic component of NATO is a problem.  The Americans and Canadians are problematical.  Some Europeans believe that North American influence in NATO is impeding the development of a distinctly European foreign policy and a concomitant European military force.

But for Canada, for a half century and more, NATO was the cornerstone of our foreign and defence policies. 

*AFGHANISTAN*

Afghanistan represents NATO's first real attempt at significant 'out of area' operations.  NATO rushed to aid the USA in the wake of the dastardly 9/11 sneak attack; Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked for the first time ever.  Some NATO nations, including Canada, sent troops to Afghanistan, early in 2002 in Canada's case, to fight alongside the USA in its efforts to help the Afghan people defeat the al Qaeda supporting Taliban and install a more representative and acceptable Afghan government.  In so doing NATO nations, including Canada, were acting in their own national self interests: the Taliban were, and remain, a threat to Central Asia – the ancient and historic 'cockpit' which joins Asia, the Middle East and Europe.  If the Taliban succeeded then their 'guests' would continue to have a form base from which to attack NATO members – as Osama bin laden promised to do.

But, for many NATO members, not including Canada, self interest required only 'all aid short of war.'  It was only after the situation in much of Afghanistan was stabilized that many European NATO members decided it was safe enough to deploy troops to Kabul – and ISAF was born.  Canada's initial, principled response, combat troops for Kandahar, was, for practical military reasons, a 'one off' commitment.  In 2003 Canada and most European nations were searching for ways to resist American pressure to join in the Iraq war.  ISAF offered a perfect 'way out' – military operations in Afghanistan, sanctioned by the UN and envisioned when Article 5 was invoked, which were unlikely to involve much fighting or major casualties, and which allowed Canada, and others to tell the Americans that they were fully committed in Afghanistan.  Who can forget then Defence Minister John McCallum scurrying off to Brussels begging for a 'lead' role for Canada in Kabul – all to prevent Canada having to debate, and ultimately reject, a role in Iraq?

Today, thanks to decisions taken by a previous, Liberal government, Canadian Forces are engaged in intense combat operations in Afghanistan, against a skilled, determined, shadowy enemy.

Today the shoe is on the other foot: Canada is now on the outside, looking in at the safe, comfortable Eurocentric Kabul Multinational Brigade and Joint Commands North and West which tie down thousands of combat troops – sheltered behind national caveats (each offering far more protection than body armour or LAV IIIs) which preclude combat operations.

Today we see that French President Jacques Chirac wants to form a 'contact group' to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.  Ruxted believes Chirac is making this suggestion on behalf of the very large majority of Europeans (people and governments) who want nothing to do with fighting the Taliban because they, the Europeans, are both: casualty averse and unconvinced of the utility of operations in Afghanistan, or anywhere outside Europe, for that matter.  Recent press reports on German resistance, and jubilation at a successful resistance to Canadian pressure to leave their fortified holiday camps in the North of Afghanistan and help with the fighting in the South indicate the depth of the split in NATO over a fundamental issue: unity of purpose. 

Ruxted does not begrudge the Europeans their view – heaven knows it is shared by a substantial minority of Canadians.  The Europeans live in free and democratic societies – thanks, in very large measure to Canadian sacrifices of lives on the fields of battle and treasure during the cold war.  They are free to make their own choices – thanks again to those same Canadian sacrifices.

Canada has chosen a different path.  The Parliament of Canada, more than once, has affirmed Canada's three part role in Afghanistan which is to:

• help Afghanistan rebuild;
• defend our national interests; and
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.

(See: The Afghan Debate, other Ruxted articles and Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs website.)

It appears to Ruxted that, increasingly, NATO is less and less a useful 'cornerstone' for Canada and, more and more, a stumbling block.

Ruxted believes that all ISAF has accomplished, as a NATO mission, is to provide 'cover' for the Europeans and, for a time, Canada, allowing them to avoid the hugely unpopular Iraq war.  The 'real work' of ISAF, helping Afghanistan to rebuild, is, for all military intents and purposes, done in the North and West and in Kabul.  In the South and East it cannot begin in earnest until American, British, Canadian and Dutch forces bring security to the regions by defeating the Taliban.  Since most of the other NATO nations refuse to help in this endeavour Ruxted contends that NATO has failed – it was, largely, unnecessary in the North, West and Kabul and it is invisible in the South and East, where it is needed.

NATO is not just a stumbling block, it may be aiding and abetting the Taliban.  NATO may be part of the problem.

What problem? 

The problem Ruxted sees is that we have not taken a clear, hard, sustained look at our foreign policy for too long a time.

Over 18 months ago the former, Liberal government issued a revised foreign policy statement, not a full blown White Paper.

The prime minister of the day said: “… a government needs to take a hard and comprehensive look at what is working and what is not in its foreign policy; at how the world is evolving and whether Canada is prepared; at how best to project Canadian values and interests into the world and make a real difference in the lives of its embattled peoples, now and in the future.  This is the right time to review our foreign policy.  Why? Because the world is changing, quickly and radically, and these changes matter to Canada—not in abstract terms, and not only to students of international relations, but tangibly and to everyone. Our security, our prosperity and our quality of life all stand to be influenced and affected by these global transformations …”

Nothing has changed, except that the pace of global change has, probably accelerated, making the need to answer the questions: are we prepared; how best to protect and project Canada’s values and interests; how to make a difference in the world? 

Coming soon: Part 2: A NEW FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH


----------



## ruxted (10 Dec 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Link to Original Article on Ruxted.ca

*Part 2: A NEW FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH*

Given that NATO was the cornerstone of our foreign and defence policy and given that NATO has become a stumbling block as Canada tries to regain and reassert its traditional (for nearly half our national existence) role as a leading middle power then: what to do?

*THE NATURE OF POLICY*

We must remember that our foreign policy is all about advancing Canada’s interests in the world by doing things about, with, for and, occasionally, to other countries.  Foreign policy does not stand on its own – it flows from a ‘national policy’ which integrates social, economic, defence, fiscal, cultural and foreign polices into a single whole which aims to provide Canadians with two thing: Peace and Prosperity.

Peace is more than just the absence of war – it implies an ability of each and every Canadian to go about his lawful business, anywhere in the world, without undue fear or risk.

Prosperity is more than just a ‘chicken in every pot’ – it implies the capacity for Canadians, individually and collectively, to enjoy the blessings of our land and the fruits of our labours and to share them with others, too.

The world, according to US observer Thomas Friedman, is flat.  He points out, in a recent book, that technology has fundamentally altered the global ‘playing field’ – flattening it.  The important lesson is that change is the only constant.  The global dynamics of 1946, when Canada was a leader in forming NATO are long gone.  The situation which existed in 1966, when Canada broke with US policy in Asia is long gone.  Ditto the situation which prevailed in 1988 when Canada sought to strengthen its military ties with the US and NATO – just as the Cold war was ending.  There is no reason to assume that the ‘solutions’ to the problems of the ‘40s, ‘60s and ‘80s are still appropriate twenty, forty or sixty yeas on.

The current, unipolar interregnum in which America bestrides the globe with unchallenged military power cannot last.  China and India, especially, are growing in economic and military power.  As Friedman points out: China and India have not forced us to join a ‘race for the bottom,’ instead they challenge us to a race for the top – one on which they plan to achieve and surpass the sort of social, cultural and economic power which seems, in 2006, to be the nearly exclusive purview of the USA.

While there is, for the moment – and it may be a very, very long moment – a violent ‘clash of civilizations’ between radical, fundamentalists, medieval Islamists and the (broadly) secular, liberal, enlightened West, there is, on the horizon, another clash: a more peaceful but equally important clash between conservative Asian social, cultural, economic and political ambitions and those of the liberal West. 

The latter ‘clash’ will be about who leads the 21st century’s global social and cultural changes.  It is possible, indeed probable that the global ‘economic pie’ will continue to expand such that the West and Asia will both improve the standards of living for most of their peoples without ‘beggaring’ their neighbours or competitors.  The issue is less likely to be about how the wealth is shared than about whose (Western (Anglo-American & Continental European) or Eastern (Chinese & Indian)) social and cultural values shape the 21st century markets.  This clash can be and should be peaceful.  Indeed ‘growing the pie’ so as to ensure peaceful competition will require all the main competitors to share the burden of making and keeping global peace – even in regions which, currently, appear doomed to chaos and violence for generations.

*A NEW POLICY FRAMEWORK*

Canada needs to affirm it policy goals.  Building upon the existing goals for the Afghanistan mission, Ruxted proposes:

• help create the conditions which will promote global peace and security;
• defend our national interests; and
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.

NATO and Afghanistan are not the sole or even the primary reasons for a change in Canadian foreign policy direction, but they are a catalyst which should drive the change.  Ruxted sees three key components to the required change.

First: Canada needs to reaffirm our 'charter membership' in the West – a membership we earned and maintained at a huge cost.  We need to help, perhaps to lead our traditional allies to establish a loose, probably informal but effective alignment (not a formal alliance) based, initially, upon: Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States.  India will be a likely member in the first expansion.

Let us forswear the term Anglosphere because it is unnecessarily provocative – nationally and internationally.  Additionally, it is possible that other proven reliable European and Asian partners might join when the initial group decides to expand or may form their own cooperative alignments – in the overarching goal of creating the conditions which will promote global peace and security.

Even after it expands the group should be kept small: restricted to well established democracies which have demonstrated a willingness and ability to carry a full and fair share of the burden of policing the dangerous world of the 21st century.

Second: Canada needs to turn about.

