What does the crisis in East Timor say about Canada's use of Human Security Agenda introduced by Lloyd Axworthy, ( canada's foreign minister at the time) in the mid 90's. How can Safety for People go wrong? How can defending civilians around the world go wrong?
It did go wrong and Canada provided only a measly 250 infantry troops to the international effort. Although the Human Security Agenda is idealist if we examine Canada's contribution from a Realist perspective we can see that the Human Security Agenda does not work. It is a good idea but does not work in practicality.
Realist Analysis, Canada can defend its interests by sending only 250 troops. This low amount of troops shows that Canada just sent troops for the sake of saying we went to help in East Timor. This keeps Canada's reputation with the international community clean and keeps government lobbyists quiet. The lobbyisits were pushing for world peace and intervention in East Timor but a large amount of troops in East Timor would annoy Indonesia who happens to be a large trade partner. The 250 troops sent by Canada seem to keep everyone happy except for the country of East Timor which happens to be the only thing the Human Security Agenda was supposed to be helping out.
In conclusion the Human Security Agenda is full of fail and surrounded by realism, Canda must approach its foreign policy much differently.
T.S. Hataley & Kim Richard Nossal, " The Limits of the Human Security Agenda: The Case of Canada's Response to the Timor Crisis, "Global Change,Peace & Security( Vol.16,No.1.February 2004)
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Michael Ignatieff
What is the first thing you think of when u hear the word liberal, most people think of liberty, equality, and fair elections. The word liberal comes from the Latin liberalis, "which means of freedom. Here in this great land that stretches from coast to coast (Canada) we have a political party which fights (non-violently) for control of the country called the Liberals. Recently a man by the name of Michael Ignatieff became head of this party.
Michael Ignatieff is not an ordinary liberal, he is what we call a liberal interventionist. Upon reading Michael Cotey Morgan article Michael Ignatieff Idealism and the Challenge of the "lesser evil" we can understand the idea of liberal interventionism. In this article we learn that interventionism override ethics in favor of moral responsibility. To sum it up into one sentence, to intervene on infringements of human rights around the world we must break rules of sovereignty and "trespass" on another land. This often means war and Ignatieff is OK with this. He believes wars and armed conflict are justified because of the end result. He also brings up the idea of a lesser evil, that the harm caused by a war is less than allowing human atrocities to continue unnoticed.
I believe that this is a good way to think almost a vigilante justice idea. This is almost a mix of realism and idealism but at its core its about the lesser evil and is idealist. What is better for the world? Just because a crime against humanity is outside our domain does not mean it should go unnoticed. Maybe you would not stop an old man being beat up at your neighbors house because you could get seriously hurt but if you were a supertank country and could avoid serious harm you would, im not sure where i heard this line but it applies here "with great power comes great responsibility". But Canada is not a country with endless manpower , we should fous our forces in places where our presence will have the most usefulness and positive result. If every country adopted this policy and did what they could perhaps the world would be way better off.
Props to IGNATIEFF
Michael Ignatieff is not an ordinary liberal, he is what we call a liberal interventionist. Upon reading Michael Cotey Morgan article Michael Ignatieff Idealism and the Challenge of the "lesser evil" we can understand the idea of liberal interventionism. In this article we learn that interventionism override ethics in favor of moral responsibility. To sum it up into one sentence, to intervene on infringements of human rights around the world we must break rules of sovereignty and "trespass" on another land. This often means war and Ignatieff is OK with this. He believes wars and armed conflict are justified because of the end result. He also brings up the idea of a lesser evil, that the harm caused by a war is less than allowing human atrocities to continue unnoticed.
I believe that this is a good way to think almost a vigilante justice idea. This is almost a mix of realism and idealism but at its core its about the lesser evil and is idealist. What is better for the world? Just because a crime against humanity is outside our domain does not mean it should go unnoticed. Maybe you would not stop an old man being beat up at your neighbors house because you could get seriously hurt but if you were a supertank country and could avoid serious harm you would, im not sure where i heard this line but it applies here "with great power comes great responsibility". But Canada is not a country with endless manpower , we should fous our forces in places where our presence will have the most usefulness and positive result. If every country adopted this policy and did what they could perhaps the world would be way better off.
