Democratic Republic of Congo

There has been a huge conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo for quite some time. In the 10 years following the outbreak in 1998, 5.4 million have died due to the war. Many people are still displaced within the country or are refugees. This has been the world’s deadliest conflict since WWII, and it continues.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/87/the-democratic-republic-of-congo

This conflict is due to many things; regional security, struggle for power and control, struggle for control of resources, and the humanitarian mess. The history of the DRC shows that there are many neighboring countries that have been involved, namely Rwanda and Uganda as well as others. These countries fight for the land, resources and people who can benefit them. Both the rebels and the Congolese military fight for power and get nowhere, they are both corrupt. The DRC is very rich in resources such as gold, diamonds and most importantly coltan; which other countries wish to exploit because of its value and importance for electronics.

http://www.jiia.or.jp/pdf/gambari.pdf

Although Canada has contributed 440 military personnel to the mission and is presently spending $33 million a year to support the peacekeeping force, it is hesitant to really commit itself to solving the conflict in the DRC. The UN has requested a Canadian commander to lead a peacekeeping mission, but because this may lead to the request for even more Canadian troops to be sent over, the decision to send Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie is being put off. Canada has not been very involved with DRC peacekeeping since the 1990’s, and isn’t quite ready yet to involve itself in “Africa’s War”.

Geoffry York, "The Bleak Calculus of Congo's War Without End," The Globe and Mail, (27 March, 2010).

As I have mentioned in my previous blog, following the human security agenda would require that Canada fully support missions to help keep peace and safety in the DRC. Canadian foreign policy does not operate on the human security agenda, proof of that being its lack of commitment in previous years, and its hesitation to send any troops out of fear that more may be requested. Canada is not looking for a leadership role to end this conflict because it does not have the interest or the capacity to do so.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-canadas-military-is-itching-for-a-fight-it-wont-be-in-the-congo/article1542689/

Human Security Agenda: East Timor

The “human security agenda” is a foreign policy which focuses on the safety of ordinary people whose security is threatened, rather than the security of the state, as policy was during the Cold War period. For 25 years East Timor had been under Indonesian rule until, in 1999, the referendum vote for political autonomy in East Timor (78.5% wished to separate) was followed by a violent outbreak by anti-independence militia groups. While countries such as Australia, Britain and New Zealand that embraced the human security agenda were quick to send troops, Canada hesitated. Their response was “slow cautious, and minimalist” despite Axworthy’s (Canadian foreign minister) enthusiasm towards the policy. Chretien however, did not share this enthusiasm. Sending troops to East Timor was not in the interest of Canada as anything more than a symbol, and limited its involvement to diplomacy. In contrast, Australia had mobilized troops in march 1999 for possible action, followed by Britain and New Zealand all committing 2000-4000 troops each. Canada waited to hear from the UN before making any move. On the same day that Habibie (held office in East Timor at the time) asked for UN peacekeeping to intervene, Chretien promised 200 troops, in total about 600Canadian Forces personnel to be assigned to the East Timor mission. Canadian troops only got to East Timor by the end of October that year, two months after others had been there. Canada’s Labour Force also refused to handle products from Indonesia, but Canada’s contribution was very small, and not willing to subject their own troops to hostile fire. The “human security agenda” does not provide a viable foundation for Canadian foreign policy because, although in theory protecting those who are threatened sounds great, in practice it involves risking the safety of a states own people, and if it is not in their interest to aid others, they would rather protect their own. As Roland Paris stated, the human security agenda is an “honorable” goal, but involves far too great a commitment and not very useful when making a foreign policy.

Sources:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rgwhitma/classweb2/history%20and%20conflict.htm

T.S. Hataley and Kim Richard Nossal (Queen’s University), “The Limits of the Human Security Agenda: The Case of Canada’s Response to the Timor Crisis”

Michael Ignatieff

I was born in and have grown up in a democratic country. Having studied a limited amount about other regimes, monarchies, communisms, dictatorships and systems which have given rise to genocides; comparatively, democracy looks like one of the best political options for governance.

Likewise, I respect and support the notion of “human rights” like life, liberty, free speech and so on.

Therefore a first read of Michael Cotey Morgan’s article about Ignatieff I was left with an initial nod to the notion that democracy and human rights should be pursued and protected.

However, the more I contemplate the article, the notion of cosmopolitanism and pursuing the lesser evil I am forced to play devil’s advocate.

In the article, cosmopolitanism requires moral imagination when truly about ethics and responsibility. Ignatieff uses this to say all humans in all countries should receive our assistance when in dire need. The more basic question however is; based on what moral standard?

In law there is a notion of “intent” when some act is considered criminal or not. For example, to murder someone is wrong, but to kill someone in self defense is not a crime. But in both cases you first need to know what the crime is ie. murder.