Canada needs to “look South” again – towards our good friend and neighbour and our most important trading partner: the USA.  By turning about Canada will, also, extend its strong right arm to the Pacific: towards major trading partners like China, India, Japan, and South Korea; towards old friends like Fiji, Malaysia, and Singapore, and towards traditional allies like Australia and New Zealand.  Ruxted says 'again' because this proposal is neither radical nor new – Canada cooperated closely with the USA in the not too distant past – within the living memory of Ruxted members, and it created the Colombo Plan (akin to the US Marshal Plan) to help our Commonwealth friends in the Asia/Pacific region.  Canada will be 'welcomed back' by trading partners, old friends and traditional allies alike.

We need not, should not, indeed cannot, just abandon Europe.  Nor should we abandon NATO, but we should lead the charge in revising NATO to serve a new, much more constrained, 'European area' (which might include parts of North Africa) security role.  The emphasis, quoting again from the North Atlantic Treaty, should now be on “preserving peace and security” - the peace and security won in the cold war.  NATO can shrivel in this new task while, perhaps, becoming a useful sub-contractor for planning and mounting operations on behalf of the UN.

This new, loose 'coalition of democracies' should also offer its services to the UN and NATO as a group which can plan and conduct peacemaking operations and turn them over, later, to peacekeepers – peacekeepers provided by nations less able to conduct and sustain modern, offensive combat operations.

Third: Canada also needs to affirm, at home and abroad, our status as one of the worlds most favoured nations – a nation which, relative to 90% of the UN's member states, is sophisticated, rich and powerful.  Wealth and power ought to be accompanied by responsibility, including a responsibility to help and protect less fortunate nations.  Canada has talked, a lot, about this; it is time to let actions speak louder than words.  The candidate members of Ruxted's 'coalition of democracies' are, in the main, similarly favoured – the exception, India, is moving very quickly to join the favoured nations' club.  These nations can and should work together to shoulder a full and fair share of the global security burden – as befits rich and powerful nations, and to share the undoubted benefits of democracy with those who are having difficulty with the progression thereto.

*CONCLUSION*

The current Canadian government has made much of its goal to “ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.”  That is commendable rhetoric.  It is time to make actions speak louder than words.  It is time to make an about turn and rejoin traditional allies in leading by word and deed.  Ruxted believes that Canadians want to be leaders in bringing peace and prosperity to our troubled world.  Reshaping our foreign policy would be good policy and good politics, too.


----------



## AIC_2K5 (10 Dec 2006)

Good read, some very interesting ideas. I especially find interesting the proposal to use the 'coalition of democracies' in the initial combat operation while less capable militaries take over the traditional peacekeeping duties.

Most people tend to share the same view towards India as the Ruxted editors in that they could be a powerfuly ally to help fight our cause. While they do have a very large and decently-equipped military, I think their interests are more focused in the regional context and I don't believe they share the same global foreign policy ambitions as Canada and friends.


----------



## armyvern (10 Dec 2006)

Once again, Ruxted.ca comes out with an excellent article featuring problems being faced...and solutions to them!! Good on them.

Vern


----------



## GAP (10 Dec 2006)

certainly different from the pap the MSM is feeding us.


----------



## stfx_monty (11 Dec 2006)

This was an excellent read,

I am, however, concerned about the idea of taking such an abrupt step as walking out on NATO. NATO has been a cornerstone in our foreign and defence policies for fifty years. I agree that NATO is not performing admirably right now, but what would leaving accomplish?

Operationally:
Would it make the Europeans shift their forces in Afghanistan? 
Would it make our operations easier if we were outside of the NATO command structure?
Do we have control of/access to enough non-NATO assets to continue?

From a national policy level:
Does it make sense to leave a group that allows us to influence global events alongside like minded states? NATO isn't only in Afghanistan. Would we tie ourselves explicitly to the US? It seems to me that what has made NATO attractive is that is provides a counterweight politically to US dominance. 

I am concerned over a knee jerk reaction to our current situation, rather than something that is in our long term interest. Certainly an interesting read though.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2006)

stfx_monty 

I would like to agree with you and I personally look favourably in our being a major player in NATO.  I also thought we had a relevant role in the past in the old SEATO organization.  SEATO has faded away.  Perhaps NATO will too.

The last twenty years have seen the Defence and Foreign Affairs budgets cut drastically.  It may become a matter that we can no longer afford the luxury of being in NATO.  That being the case we will have to look at things closer to home.  We are left with NORAD, the defence of North America, and the Defence of Canada.  Will we be reduced in capabilities so much that we will eventually not even have the abilities to defend North America, nor ourselves?   

Canadians have to wake up.  Hard decisions have to be made.


----------



## KevinB (11 Dec 2006)

Excellent read and very timely.

I feel that in most issues prioritizing the ABCA alliance (Australia, Britian, Canada, and America) is the road ahead for Canada

kudos to Ruxted again!


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2006)

This, from John Ibbitson in today’s (19 Dec 06) _Globe and Mail_ is pertinent; it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061219.wxibbitson19/BNStory/National/home


> The sound of Canada's silence
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



The last three governments have degraded our foreign policy: Chrétien - through institutionalizing sophomoric anti-Americanism, Martin – through dithering and then falling back on the electorally lucrative sophomoric anti-Americanism, and Harper – through ignoring foreign affairs in the relentless pursuit of electoral advantage.

Ruxted is right: it is time for Canada to affirm its foreign policy goals – through an _all up_ debate in our Parliament or, if worst comes to worst, during an election campaign when, sadly, we have become all too accustomed to politicians telling bare faced lies in order to entice us to vote for them; it is time for Canada to ‘turn about’ and face the *real* world – the one we helped build; and it is time for Canada to acknowledge that it is one of the privileged few nations in the world and that it has a *Responsibility to Protect* the less fortunate in the world and that the best  way to exercise that responsibility is through leadership.


----------



## observor 69 (19 Dec 2006)

Putting down his latte : 
Speaking of the Min of Foreign Affairs, a blog discussion on Peter's misstep in the Commons ref his "dog" comment refers to him as the  "dumb blond in the affair."


----------



## dglad (19 Dec 2006)

I would love to see an election fought over an issue as important and substantive as foreign policy--Canada's role in the world, in the 21st century.  Instead, we've had elections fought over the most prosaic things like health care, or the ancient, go-nowhere, navel-gazing drivel of "national unity".  These aren't issues to inspire; they aren't about vision or leadership.  They're just bureaucracy writ large, or tedious damage control.  Afghanistan is doing many things for this country, the effects of some of which are probably years out yet; however, if one of those things is to provoke Canadians and their "leaders" to engage in a real debate about where this country is going--and SHOULD be going--in this new century, then that's a good thing.

Incidentally, one point I note missing from this thread generally--the UN.  This probably underscores just how irrelevant this organization has become i.e. writers can't even be bothered to bitch about it anymore.  This is an important message, I think...time for some new, meaningful and progressive organizations to step into the global cooperation "gig".


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2006)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Putting down his latte :
> Speaking of the Min of Foreign Affairs, I got a smile from a blog that referred to him as " the dumb blond in the affair."



Whilst Peter McKay is certainly not the best foreign minister in Canadians history* he is far from being the worst and he's not the villain of the piece, either.

The 'villain' is Stephen Harper who appears to me to be following the error filled path trod by Pierre Trudeau (1969) - thinking that foreign policy ,might be a subset of domestic policy, and worse of electoral policy.  Trudeau was wrong in '69 and Harper is wrong now.  Foreign policy and domestic (social) policies and economic policy and defence policy are all equal subsets of an overarching _national policy_, as Ruxted said.


----------
* that would be Louis St Laurent, probably the only really good, almost great foreign minister we ever had.  Mike Pearson got the Nobel prize for his diplomacy but he, himself, simply followed the _policy_ - and it was a formal, stated policy - set out by St Laurent just after World War II.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> ...
> Incidentally, one point I note missing from this thread generally--the UN.  This probably underscores just how irrelevant this organization has become i.e. writers can't even be bothered to bitch about it anymore.  This is an important message, I think...time for some new, meaningful and progressive organizations to step into the global cooperation "gig".



Agreed, and Ruxted suggests that the _traditional_ (ABCA + NZ) allies, plus Singapore and maybe India and a couple of like minded _Euros_ (Denmark, Netherlands and Norway come to my mind) should form the nucleus of a new _*alignment*_ of responsible democracies to do that chore.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2006)

Have we really had a "Real" Foreign Policy or have we just taken the lazy way out and played "tag along with the crowd" and let the major decisions in our Foreign Policy be decided by diplomats in New York?  The UN decides we need to send Peacekeepers into some Region and Canada steps up and declares that we will send Troops.  Hanging on to the coattails of the UN seems to have been the only Foreign Policy we have been left with.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have we really had a "Real" Foreign Policy or have we just taken the lazy way out and played "tag along with the crowd" and let the major decisions in our Foreign Policy be decided by diplomats in New York?  The UN decides we need to send Peacekeepers into some Region and Canada steps up and declares that we will send Troops.  Hanging on to the coattails of the UN seems to have been the only Foreign Policy we have been left with.



St. Laurent proposed and, despite an aging and ailing King’s* reservations, implemented a distinctively Canadian foreign policy which included:

•	Active support for the Truman/Marshall/Acheson initiatives to rebuild and reshape the _new_ West; and

•	Assume a “leading middle power” role – in the creation of NATO, in embryonic (1948) UN peacekeeping, and, especially, in the Colombo Plan – of which, ironically, Canada is no longer a member.  While St Laurent helped create the UN he never allowed it to assume control over Canada’s sovereignty; that (surrendering our national sovereignty to Jacque Chirac’s anti-American whims) was a Chrétien innovation. 

