• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

About Turn! Time to Revise Canada’s Foreign Policy

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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)
 
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
 
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.


Fowler said both major parties have been enticed by the allure of political gains within the Jewish community. He said it is a strategy that leads to an unproductive support for Israel and undermines Canada's reputation as a trusted mediator in the Middle East.


"The scramble to lock up the Jewish vote in Canada meant selling out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice," Fowler said.


"As the globe has become smaller and meaner, Canadian governments have turned inward and adopted me-first stances across the international agenda," he said.


"Canada's reputation and proud international traditions have been diminished as a result."


The conference was immediately set abuzz by Fowler's comments, and he became the de facto topic of conversation in the corridors outside the main ballroom.


Delivered at 8:30 a.m., the speech was like a splash of cold water for delegates at a cerebral gathering.


And if Fowler didn't mince his words about Canada's current foreign policy, he was downright ruthless in his message to the Liberal party, which he warned risked "losing its soul" in its quest for power.


"I have the impression that they will endorse anything and everything which might return them to power," he said.


His frankness could complicate life for Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who was forced to dance around Fowler's condemnation of his party's stance on Israel.


"Robert Fowler is a Canadian hero," Ignatieff told a news conference following his closing speech Sunday afternoon.


"I didn't agree with every syllable, but that's exactly the kind of challenge that our party needs."


When pressed further, however, Ignatieff was categoric in his rejection of Fowler's claim the Liberals pander to the ethnic vote.

"I'm looking you in the eye and saying that it's not (true)."


Still the criticism is likely to raise eyebrows given its source.


Fowler spent five months as an al-Qaida hostage in western Africa in 2009 after being kidnapped while serving as the United Nations special envoy to Niger.
He also served as a diplomat and adviser under Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Brian Mulroney.

At the heart of his speech was an impassioned plea for Ottawa to reorient its foreign policy toward Africa, where he said population growth and endemic instability threaten the West's security.

Money spent in Afghanistan, he argued, would go much further in Africa.

"The bottom line is that we will not prevail in Afghanistan," he said.

"We are simply not prepared to foot the massive price in blood and treasure which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan ... and replace their culture with ours, for that seems to be what we seek."


But before launching into his broadside, Fowler prefaced his remarks by noting he owes his release last year to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

He acknowledged that his blunt remarks "may not sound like a terrific way to express my appreciation for the fact I'm alive."
 
Back
Top