Props to IGNATIEFF
Thursday, April 15, 2010
DRC
The war in congo has produced more casulaites than any other conflict since world war II. The violent state of the country robbed the congonese of everything. There is no health care, functioning government, or security, even the congonese army is corrupt. The conflict is between different rebel groups seeking riches from the congo. The DRC is the most mineral rich country in Africa, it is estimated that 64% of the world's coltan reserves are located in the DRC, while 34% of the world's cobalt and 10% of the world's copper reserves are found in the country's Katanga province. Originally Uganda and Rawanda combined with rebel groups to benefit from these riches, currently the eastern part of the country is not under government control and the conflict seems endless. There are daily murders at mines by government brigades and the few workers make less than a pound a day. It seems like the only ones who benefit from the situation in the DRC are coltane hungry countries.
One of those coltane hungry countries is Canada, and as a country with power and influence we have a responsibility to the world to protect human rights. So why are we fueling mass civilain deaths by buying coltane from the Congo. Is it the only convientent and readily available source of Coltane? Is there such a demand for this precious resource that we can sleep at nite with our bloodberries without a sense of guilt? Do we need it so bad that we can watch hundreds of innocent lives be sacrificed everyday? Canada is a land of contradictions, our companies buy the Coltane and fuel the fighting, shortly after we send peacekeepers to apparently stop the fighting. What is going on here? Perhaps a man by the name of Machiavelli could tell us. The government knows they are doing wrong but the peacekeepers they send make it appear that we are doing right. If we were ideally interested in the restoration of the Congo we would contribute much more to the UN mission. Our current contributions are minuscule and barely worth a mention but anytime a politician is asked about Congo they speak with grandeur about the peacekeeping going on. I say stop keeping us happy with you lies and show us some results. It is the responsibility of the government to bring morals to business this is why we elect them. The businesses would have to spend a ridiculous amount of money ensuring there workers are not slaves and that there resource is coming from a respectable work environment. This would be bad for us as consumers because if they spent the money enforcing this our cellphone prices would spike. Here is where our country contradicts a country of capitalism cannot work with a country of human rights and democracy. Canada must draw the line somewhere and innocent lives being lost as a result of big business has crossed the line of human rights. It is simple, Even if cellphone prices spike we must make sure innocent lives are not being lost.
One of those coltane hungry countries is Canada, and as a country with power and influence we have a responsibility to the world to protect human rights. So why are we fueling mass civilain deaths by buying coltane from the Congo. Is it the only convientent and readily available source of Coltane? Is there such a demand for this precious resource that we can sleep at nite with our bloodberries without a sense of guilt? Do we need it so bad that we can watch hundreds of innocent lives be sacrificed everyday? Canada is a land of contradictions, our companies buy the Coltane and fuel the fighting, shortly after we send peacekeepers to apparently stop the fighting. What is going on here? Perhaps a man by the name of Machiavelli could tell us. The government knows they are doing wrong but the peacekeepers they send make it appear that we are doing right. If we were ideally interested in the restoration of the Congo we would contribute much more to the UN mission. Our current contributions are minuscule and barely worth a mention but anytime a politician is asked about Congo they speak with grandeur about the peacekeeping going on. I say stop keeping us happy with you lies and show us some results. It is the responsibility of the government to bring morals to business this is why we elect them. The businesses would have to spend a ridiculous amount of money ensuring there workers are not slaves and that there resource is coming from a respectable work environment. This would be bad for us as consumers because if they spent the money enforcing this our cellphone prices would spike. Here is where our country contradicts a country of capitalism cannot work with a country of human rights and democracy. Canada must draw the line somewhere and innocent lives being lost as a result of big business has crossed the line of human rights. It is simple, Even if cellphone prices spike we must make sure innocent lives are not being lost.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Harper, Stephan Haper!
So this fancy man politician speaks of maternal health, what possible reason could he have for brining up maternal health and the disadvantaged mothers of the world? He didnt even bring up condoms. As an idealist we will be fooled into thinking that harper actaully cares about these things, it is true these mothers need help but since when was harper an advocate for maternal health. To understand the truth we must look at this through realist lens. Once you look at this matter your realist lens should tell you that a certain politician is avoiding an issue, canda's lack of global invlovlement against climate change. Climate change is a much greater concern at the g8, why on this climate shifting earth would he bring up maternal health? Im sure his rep only took a few hits from realists, the rest of canada including me at first belived him to be a emissary of maternal health, but once the reasoning was examinined i too saw the truth, the REAL(ist) truth.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Press Freedom Index 2009
In terms of free press a lot of progress has been made since 2008 but the strange thing is that some eurpoean democracies are declining in scores. I looked at the 2008 scores and there was no mark of 0.00 but compared to 2009 5 european countries have acheived this score. Unfortunelty this article focuses on the negative and so must I. Democrazy means freedom as long as the population wants freedom and free press. A great deal of corruption and government control in countries like France and Italy maybe cuasing these low rankings. The government has even implemented laws to control publications. Why did the public allow this?