This was a sharp departure from the King/Skelton version of foreign policy which was a timid thing, characterized by severe and recurring bouts of _Anglophobia_ and a general tendency to shelter behind the USA.  We had no foreign policy prior to 1931 (Statutes of Westminster) because our sovereignty was incomplete.

It’s a shame that the 75th anniversary of our *real* independence as a fully sovereign nation passed unnoticed.  Historical ignorance, maybe ignorance and apathy, seem destined to join greed and envy as the defining characteristics of Canadians.


----------
* William Lyon Mackenzie King, the prime minister, not George VI, the sovereign


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2006)

Sorry Edward.  I should have qualified my statement as to "in the last twenty or thirty years".


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2006)

As noted in other threads and by Ruxted, there is an embryonic formation which could take front and centre as Canada's 21rst century policy foundation: the Anglosphere.

These nations (the United States, the UK, Australia are the core of the idea) share a common set of values, a common history and a common language. Commonwealth nations also share these features to a greater or lesser extent, and India would certainly be the jewel in the crown of such an alliance or grouping. Creating the Anglosphere as a formal institution could be the counterpart to St Laurent's creation of post war 20th century Canadaian foreign policy: 



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> St. Laurent proposed and, despite an aging and ailing King’s* reservations A visionary Prime Minister/Foreign Minister, implemented a distinctively Canadian foreign policy which included:
> 
> •	Active support for the Truman/Marshall/Acheson Bush/Blair/Howard initiatives to rebuild and reshape the _new_ West Anglosphere; and
> 
> •	Assume a “leading middle power” role – in the creation of NATO, in embryonic (1948) UN peacekeeping, and, especially, in the Colombo Plan – of which, ironically, Canada is no longer a member the Anglosphere and its unique military, economic and political institutions.  While St Laurent  (insert visionary here) helped create the UN Anglosphere he never allowed it to assume control over Canada’s sovereignty.



I suppose it is possible that Steven Harper could embrace this project, although in practical terms there is very little time to develop and sell this idea to Canadians, much less the Anglosphere community, before the presumptive spring election. If the Liberals were to win the next election, or some unholy "Red-Green" or "Red-Orange" coalition government, then I expect that our foreign policy will continue to drift, and we may end up waiting for an invitation to join the Anglosphere as a junior partner, rather than creating it to be a vehicle to advance our interests and take our place in the world.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Dec 2006)

I doubt that any Canadian prime minister will ever lead in creating an _Anglosphere_ – no one needs the domestic political uproar which would ensue.

A Canadian PM might, should, I think, re-examine our foreign policy, as PM Martin promised but failed to do, and I also think any fair, clear-headed re-examination would indicate that we must abandon broadly based, UN_ish_ multilateralism and focus, instead, on cooperating with a smaller number of traditional allies and like minded friendly democracies in order to share the burden of global security – a burden which is ours by virtue of our historical, geographic, political and social/cultural good fortune.

If Canada, as one of the world’s most _favoured_ nations cannot, will not take up that burden then we deserve the poor, sad, ignoble future which the lazy, lax, *L*iberal, latté sipping _elites_ in Toronto have planned for us.


----------



## cplcaldwell (19 Dec 2006)

As Ruxted states in the article "let us foreswear the term Anglosphere". From a politcal point of view the whole thing would be digestable to the fishwives in that context IMHO.



_To stir the pot,_ all these learned and articulate minds and I have yet to hear anything of Africa? 

Key players have been identified in Europe, Asia, Oceania and America, but no one yet deigns to prognosticate on a 'new friend in Africa'.

Certainly any durable foreign policy strategy must include a friend in Africa?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2006)

The Anglosphere is the current name for this grouping, and certainly describes it best, but I'm sure anyone in power who is visionary enough to embark on the project will come up with some  suitable name or acronym to mollify domestic opposition. For now I will continue to use that name simply for consistency.

Since creating an Anglosphere alliance (or whatever name is eventually chosen) fully formed like Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus isn't a likely proposition; "we" could go about it by establishing a series of links such as free trade pacts, economic treaties, preferential foreign investment to and from other Anglosphere partners, engage in lots of joint naval exercises and cross invite ministers for various summits, State visits and "talks" about matters of mutual interest (which is the reason we would want to get together in the first place). cplcaldwell's point about Africa is interesting, the only nation there which might qualify as an Anglosphere partner would be South Africa, otherwise we would have to count on India and the UK to take charge Anglosphere interests in that area of the world (a sort of sandwich play).

However it is done, unless "we" get involved on the ground floor, Canada will have very little influence in the final structure, assuming we even get invited to join. After all, we are slipping in the world, as Spain's calls for us to be replaced in the G-8 by them would indicate.


----------



## cplcaldwell (19 Dec 2006)

Interesting point on Spain, according to CIA World Fact Book 

Canada
GDP - 1.111 trillion


Spain

GDP - 1.033 trillion

Didn't know the Dons were so close on that one !



I quite agree with the points on India. India must be brought into this grouping in a very real way, she has the power and influence to be the player in the IO region. Further she is, I think, a Friend who can be trusted. It would not be unusual for India to exert influence in Africa. The British used Indians and the Indian Army to great effect in East Africa in the nineteenth century.

Not sure to what degree this continues. 

Perhaps, if there is still a tradition of India affecting African affairs, this would be a good choice. 

Cerainly the Brits have played substantive roles in West Africa lately.

The whole Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe axis is troubling, no one seems to have a handle on a region that has tremendous potential but suffers in such dire straits.

I am not so sure the South Africa is the one to trust here. Certainly she should be courted, but from what I hear ( and I admit my sources, although close to the situation are pretty ...well... prejudiced on the matter), SA is a real mess these days and may not have the power or prestige to suitably affect Africa.

As stated above, India would be the real crown jewel in this new Anglosphere.


----------



## nowhere_man (19 Dec 2006)

The Anglosphere sounds like a good idea the old organizations for security (UN, NATO) are loosing sight of the changing world, NATO recently admitted some eastern European countries that couldn't hold off an army of boy scouts  ;D. But if this was to come around than this organization MUST only admit countries who aren't afraid of sending men into combat with the risk of some of them dying. And if Canada was to join it than we would need a real military commitment and not have the Americans do all the work.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2006)

nowhere_man said:
			
		

> The Anglosphere sounds like a good idea the old organizations for security (UN, NATO) are loosing sight of the changing world, NATO recently admitted some eastern European countries that couldn't hold off an army of boy scouts  ;D. But if this was to come around than this organization MUST only admit countries who aren't afraid of sending men into combat with the risk of some of them dying. And if Canada was to join it than we would need a real military commitment and not have the Americans do all the work.



Well that's really the point of this thread; only people who share common points of view and common goals can be relied upon to be good neighbours and help out when needed. The rather disgraceful performance of "old Europe" on many issues in the UN, NATO or other multilateral bodies does not bode well for us in Canada. Even when we follow along like we did in the Chretien/Martin era how did that benefit us? Were there new markets opened to Canadians in France or Germany? Did old Europe send vast quantities of men and equipment to assist us in East Timor or during the Tsunami crisis? 

Look at who is constantly and reliably stepping up to the plate in the world. True, other nations like Japan and the Netherlands (to name a few) are also out doing their part, but they don't really have an organic connection to us, or us to them; they are welcome partners in coalitions of the willing whenever our interests coincide, but we need to know and understand that because we do not have a shared heritage with them like the Anglosphere nations, it is probable that our interests will diverge more often than they converge.


----------



## cplcaldwell (19 Dec 2006)

" .. only people who share common points of view and common goals can be relied upon to be good neighbours."

Interesting point, it seems that a core group is emerging, ABCA, India. With co-opted friends like Japan and the Netherlands.

What would the role of say, la Francophonie, or in more restricted context, France be in this group

I'll be away from the keyboard for a bit ...

_<he says, scuttling off to find the asbestos drawers... I know their in here somewhere.. I know their in here somewhere....>_


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> What would the role of say, la Francophonie, or in more restricted context, France be in this group
> 
> I'll be away from the keyboard for a bit ...
> 
> _<he says, scuttling off to find the asbestos drawers... I know their in here somewhere.. I know their in here somewhere....>_



Better make sure you have the nomex hood as well: France represents the worst that "old Europe" has to offer; smug moralizing, active interference on the side of anti western dictatorships and a completely amoral world view.  :rage: I suppose the only consolation will come when the French are in a tense nuclear stand off with Iran, although as a rational person I certainly hope the French havn't screwed up so much that that comes to pass.......

Canada should nod politiely when we meet with France, but nothing more until they get themselves sorted out or we have to storm the beaches of Normandy yet again.


----------



## nowhere_man (19 Dec 2006)

But the real question is do Canadians have the will to join onto something like this, As i said before it's a good idea. But do People here really want us doing something that allot of them will see as setting up a police force to help American "imperialism' or what ever you like to call it. And secondly would PM Harper or possably Mr. Dion be willing to suffer the backlash of doing this. 

Otherwise I'm 100% on board


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Dec 2006)

Here is, I think and fair assessment of Kofi Annan’s (too long) tenure as Secretary General of the United Nations.  It is an editorial from today’s (23 Dec 06) _Ottawa Citizen_ and it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=2246423e-8596-4220-b1c1-0a8225ce4677


> Annan tried, but failed
> 
> The Ottawa Citizen
> Saturday, December 23, 2006
> ...



Under the Chrétien regime the UN finally replaced NATO as the cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy (although the process started in 1968 when Pierre Trudeau tried, and came frightening close to success, to pull Canada out of NATO).  The UN was already failing when Annan took over and when Chrétien hitched Canada’s policy to it.  Annan’s inept leadership only hastened the process.

The current Canadian government has not enunciated a coherent Canadian foreign policy but it has indicated that it puts less and less faith in the UN and more and more in other, smaller alliances and alignments.  The problem is that neither NATO nor the *current* US administration is ready or able, *now*, to lead the sort of _*effective*_ alignment of rich, democratic, militarily capable (mostly Western) nations which I think, along with Ruxted, is required for the next generation or so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from today’s (25 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting take by Timothy Garton Ash (Oxford) - http://www.timothygartonash.com/biography.html :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070125.wxcoash25/BNStory/International/home 


> Power isn't what it used to be
> *The unipolar moment of U.S. supremacy has passed*
> 
> TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
> ...



When considering the (resource) _*exploitative powers*_ he forgot to mention Canada which, according to some sources – e.g.  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html - has the world’s second largest oil reserves.

Table 1
*Rank  Country - Proved reserves* (billions of barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia - 264.3
*2. Canada - 178.8*
3. Iran - 132.5
4. Iraq - 115.0
5. Kuwait - 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates - 97.8
7. Venezuela - 79.7
8. Russia - 60.0
9. Libya - 39.1
10. Nigeria - 35.9
11. United States - 21.4
12. China - 18.3
13. Qatar - 15.2 
14. Mexico - 12.9 
15. Algeria - 11.4 
16. Brazil - 11.2 
17. Kazakhstan - 9.0 
18. Norway - 7.7
19. Azerbaijan - 7.0
20. India - 5.8
Top 20 countries 1,224.5
Rest of world 68.1
*World total 1,292.6*

NOTES: Proved reserves are estimated with reasonable certainty to be recoverable with present technology and prices.

Source: Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 103, No. 47 (Dec. 19, 2005). From: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html .
(The same source puts Canada in the top 20 in natural gas reserves, too.  But in that category Russia leads with about ¼ of the world’s proven reserves while the US is in 6th place with 3% and Canada is 19th out of the top 20 with only 1%.)   

Consider, also, energy consumption (same source, again, for consistency) (in millions of barrels/day);

Table 2
*Rank  Country – Consumption in millions of barrels/day)*
1. USA - 20.5
2. China - 6.5
3. Japan - 5.4
4. Germany - 2.6
5. Russia - 2.6
6. India - 2.3
7. Canada - 2.3
8. Brazil - 2.2
9. South Korea - 2.1
10. France - 2

(That means than in the event of, for example, a major Middle Eastern conflagration which, effectively, shut down that region’s oil exports, the USA would have enough reserves to sustain nearly three years of consumption at its current rate – without importing a drop from Canada or Mexico.  North American reserves, shared our evenly, could support North American consumption for about 25 years.  Russia’s reserves would sustain its current consumption for 60 years and (combined with Norwegian and Chinese reserves) could sustain all of Europe plus China for about 12 years, *at current rates of consumption* – but China’s consumption is growing exponentially.) 


I think this data matters because the prospect of major war*s* throughout the Middle East is very high, with consequential, major disruptions in energy supply.

Additionally, I think, China’s energy demands will mean that Russian reserves will be split between China, Japan and Europe.  China is, already, I have read/heard, negotiating oil exploration and pipeline deals with Russia and the _Stans_ – see: e.g.   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4530426.stm and 
http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/76100.htm .  Some time ago I suggested that China covets Eastern Siberia and its resources and suggested that a Russo-Chinese war, for resources, is a possibility.  It remains a possibility but military action is not a probability because China is, as it would prefer, using its burgeoning economic power to buy up Russia’s resources.  Russia and Europe combined have neither the power (hard or soft) nor the will to withstand China’s _incursions_, despite Russia’s repeated and ongoing attempts to frustrate China’s many and varied oil importing schemes.

For the immediate and mid terms we are dealing with an oil fed global economy.  The key factor in maintaining the health and vitality of the global economy (which is the *only hope* for the _wretched of the earth_) involves getting oil from producers (Saudi Arabia - 10.4 million barrels/day, Russia - 8.3 mbbls/day, USA - 8.7, Iran - 4.1, Mexico - 3.8, China - 3.6, Norway - 3.2, *Canada - 3.1 million barrels/day*, Venezuela - 2.9, UAE - 2.8, Kuwait - 2.5, Nigeria - 2.5, UK – 2 and Iraq – 2) to consumers (Table 2, above).  This requires a mix of pipelines and tankers – each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Pipelines have significant political problems; consider, for example, the routes which Kazak/Caspian Sea oil pipelines must follow to get to market – through one or more of: Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.  China has used its _Shanghai Cooperation Council_ to ensure its primacy in Central Asia thus, pretty much, guaranteeing a secure pipeline route from Atasu (in central Kazakhstan) through the Alashankou China/Kazak border crossing to refineries in Xinjiang.  Getting Kazak oil anywhere else, except to Russia, is fraught with political and security problems.

Tankers are reliable and secure carriers once they are clear of ‘home waters’ and, in many cases, the _narrow seas_ (straits like the Straits of Hormuz or Malaca Straits) in which they are especially vulnerable.

So what?

I am thinking about this because a colleague suggested, elsewhere, that the strategic alliance which e.g. Ruxted recommends - http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/33-About-Turn!-Time-to-Revise-Canadas-Foreign-Policy-Part-2.html - for Canada ought to be based upon a return to a _maritime strategy_.  This would involve a loose alliance of countries which are firmly established, secular democracies with some of the “world’s most capable militaries” - http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/37-Changing-the-Guard.html .  The attractions of a _maritime strategy_ include:

1.	It is, or can be global – so it is suited to nations and groups with global interests;

2.	It is, essentially, economically based – it promotes and protects trade rather than _tribute_ so it suits trading nations; and

3.	It is broadly and generally _beneficial_ (rather than being _selfish_ – in the interests of only a few) because it promotes and protects free trade and globalization – so it appeals to and supports the ideas and _ideals_ of multilateralism, non-intervention and ‘Responsibility to Protect.’


----------



## GAP (25 Jan 2007)

Does this include the reserves everybody is jockeying for in the sea off Viet Nam? Apparently they are massive, sweet oil.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Does this include the reserves everybody is jockeying for in the sea off Viet Nam? Apparently they are massive, sweet oil.



Dunno, but I think not as I believe the sources detail only proven, exploitable reserves and I'm not sure the SCS reserves fall into those two categories, yet.

Large Asian reserves will help to meet the exponentially increasing Asian, especially Chinese and Indian demand which will, in just a few years, be much greater than European or North American demand.  Funny how half the world's population will want to consume half the world's resources.



Edit: typo/spelling -"... reserves fall into those ..."


----------



## chanman (25 Jan 2007)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Dunno, but I think not as I believe the sources detail only proven, exploitable reserves and I'm not sure the SCS reserves fall inot those two categories, yet.
> 
> Large Asian reserves will help to meet the exponentially increasing Asian, especially Chinese and Indian demand which will, in just a few years, be much greater than European or North American demand.  Funny how half the world's population will want to consume half the world's resources.



If you're talking about the Spratlys

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/pg.html

Says there are no reliable estimates of potential reserves and a lack of exploration - things that usually don't happen until everyone has the property rights settled.  Which leads to...



> Military - note:
> Spratly Islands consist of more than 100 small islands or reefs, of which about 45 are claimed and occupied by China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam
> 
> Disputes - international:
> all of the Spratly Islands are claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam; parts of them are claimed by Malaysia and the Philippines; in 1984, Brunei established an exclusive fishing zone that encompasses Louisa Reef in the southern Spratly Islands but has not publicly claimed the reef; claimants in November 2002 signed the "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea," which has eased tensions but falls short of a legally binding "code of conduct"; in March 2005, the national oil companies of China, the Philippines, and Vietnam signed a joint accord to conduct marine seismic activities in the Spratly Islands



Taiwan and China's claims on disputed territory should be largely similar, since a number of those claims (like the Spratly Islands) go back to before the civil war.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§9) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ is an opinion from University of Ottawa Law professor Errol Mendes:

 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=ec60ca77-d33f-4085-8683-d6925c5c7079


> A new global force
> *If the will is there, an effective international security and peace-building force could arise from a struggling NATO*
> 
> Errol P. Mendes, Citizen Special
> ...



This is, of course, what Ruxted recommended – in the 1st post in this thread.

I think the key is Ivo Daalder’s suggestion that the new alliance – maybe not that formal, maybe a new *alignment* is a better choice of words – would be “a global club of democracies.”  That lets Russia out, which, in my opinion is where it belongs.  It *might* also exclude Indonesia and a few NATO members, too, but an informal *alignment* of a relatively few like minded nations can invite non-members to join when the circumstances (mission and the _invitee’s_ status) permit.

I agree with Mendes that a new *alignment* (even if it does not fully replace NATO) need not mean great gobs of new money for bureaucrats, etc.  NATO is a bit of a bureaucratic monster – in part because it is a very formal alliance – but other, less formal groupings, like the various Australia/Britain/Canada/New Zealand/USA groupings are _managed_ in a very cost effective manner by a tiny combined staff (major to colonel, when I was involved some 15 years ago) of less than a dozen full time people who coordinated the work of hundreds of others who had international coordination and standardization duties as part of their regular, national responsibilities.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2007)

This is in two parts, due to length.