The us's ranking has signifiganlty increased. Condisering they are at 2 wars the public desesrves to recieve full coverage without any hint of censorship. They need to understand what they are supporting or why they are not supporting. Just look at the effect free journalism did to the vietnam war. (hint hint cultural revolution)
The us's ranking has signifiganlty increased. Condisering they are at 2 wars the public desesrves to recieve full coverage without any hint of censorship. They need to understand what they are supporting or why they are not supporting. Just look at the effect free journalism did to the vietnam war. (hint hint cultural revolution)
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Healthcare landmark for the USofA?
"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08health.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all"
He is already half way there. Obama is fighintg to give americans of all financial backgrounds equal grounding in terms of health insurance. He also plans to stop the insurance companies from denying the ill or refuting pre-existing ailments. How could anyone do wrong with such noble goals in mind?
Republicans think it is too costly and believe such a bill should target only those who fall through the cracks. These arguments comes from capitalists portecting there profits. A government issued health insurance would provide serious threat to their business.
Most first world countries have already implemented government aided health insurance, it is a matter of social security. At its core this bill is big business vs helping the average American.
This bill has been long overdue and the united states should hesitate no longer in transforming their health care.
I like Obama's approach to this issue, he makes it personal and revolutionary by calling it the call of history. Hmm....
He is already half way there. Obama is fighintg to give americans of all financial backgrounds equal grounding in terms of health insurance. He also plans to stop the insurance companies from denying the ill or refuting pre-existing ailments. How could anyone do wrong with such noble goals in mind?
Republicans think it is too costly and believe such a bill should target only those who fall through the cracks. These arguments comes from capitalists portecting there profits. A government issued health insurance would provide serious threat to their business.
Most first world countries have already implemented government aided health insurance, it is a matter of social security. At its core this bill is big business vs helping the average American.
This bill has been long overdue and the united states should hesitate no longer in transforming their health care.
I like Obama's approach to this issue, he makes it personal and revolutionary by calling it the call of history. Hmm....
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Rise of Facism or problem with democracy?
a reponse to "rise-of-far-right-fascist-in-europe"
The rise of far-right parties in several european countries can be interpreted in many different ways, but is this really a rise or a protest of mainsteram parties? The mainstream parties continue to fail in remedying the economy. The lack of general consensus and oppsing views means little is achieved in a democratic enviroment. Maybe the population is giving authoritarian control a chance. It has the capacity to get things done quickly unlike democracy. In a time of dire financial need and failed democracy the people put there faith in other less conventional choices. Ultimately democracy needs to be more efficent on delivering promises , geting things done and less about keeping office as long as possible. Perhaps this is the same reason many have given the conservitave party a chance in canada.
On the other side of the fence, Europeans could be switching to more radical means of thinking. Immigrants are taking there jobs and will generally work for less. Islam does seem to be costing the lives of there soldiers. But does any of this mean they should develop facisit views?
Hopefully not but the rise of right wing parites shouldnt be left in the dirt. Although if the majority of the population belives in facism nothing can be done, democracy dictates the will of the poeple.
The rise of far-right parties in several european countries can be interpreted in many different ways, but is this really a rise or a protest of mainsteram parties? The mainstream parties continue to fail in remedying the economy. The lack of general consensus and oppsing views means little is achieved in a democratic enviroment. Maybe the population is giving authoritarian control a chance. It has the capacity to get things done quickly unlike democracy. In a time of dire financial need and failed democracy the people put there faith in other less conventional choices. Ultimately democracy needs to be more efficent on delivering promises , geting things done and less about keeping office as long as possible. Perhaps this is the same reason many have given the conservitave party a chance in canada.
On the other side of the fence, Europeans could be switching to more radical means of thinking. Immigrants are taking there jobs and will generally work for less. Islam does seem to be costing the lives of there soldiers. But does any of this mean they should develop facisit views?
Hopefully not but the rise of right wing parites shouldnt be left in the dirt. Although if the majority of the population belives in facism nothing can be done, democracy dictates the will of the poeple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