*Part 1*

The _National Post_ published, today, an _Ideas_ item by Christopher Hitchens entitled “The World Needs and Anglosphere.” It is adapted from a longer piece in City Journal and the original is reproduced here in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act.

  http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anglosphere.html


> An Anglosphere Future
> _How a shared tradition of ideas and values—not bloodlines—can be a force for liberty_
> 
> *Christopher Hitchens*
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2007)

*Part 2*



> We owe the term “Anglosphere” in large part to the historian and poet Robert Conquest, who this summer celebrated his 90th year of invincible common sense and courage in the fight against totalitarian thinking. In an appendix to his marvelous 2005 book The Dragons of Expectation: Reality and Delusion in the Course of History, he offers a detailed proposal for a broad Anglosphere alliance among the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, and the Caribbean, with the multiethnic English-speaking island of Bermuda as the enterprise’s headquarters. Though he unfortunately does not include India, he does find it “perfectly conceivable that other countries particularly close to our condition might also accede—for example Norway and Gambia, in each of which English is widely understood and in each of which the political and civic structure is close to that of the rest of the states.” Quixotic as all this may sound, it probably understates the growing influence of English as a world language—the language of business and the Internet and air-traffic control, as well as of literature (or of literatures, given the emergence, first predicted by Orwell, of a distinct English written by Indians).
> 
> The shape of the world since September 11 has, in fact, shown the outline of such an alliance in practice. Everybody knows of Tony Blair’s solidarity with the United States, but when the chips were down, Australian forces also went to Iraq. Attacked domestically for being “all the way with the USA,” Australian prime minister John Howard made the imperishable observation that in times of crisis, there wasn’t much point in being 75 percent a friend. Howard won reelection in 2004. Even in relatively neutralist Canada, an openly pro-U.S. government headed by Stephen Harper was elected in 2006, surprising pundits who predicted that a tide of anti-Americanism made such an outcome impossible.
> 
> ...


_

I think we, especially in Canada, should eschew the term Anglosphere and focus, instead, on: *a shared and deeply rooted tradition of liberal democracy*.

I would also avoid any sort of formal alliance (à la NATO) because that would make in difficult for some obvious members, like Singapore which is very chary of foreign entanglements to participate. On the other hand we should strengthen and integrate some of the existing military bodies (ABCA, AUSCANZUKUS, CCEB) so that we can field combined and joint task forces which, to a great extent, use interoperable C3I and have some common *military* doctrinal views.

The core group needs to be Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States – if only because they are full members of the formal, military organizations, now. India, Ireland, and Singapore need to be closely tied to the core group. Groups like the moribund The Caribbean Group for Cooperation in Economic Development (CGCED) should be revitalized in the Caribbean and South Pacific – allowing those groups to also participate.

One of the key aims of the ‘new alliance’ should be to rescue Africa – from poverty, mismanagement, disease, strife and medieval Islamic fundamentalism. The other should be to stand ready to serve the UN should NATO fail in Afghanistan._


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2007)

Aggravation alert..... I just lost the text of a submission that had taken 40 minutes to compose.............. :rage: :rage: :'( :'( 

Oh well - I will try and regenerate it .

The short form was that I agree with you Edward.  The traditions of the anglosphere: yes.  The Anglosphere: no.  I am inclined towards "Oceania" but George Orwell has already done a number on that one.  Perhaps Thalassocrats might work for the classically inclined.


----------



## GAP (30 Oct 2007)

While I agree partially to what you are saying here in your comments, I think any kind of utilization/organization among these "nonmembers" of a "Non-organization" need the bulk supplied by organizations like NATO. 

While sitting on their duffs respectively, they actually supply a contingent that the Angloshpere would have to include if NATO were to depart. This serves a purpose the same as the chalk serves as a filler in an aspirin tablet....it allows the delivery of a medicine in a convenient, useable form.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2007)

I think ABCA _et al_ provide *most* of what is needed to run a military C3I superstructure - *except for a permanent military staff*.

What is, *most emphatically*, in my opinion, *not needed* is the monstrous civilian and military staffs in Brussels and scattered across NATO.

I am certain enough for policy purposes that a few dozen (maybe as many as a very few hundred) military people (and a few civilians, too, including some in the PR department) - mostly from the five countries of the core group - in one, single HQ, can do all that NATO really, really needs to do in order to plan and mount complex multi-national military operations anywhere in the world.


----------



## GAP (30 Oct 2007)

I was referring to NATO in Afghanistan as a prime example. The countries with "caveats" occupy nonthreatening areas that those doing the actual heavy lifting would have to cover also, in addition to doing the heavy lifting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2007)

I’m guessing there will be nonthreatening areas in Sudan, too.  Perhaps much of the North-East, including Khartoum itself, will be safe enough for the _Eurotrash_™ and several similarly timid contingents.

The North-West (Darfur) and South may well require large contingents (national and multinational combat brigades) and both areas will need big military logistics tails stretching back through Khartoum to Port Sudan. The logistical challenge in the North-West will be especially large – see the attached map.

----------

In any event, while I do not disagree with the need for contingents to do rather _peaceful_ military work – the sort of thing the Germans and Swedes crave – I would hope that a new, _*better*_ organization would better manage the politics and optics of e.g. _national caveats_. They are, after all, nothing new: we had them in World War II and in every engagement since. That's why there is always a Canadian *national* commander who can go ‘past’ his allied/UN commander, right back to Ottawa for a change in orders. The Americans, Brits, Chileans, Danes, Estonians and, and, and have the same systems. One of NATO’s failures is an inability to explain to the citizens of its members states that _caveats_ are here to stay and we (Americans, Brits, Canadians, Dutch) had better find ways to work around them because the German voters have spoken and the German government has listened.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

I am reopening an old thread (and I invite readers to note that this is the second of a two part series, the first part is here) because the _Globe and Mail_ is running its own three part series of articles on * Finding Canada's place in the world*. The first in the series by former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy is reproduced below in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§290 of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wcomment0216/BNStory/specialComment/home


> * Part I*
> 
> Finding Canada's place in the world
> *We need a new map, Lloyd Axworthy argues*
> ...



Beyond shamelessly plagiarizing the “new map” _motif_ from Thomas P Barnett, Axworthy offers nothing new. It is the same old Liberal pabulum from the ‘60s and ‘70s, regurgitated with nothing to make it any more appealing to those who can actually think.

Being Axworthy, he must trot out the *Responsibility to Protect*; but if any people were ever in need and deserving of our 'protection' then it must be the poor, benighted, war ravaged Afghans. If we cannot or should not protect them, Mr. Axworthy, then who in the name of all the gods might be worthy of our efforts?

Maybe next time Pink Lloyd Axworthy will bother to write something of his own rather than relying upon Stéphane Dion’s speechwriters ... there’s nothing to see here, folks, just move along.


----------



## sgf (16 Feb 2008)

I have a question. If 911 had not happened, do you think NATO would be fighing in Afghanistan, saving the Afghans?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I have a question. If 911 had not happened, do you think NATO would be fighing in Afghanistan, saving the Afghans?



9/11 is a _sui generis_ event.

It is highly likely that had 9/11 been aborted, for some reason or another, _al Qaeda_ would have planned and eventually succeeded in attacking America at home in some spectacular action.

Absent 9/11 it is unlikely that the US would be involved in Iraq.

It is likely that NATO would have reacted in the same manner, invoking Article V, given the global situation being rather like the _status quo ante_ - no Iraq mess.

It is equally likely that _al Qaeda_ would still be using a Taliban ruled Afghanistan as a base.

So: Yes, NATO would be in Afghanistan *IF*, but only if Afghanistan was, eventually, used to mount a horrific attack (worse than the attack on the USMC barracks in Beirut) on US civilians the civilian populace of a NATO member.


Edit: I amended my last pargraph. It isn't just US civilian casualties that might/would have provoked NATO. NATO would, quite likely, have reacted in the same way had _al Qaeda_ crashed its aircraft into a couple of Bay Street bank towers in downtown Toronto or into the centre of Paris or Rome.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Feb 2008)

I think the real question is whether we would be in Afghanistan if there had not be a horrific terrorist attack on the West mounted by a movement based in that country. Leaving aside the delusional theories of the pipeline brigade, I suggest that the West would not have embarked on an Imperial adventure beyond the Khyber or anywhere else for that matter without provocation. Provocation is a vague word, but we should note that international law provides that a state(s) may act in self defence against a threat of attack.


----------



## sgf (16 Feb 2008)

Interesting poll in todays Globe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/poll/pollResultHub?id=77455&pollid=77455&answerid=89559&poll=GAMFront&save=_save77455&show_vote_always=no&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult&vote=89559


----------



## McG (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Interesting poll in todays Globe





> Canadian foreign policy should:
> 
> Be tightly allied to the U.S. and other traditional allies  28%   (1364 votes)
> 
> Be set on a new, more internationalist path  72%   (3565 votes)


Right.  So, what does it mean in plain speak?  It seems that 72 % voted for feel-good gibberish as there was no real second option.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I have a question. If 911 had not happened, do you think NATO would be fighing in Afghanistan, saving the Afghans?



Interesting point.  I believe by now some incarnation of the Northern Alliance would have risen up, and the US would still have sent metric craploads of support in one or more forms.  I think 9-11  was the catalyst for the rising, but it would have occured eventually, regardless, and no, I don't think we'd be there.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Feb 2008)

Never underestimate the power of feel good gibberish to mask the status quo.


----------



## sgf (16 Feb 2008)

It seems pretty plain to me. The majority of Canadians are not happy with the current foreign policy and would like to see different avenues explored. For myself, one such avenue would be peace negotiations in Afghanistan.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2008)

And I propose you led the negotiation team.  Just how do you expect to negotiate with people(?)  who abduct aid workers and behead them on global television?


----------



## McG (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> For myself, one such avenue would be peace negotiations in Afghanistan.


You live in a bubble of naivety (and possibly ignorance too).  Negotiations occur where they can, but really who are you going to negotiate with?  Should providing a safe haven for Al Qaida be a negotiating point?  Maybe the option for the TB to participate in the democratic elective process ... no wait, they already have that option.  

Let's try the "more internationalist path" and just do what the United Nations has asked: Fight with ISAF.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> The majority of Canadians are not happy with the current foreign policy and would like to see different avenues explored.



The Ruxted Group is not happy with the current foreign policy either.

Go read the 'root' article on page 1 and the sister article to see why Ruxted is unhappy and what "different avenues" it wants to explore.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> For myself, one such avenue would be peace negotiations in Afghanistan.



Negotiations, of some sort, with someone, will, no doubt, be part of the long, convoluted process by which the Afghans will find their own way to running their own country in their own way - subject only to not turning it, again, into a base from which international terrorists can launch sneak attacks on us and our friends and neighbours.

Ruxted has something to say on that, too at: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/58-Supporting-the-Afghan-governments-search-for-peace.html and http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/59-Negotiating-a-Peace-in-Afghanistan.html and http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/60-More-on-Negotiations.html

What do you have in mind, sgf?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Interesting point.  I believe by now some incarnation of the Northern Alliance would have risen up, and the US would still have sent metric craploads of support in one or more forms.  I think 9-11  was the catalyst for the rising, but it would have occured eventually, regardless, and no, I don't think we'd be there.



The Northern Alliance was toast on 9 September 2001 when Ahmed Shah Masood was blown up.  The only thing that saved that organization (and eventually put it in charge of Afghanistan) was US involvement in the conflict a month later.

If 9/11 had not happened, we would be gearing up for ROTO 32 in Bosnia, and Afghanistan would be like a majority of the world's other shitholes - forgotten by the press and the public.  Iraq is another case - the terrorism link was never prevelent in Iraq (despite the fact that it was pushed by the Bush Adminstration - whoops....) but 9/11 did provide the US with the public support and international backing (which was subsequently pissed away) to be proactive on the world stage.  I understand that the real cause, petroleum security, was looming big behind the scenes prior to 9/11 and it would have been an interesting "what if" to see how things would have played out without Mid-East oil and a "global war on terror" being so inextricably linked as they are now.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand - I had the "pleasure" of listening to a Lloyd Axworthy diatribe when he was UBC a few years back.  His message then is the same as it is now - he needs to take the hint and realize that his time as Foreign Affairs Minister was a flop and that his foreign policy ideas suck.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2008)

Mr. Axworthy's interventions are always hard for me to grind through.  It's visceral.

The first problem I have is trying to figure out if it was him or his mother that was abandoned by some itinerant yankee soldier.  I can't think of much else that would explain his rabid antipathy towards all things American.

The next part is relatively easy.  

Responsibility to Protect.

Responsibility is defined in the same terms as the Liberals define Personal Responsibility and Ministerial Responsibility: a fairly open, one might even say liberal, interpretation.

I just can't take him seriously, beyond reflecting on the fact that a good chunk of Canadian Society shares his views - and that is the most bothersome part - along with the other fact that he is influential with Lawrence Martin and the rest of the Trudeaunians.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> It seems pretty plain to me. The majority of Canadians are not happy with the current foreign policy and would like to see different avenues explored. For myself, one such avenue would be peace negotiations in Afghanistan.



And about that large number of dedicated, extremist Taliban living across the Afghan/Pakistani border in happy comfort ? 

"In September, Pakistan's president Pervez Musharraf signed a controversial peace agreement with seven militant groups, who call themselves the "Pakistan Taliban." Pakistan's army has agreed to withdraw from the area and allow the Taliban to govern themselves, as long as they promise no incursions into Afghanistan or against Pakistani troops. Critics say the deal hands terrorists a secure base of operations; supporters counter that a military solution against the Taliban is futile and will only spawn more militants, contending that containment is the only practical policy."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html


----------



## sgf (16 Feb 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> You live in a bubble of naivety (and possibly ignorance too).  Negotiations occur where they can, but really who are you going to negotiate with?  Should providing a safe haven for Al Qaida be a negotiating point?  Maybe the option for the TB to participate in the democratic elective process ... no wait, they already have that option.
> 
> Let's try the "more internationalist path" and just do what the United Nations has asked: Fight with ISAF.


Perhaps secret negotiations have all ready started

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH21Df03.html



> Taliban, US in new round of peace talks
> By Syed Saleem Shahzad
> 
> KARACHI - The few weeks between the visits to Pakistan of Richard Boucher, the US assistant secretary of state who left last week, and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who arrives on September 10, could prove crucial in determining the fate of Afghanistan.
> ...


 This is also part of the same article, a bit on pipelines


> Rebuilding peace - and pipelines
> Coalition efforts in Afghanistan include substantial development and reconstruction projects, but these have been hampered by the insurgency. A key project is a regional oil and gas pipeline project worth US$10 billion that will run from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan, the TAP, and possibly on to India, on which work is to be started in the near future.
> 
> A US company, International Oil Co (IOC), recently won the contract from Pakistan to construct the 2,200-kilometer pipeline over the next three years. In a statement, IOC said matters relating to security in Afghanistan and insurance guarantees had been finalized. The preferred route is the southern one, via Herat and restive Kandahar province.
> ...



Peace talks may not be the sole answer, but its obvious that some leaders do want to give it a try and I see nothing wrong with this idea. It will take lots of experts and lots of time and money and compromises will have to be made. 



> KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai offered Saturday to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21045198/


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2008)

sgf:

Negotiations have started. They are not secret. President Karzai has said repeatedly that he will deal with anyone who will deal with him fairly (what he considers fair may not be what I consider fair, but that is beside the point).  Anybody that accepts his suzerainty and puts down their arms, or better yet employs those arms to support the government, is welcome.

This is not new.

The whole concept of warring and fighting is a negotiation.  The negotiation with Saddam continued right up until the time that he was forcibly dragged from his hole, and beyond.

The negotiation with his followers continues today both violently (in the streets) and peaceably (in parliament).

Our own "negotiations" domestically occur generally peaceably (in parliament) but occasionally violently (WTO, Oka, Caledonia, Rock Machine......).

Karzai's negotiations are ongoing and will continue........."For Ever and Ever, Amen".


----------



## FSTO (17 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> Perhaps secret negotiations have all ready started
> 
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH21Df03.html
> This is also part of the same article, a bit on pipelines
> ...



Obviously the reason why some Taliban are engaging in peace talks are a direct result of them getting their butts handed to them after several engagements with allied. If we let up the pressure on them then they have no reason to negotiate.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> It seems pretty plain to me. The majority of Canadians are not happy with the current foreign policy and would like to see different avenues explored. For myself, one such avenue would be peace negotiations in Afghanistan.



- We do.  Canadians negotiate with villagers during the day.  The next day, some of them fight us and some of them die.  Now and then, some of us die, too.  The day after, they talk to us again.  What is your point? What would you say to them that is not being said now, other than "We surrender"?


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 Feb 2008)

> Canadian foreign policy should:
> 
> Be tightly allied to the U.S. and other traditional allies  28%   (1364 votes)
> 
> Be set on a new, more internationalist path  72%   (3565 votes)



Most excellent.  72% of Canadians want Canada to work within an international framework.  so that would inmvolve countries like France, Germany, Australia, the UK, The USA, Sweeden, Spain, Turkey...

Hey Look! Internationalists!

Dear god sometimes people can be so stupid.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Hey Look!... Internationalists![/url]



- You are taking the term "Internationalist" out of context.  To put it back in context, think COMINTERN: the "Communist International."

- Your average Commie will always self-identify about thirty nano-seconds after opening it's mouth by spouting such M-L terms as "progressive", "internationalist", etc.

- They might as well tattoo "Marxist-Leninist Sock Puppet" on their foreheads (or is it 'four heads'?).


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - You are taking the term "Internationalist" out of context.  To put it back in context, think COMINTERN: the "Communist International."
> 
> - Your average Commie will always self-identify about thirty nono-seconds after opening it's mouth by spouting such M-L terms as "progressive", "internationalist", etc.
> 
> - They might as well tattoo "Marxist-Leninist Sock Puppet" on their foreheads (or is it 'four heads'?).



I'm willing to bet that most of the people who answered that poll were unaware of the connotation of the wording.  It is an interesting choice of wording though


----------



## sgf (17 Feb 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Most excellent.  72% of Canadians want Canada to work within an international framework.  so that would inmvolve countries like France, Germany, Australia, the UK, The USA, Sweeden, Spain, Turkey...
> 
> Hey Look! Internationalists!
> 
> Dear god sometimes people can be so stupid.


and that would exclude the States...which is a very interesting point


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> and that would exclude the States...which is a very interesting point



Not at all! Despite a rather _unilateralist_ president and a somewhat _isolationist_ congress the USA remains the most _engaged_ nation on earth and in history.

If anyone _thinks_ hopes, even for a microsecond, that one can have an _internationalist_ foreign policy that does not rub up against the USA and its interests then they are not thinking at all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is the second (of three) contributions to the series “Finding Canada's place in the world.” This is by noted Canadian historian and sometimes Milnet.ca contributor Jack Granatstein:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wcomment0218/BNStory/specialComment/home


> * Part II*
> 
> Finding Canada's place in the world
> *It's a matter of realizing our national interests*
> ...



Dr. Granatstein hits on a few of The Ruxted Group’s favourite notes:

1.	Canadian (actually anyone’s) policy ought to be based on a clear understanding our our own vital interests;

2.	Our national interests can be summed up, fairly neatly, in two words: Peace and Prosperity. Granatstein calls it _protecting “our people, territory, and sovereignty”_ and _advancing “the economic well-being of Canadians”_ but it’s pretty much the same thing;

3.	Like it or not, the USA is a global superpower, our neighbour, best friend and most important trading partner – in short, the key to both peace and prosperity. Clearly good relations with the USA must, always and without fail, be at the heart of all of our policies.; and

4.	There is a price to be paid for independence.

Point 3 goes towards explaining why Pierre Trudeau’s 1970 foreign policy _white paper_ was the dumbest policy document in Canadian history – it ignored the USA, it was a monument to childish _pique_ masquerading as political  sophistication. One of Canada’s major political problems is that a substantial majority of Canadian still believe that Trudeau was something other than a useless bloody twit; they believe, wholly incorrectly, that the USA does not matter. Wrong! As Granatstein says, as other powers, notably China and India, muscle their way into the global power structure, competing with America, we will be, of necessity driven closer and closer to the USA – it is, in fact, hardly a *foreign* country at all now, it will be less and less so as the 21st century advances.

The way ahead? I agree with Dr. Granatstein:  _“we need an interested and involved population, strong political leadership, a capable foreign service, and a small but robust military”_ able, I suggest, to –

1.	Fight the ‘Three Block War’ at brigade (minus) or battle group (plus) levels in two foreign theatres, simultaneously; and

2.	Maintain Canada’s sovereignty at home by (at least) ‘enough’ for continental security and defence; and

3.	Contribute to global peace and security by helping others to maintain the sea lines of communication and commerce around the world.

 With what? See: Ruxted’s A Triple A+ Military for Canada and Capabilities and Money.

How much? See: The Ruxted Group again, this time: A Look to the Future in which Ruxted deals with costs – at the national level. I agree with Ruxted, we need to get the defence budget up to around 2%+ of GDP* very soon and that is far more than it appears many politicians, bureaucrats and journalists thinks is “doable.”

In my opinion anything less than 2% of GDP, years after year after year, for a generation or more, means disarmament by stealth – a conformation of Trudeau’s madness.


----------
* Our GDP is over $1.5 *Trillion* and growing which means that our defence budget traget needs to be $30 *Billion* per annum, right now, not the $20 Billion which, last I heard, was the _flavour of the month_ in Ottawa.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web edition is the third and final piece in the “Finding Canada's place in the world” series:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wcomment0219/BNStory/specialComment/home


> * Part III*
> 
> Finding Canada's place in the world
> *Unleash the power of our citizens*
> ...



This _”model power”_ stuff appears to be a takeoff on Jennifer Welsh’s work – some of which almost made its way into the (never completed) Paul Martin foreign policy. We discussed this in an earlier Army.ca thread. See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/20359/post-187372.html#msg187372 and the next few pages.

Although he is quite wrong to say that _Canadians have “transitioned from a middle power — a plucky country whose government prevented conflicts and ensured stability — to a model power — a country whose plucky citizens innovate solutions to new global challenges,”_ I think that is exactly what a solid majority of Canadians _*wish*_ we were doing or had done. I also think, therefore, that he is right when he says, _”Canadians want leaders who will be warriors when confronting those who would use violence to remake our world, diplomats when addressing the threats and opportunities in our global commons, and activists against anyone — even our allies — who would use their power to impinge on the rights and opportunities of others.”_

The problem, in my view, is that we’ve only even had to distinct “roles”:

Leading middle power – Louis St Laurent’s policy in the ‘50s; and

Helpful fixer – Lester Pearson’s adaptation of St Laurent’s policy. (It was only an adaptation because, as Pearson well knew, Canada could only be a _helpful fixer_, the precursor of “model power” if it was and remained a middle power.

The key to the Welsh/Eaves “model power” model and to Granatstein’s “self interest” model and to Axworthy’s “Responsibility to Protect” model, too, is a sufficiently sensible, interest driven, foreign policy and enough military muscle to make our voice heard. 

For more on this, by Eaves, see:  http://www.gordonfn.org/resfiles/Canada25.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ web site are the three _rebuttals_ to the “Finding Canada's place in the world” series of articles:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wqacanadaworld16/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=1



> *Jack Granatstein:*
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to reply to my colleagues' articles in this interesting exercise in 21st Century journalism.
> 
> ...






> *David Eaves:*
> 
> Hanging over Axworthy and Granatstein's pieces is the shadow of Bush's deplorable ultimatum: "You are either with us or against us."
> 
> ...



And:



> *Lloyd Axworthy:*
> 
> I've had a chance to read the comments of the other two contributors and would like to make a short comment on their charges of my being anti-American.
> 
> ...



I think these three worthies have, fairly, summed up the debate: right, centre and left.

My _guesstimate_ is that Canadians, in an overwhelming majority – even including the tiny minority that bothered to read any of the series, will find much to favour in Eaves and Axworthy and little to like in Granatstein. As is so often the case they (Canadians) will be seeing the world through the rose coloured glasses provided by a failed public education system that _institutionalizes_ wishful thinking and knee-jerk, adolescent anti-Americanism.

The _Globe and Mail_ has done us all a service by providing a forum for this debate – too bad few Canadians will pay attention.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2009)

I am recalling some old articles to introduce a new one, in the next post.




			
				The Ruxted Group said:
			
		

> Link to original article on ruxted.ca
> 
> 
> Saving NATO?
> ...





			
				The Ruxted Group said:
			
		

> Link to original article on ruxted.ca
> 
> 
> Saving NATO II
> ...




More follows.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2009)

> Saving Nato Part II (cont)
> 
> The Ruxted Group agrees with most of the analysis but we part company on the “*threat*” posed by the rise of Asia. We do not believe that it is a zero sum game of Asia vs. the traditional West (which includes e.g. Australia and Japan); rather, we prefer to take a free market perspective and assume that the rising economic, social and political tides in Asia will lift our boats, too. Further, since the challenges we face are global it stands to reason that we need a global response – one that must include friends and traditional allies from the Asia Pacific region.
> 
> ...





Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an opinion piece by Profs. Roland Paris (University of Ottawa) and Sten Rynning (University of Southern Denmark):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/madly-off-in-all-directions/article1214521/


> Madly off in all directions
> *NATO is at a crossroads after expanding too far and losing its core purpose*
> 
> Roland Paris and Sten Rynning
> ...



We have either forgotten or just choose to ignore von Clausewitz’ maxim that: “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”

Our political ends, and, therefore, NATO’s _raison d’être_ as the military _means to our ends_, were very clear in 1949 and they remained so for about 40 years: we needed to prevent further Soviet/Russian expansion into “our” sphere in Western Europe. These ends were equally applicable to *A*merica, *B*elgium, *C*anada, *D*enmark and so on. The collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact left us with a military “solution” in search of a problem. For the past decade NATO has expanded its “solution” base but is still bereft of *real* problems that make political sense to even a bare majority of the allies.

Canada’s political end, early in the 21st century, is to *magnify* our limited influence in the world – in order to more easily accomplish our common, *enduring* interests: peace and prosperity. NATO is one, but only one, of several tools, means to that end. It (NATO) is a useful tool, it should not be abandoned but it needs to be reassessed, by Canada, for utility, and it *may* need some reformation, too.

Magnifying our influence requires, _inter alia_, seats at the tables. NATO provides one; ditto the G8 and the OECD and the G20, and, and ... _ad infinitum_. We always were, and must remain, great _joiners_. One of the core, albeit informal, groups to which we belong is the community of _traditional allies_ sometimes called the _*Anglosphere*_.* It is a good, useful group and will remain so until someone tries to formalize it. It should become the centre of our military efforts, displacing NATO until, at least, NATO finds its way again.



-------------------------
* Consisting of, at least, America, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore and, probably, India, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting comment by Prof. Doug Bland:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/pursuing-our-hemispheric-interests/article1275193/


> Pursuing our hemispheric interests
> *The PM should explain that Canada is no longer merely a ‘North Atlantic nation'*
> 
> Douglas Bland
> ...



I think Prof. Bland is quite correct on two counts:

1.	Our _vital interests_ no longer include Europe; and

2.	The government of the day has decided is in the process of deciding to cut its foreign/defence policy suit to suit its economic cloth by *limiting* its ambitions and, arguably sensibly, by working in “concentric circles” – starting in our own hemisphere.

I continue to believe that:

•	Despite the government’s intention we will get dragged into Africa in what will be a long, long and very messy series of conflicts that will be characterized by increased frequency and violence;

•	We should better _define_ our “backyard” to emphasize the Caribbean rather than Latin America – which is, primarily, in the US’ *exclusive* military, economic and political sphere; and

•	We should look beyond our backyard, but towards Asia and away from Europe. I *guess* that sometime in the next quarter century China and Russia will clash over resources and borders. Europe will support Russia; Canada (and America) *likely* should not.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Sep 2009)

And it is interesting that the p word does not appear anywhere in Doug Bland's (retired 8 CH LCol) article.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Sep 2009)

Sorry... the "P" word ?


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Sep 2009)

p is for peacekeeping


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ are some thoughts by Prof. Ian Buruma on the impact the Dutch withdrawal from Afghanistan will have on NATO:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-dutch-retreat/article1494141/


> The Dutch retreat
> *With Dutch troops set to depart Afghanistan, the alliance forged in the Cold War is fraying*
> 
> Ian Buruma
> ...




It is unlikely that NATO can continue to be a _’cornerstone’_ of anyone’s foreign policy – not in a world in which Sam Huntington’s _Clash of Civilizations_ model works so well. But Canada should be closely _allied_ with the Netherlands, we are both _middle powers_ with global interests and ambitions. Something _better_ than NATO, for the 21st century, is needed by America, Canada, Europe and the rest of the ill named 'West.'


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Mar 2010)

_Ian Buruma's latest book is Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents. He is a *professor of democracy and rights * at Bard College_

What, pray tell, is a professor of democracy and rights? Methinks he is not an Euroskeptic for starters, but I wonder what his geopolitical view is, other than to not believe that Europe's interests are "best represented by a seemingly endless war with the Taliban." In my opinion, that is code for not aligning with the Americans in ventures that do not involve the direct and obvious furthering of greater European interests.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2010)

Two problems for Europe:

1. Muslim Colonization; and
2. "The only solution to this problem is for Europeans to reduce their dependence on the U.S. and take greater responsibility for their own defence". Due to the extremely high cost of military hardware (R & D to deployment) the Europeons will be reliant on the US for some time. Congressional approval of technology transfers will continue to hamper this trade. But the  Russian and Chinese  would love to take over this market. That would weaken NATO.

Additionally, is it not time to get rid of the UN.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...
> Additionally, is it not time to get rid of the UN?




I don't think so.

The _main_ UN, the Security Council and General Assembly in New York, are, arguably, fairly harmless and the SC's _imprimateur_ on military operations is still regarded, by most of the nations of the world, as the closest thing we can got, now, to international, legal, approval for such things.

Several of the UN's various and sundry _member agencies_, many of which are considerably older than the UN, itself, and even predate the old League of Nations, do excellent, *essential* work and form the base for constructive international cooperation and, now and again, peacebuilding.

While some UN reform is, remotely, possible, I think we are stuck with the creaky, old, _spastic_, muddled _huddle on the Hudson_, if only because, from time to time, it does just enough to justify all the time and money we waste on it.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2010)

The UN is much like Churchill`s summation of democracy: It`s the worst of all, except for the alternatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _The Mark_ is an interesting article by _Oxford_ doctoral candidate Taylor Owen:

http://themarknews.com/articles/1084-who-will-build-peacebuilding


> Who Will Build Peacebuilding?
> *By withdrawing from Afghanistan, Canada and the Netherlands are leaving the development of peacebuilding to others.*
> 
> Taylor Owen
> ...




Mr. Owen’s condemnation of successive (Chrétien, Martin and Harper) governments for failing to _understand_, much less explain, what they wanted to do in Afghanistan is spot on. But it is not confined to Canada. I seriously doubt that anyone in the Bush or Obama administrations, including Generals Pertraeus and McCrystal,  understood/understands what America’s *aim* might be.

But _peacebuilding_, as Mr. Owen describes it, is a pretty _airy-fairy_ concept and is best left for bureaucrats to chew over, with their _Chardonnay_ and _Brie_. The military has a major supporting role in whatever _peacebuilding_ might be involving:

•	Peacemaking; and

•	Peacekeeping – the proper sense of that word, the one that doesn’t, necessarily, involve baby-blue berets.  Sometimes _peacekeeping_ is just maintaining plain old security while whatever peaceful people want and need to do gets done.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2010)

> Sometimes peacekeeping is just maintaining plain old security while whatever peaceful people want and need to do gets done.



As you said about Owen, E.R.: "Spot on".

Isn't that ultimately the sum total of the soldier's profession?  Whether it be maintaining a cordon, manning OPs (real or virtual), standing sentry or, in extremis, acting as the National SWAT team to oppose miscreants willing to use force against the National Will.   Sometimes those miscreants are a ragged mob with pitchforks.  Sometimes they are a group with a defining cohesive principle, either criminal or political (terrorist, bandit, pirate, freedom fighter or libertarian).  Sometimes they are organized, state sponsored and operating under flying colours.  Not that the latter appears to be much of a winning strategy these days.  Hence the increase in that portion of operations defined in  maintaining the cordon and acting in low level conflicts.

The military also likes to get involved in C4I ops and logistical ops but I suggest that they should be concentrating on "coal face" support and "privatize/civilianize" as much of the second, third and fourth line as possible so that it can be paid for only when it is needed.

Beyond that the military still needs to be allowed to hire itself out to friendly regimes, at a reasonable pace, so as to keep the spontoon honed.  The government will accumulate international kudos for the loans of competent forces - but that should not be the primary raison d'etre of the deployments.   The deployments should be self-serving to the extent that they are live fire training exercises.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mr. Owen’s condemnation of successive (Chrétien, Martin and Harper) governments for failing to _understand_, much less explain, what they wanted to do in Afghanistan is spot on. But it is not confined to Canada. I seriously doubt that anyone in the Bush or Obama administrations, including Generals Pertraeus and McCrystal,  understood/understands what America’s *aim* might be.



If you agree with George Friedman, America's Grand Strategy is to ensure that no power or combination of powers is able to dominate Europe or the Eurasian continent. This is simply an update of Halford John Mackinder's "World Island" theory, and Frieidman suggests that America, as an Oceanic Power, needs to simply destabilize any power or coalition that might dominate the Heartland of the "World Island". Read The Next 100 Years.

In this light, minimal interventions with only enough force to prevent potential hegemons from consolidating their position are the rule, not the exception. If the lead Oceanic power is only interested in minimal interventions, then followers like us need to calibrate our actions to match the senior partner.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2010)

I don't disagree with Friedman, regurgitating Mackinder, about what American strategy could or even should be; but I am about 99.99% *certain* that neither Bush nor Obama had/have any thoughts about 'grand strategy,' much less did either ever try to enunciate one, and I'm doubtful about Petraeus, McCrystal _et al_, too. The _idea_, to be charitable, of a _War on Terror_ disabled strategic thinking in America.


----------



## pbi (20 Mar 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _idea_, to be charitable, of a _War on Terror_ disabled strategic thinking in America.



I couldn't agree more. In my opinion it has done about as much good as designating the utterly ineffective anti-narco campaign in the US as "the War on Drugs". (Or the futile "War on Alcohol" that we have since come to refer to as "Prohibition") The problem inherent with calling something like this a "War" is that in Anglo-Western society it conjures up certain preconceived ideas, or expectations, that probably can't be met. First, the term "war" raises the idea of an identifiable, quantifiable "enemy" who will array themselves to be engaged, fought, and destroyed, usually in "battles" of some kind. IMHO this doesn't really happen, in either the GWOT or the WOD. Second, a "war" is presupposed to have identifiable "progress": "they" are losing, "we" are winning, etc. Again, this sort of progress might  be visible to those who have full access to all sources of assessment, but it can almost never be depicted accurately in a way that our domestic publics will understand (or, more importantly, believe). Finally, I think that the popular image of "war" also includes the expectation that there will be a clear-cut and recognizeable "victory". The images of VE-Day and VJ Day, despite being over half a century old, haven't lost their grip on the popular mind.
Once you create these sorts of expectations in the political culture, look out: you will have to live up to them or face the consequences. Since our foreign policies are, in the end, driven by domestic political concerns (= "getting re-elected"), the need to meet these false expectations can start to override lucid strategic thinking. Pragmatism and realism can be difficult to "sell" if they look like "defeatism", and no political leadership (especially in the US with the spectre of Vietnam) EVER wants to be remembered as the ones who "lost it".

Cheers


----------



## Journeyman (20 Mar 2010)

For variations on this theme, have a look at MOISÉS NAÍM, "Mixed Metaphors: Why the wars on cancer, poverty, drugs, [etc] can't be won," _Foreign Policy_, March/April 2010, available here.

While Naim doesn't expound on the specific details of crippled strategic thinking, he does note that "good metaphors yield bad policies."  

(Which, of course, may simply be an example of that Logic Fallacy: "Glib expression mistaken for logical argument"  ;D)


----------



## pbi (20 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While Naim doesn't expound on the specific details of crippled strategic thinking, he does note that "good metaphors yield bad policies."



Usually true: I think he is referring to "bumper-sticker" thinking that sounds great, feels good, but in the end probably doesn't contribute much to understanding a complex situation. Except to make it seem as though there is a simple solution, which of course just serves to complicate things further.

The only place I can see this kind of sloganeering doing much good is when a nation is facing an actual existential threat, but the public doesn't quite realize it yet. At that point, the question of national survival becomes a zero-sum game: either the nation will be roused in time to action, or it will cease to exist. Since these situations are generally few and far between, I'd have to say that most of the time politicians wave these emotive terms around, they're opening a Pandora's box that they probably shouldn't.

Cheers


----------



## CougarKing (28 Mar 2010)

Related:

Canadian Press link



> MONTREAL -* Canada's role as a global leader has been compromised by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments obssessed with courting ethnic voters, former diplomat Robert Fowler said. *
> 
> Speaking to the Liberal policy renewal conference on Sunday, Fowler blasted the leading federal political parties for letting the country's foreign policy be dictated by special interests.
> 
> ...


----------