Therefore we have to consider whether democracy is something worthy of “anti-perfectionist” results. Why should western civilizations be the imperialists pushing democracy on other nations? Ignatieff justifies the war in Iraq because of the end result. In other words he didn’t agree with the reasons the US entered Iraq but the end justified the means. In Ignatieff’s view, the US rid the Iraqi people of a terrible dictation who killed and tortured his own people.

This idea however of the end justifying the means runs contrary to the idea of “intent” as seen as a necessary element in law.

If you are willing to use force to uphold the notion of democracy and human rights, the rights should be defined.

It is always possible that this type of rational not only could be used to justify the anti-perfectionism result that Ignatieff acknowledges and accepts but also leaves it for him to extend the limits and value of the word, “rights” to enforce one’s own personal belief system. Recently in the news Ignatieff has challenged Harper on the issue of women’s rights to be discussed at the G8 summit this summer. Ignatieff believes a woman’s right to abortion is a mandatory inclusion in the rights of a woman. Regardless of how any one person feels about this topic, Ignatiff fails to realize that a large portion of Canada’s own population disagrees with him on the abortion issue. What right would a country such as ourselves or the US have to ensure rights for others when we don’t have a great grasp on the “rights” limits?

Another example of concern with regard to basic human rights can be seen with regards to education. Most Canadians would probably agree that many countries in need of our intervention do not respect the rights of their children to be educated, sometimes it is gender discriminatory. Look at Canada’s own situation with regard to aboriginal people and education. For decades we have forced young aboriginal persons to share the “white man’s” schooling. However, we only gave them limited education and support. In the meantime, they haven’t learned traditional lessons on hunting and fishing. With a mediocre classic Canadian education they don’t compete well on the job market. When they try to go back to their cultural roots they aren’t trained for traditional native life. Is it any wonder that there is a drinking and drug abuse problem on reserves? Are we going to export this type of education human right to other countries?

Should we take the plank out of our own eye before we invade other countries to remove the speck from theirs?

Ignatieff does argue that this type of skepticism can lead to inaction; therefore he justifies his action with pragmatism and anti-perfectionism. Although war may be the only way to protect democracy and human rights, he acknowledges innocent deaths may occur and the results may not be guaranteed.

Certainly the result in Iraq today is still arguably not better than before, but his point is understood and I have some sympathy for it.

I wonder, when the European settlers came to North America and rounded up the aboriginal people, whether they thought they were doing a good thing for those savage people.

So my point is that democracy works for us and it may be good for others, but we shouldn’t pursue the spread of democracy through force. Sometimes basic human rights should be protected in other regions of the world by countries like Canada. However, we should be fairly clear as to what those rights are from a limited point of view.

Although Ignatieff’s perspective of the lesser of two evils in theory sounds good, defining the lesser of the two is not always easy.

A politician of any land must have the ability to assess issues as they arise. There are practical and moral judgments to be made. Ideology is great for papers, but doesn’t translate that well in action. As Ignatieff formed his views in academia he may he may have learned the translation isn’t so easy in practice.

Harper: Realist or Idealist?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has decided that the G8 focus this year should be to help pregnant women and their children in under-developed countries. Although this seems like an ideal being pushed by an idealist, Harper is actually a realist. Hobbes describes that humans are in a constant state of war, in which an authority is needed to keep order. For this authority to be respected and followed by the people however, they must have absolute power that cannot be overthrown. Harper is presently heading a minority government, which is not the best situation as he wants to maintain his title as Prime Minister. He is using his seemingly selfless and generous act of compassion to gain support and win votes in the next election. He is also using this to make up for Canada’s position on climate change that had been recently scoffed at by most of the world at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Because of the prorogation of parliament, his poll numbers dropped substantially. The conservatives had so much support prior to that decision, that if an election had been called, they may have won a majority. After the prorogation, liberals and conservatives were considered tied. Harper wishes to draw attention away from the decisions he has made that do not make him favorable so that he can maintain power. Since Canada is hosting the G8 summit, Harper had to throw something on the table that other countries could embrace, and that Canadians would be proud of. Also, as he approaches a time when an election will soon likely be called, he is conscious of his image. This is not a strong point in his electability, as he is often seen as “stiff”, “mechanical”, and “rather uncaring”. The topic of pregnant women and children in under-developed countries helps to change that image. He also chose a topic that the opposition leaders would have problems to flat out disagree with. Ignatieff can only argue the fringe of the topic, ie: the contraception and abortion angle, which makes him unpopular with half the electorate. Harper chose this specific topic to help boost his popularity and in turn his power because he is a realist. He realizes that there have recently been many things that have made him lose some support and is using this as a way to gain it back and distract from it. He is trying to avoid Hobbes’s constant state of war by gaining support, and more power, that could help him eventually win his majority government, the closest thing to absolute power and unquestionably authority that can exist in a democracy like Canada’s.

Bomb Attack

When people are bombarded by a problem, they eventually become so dulled by its effects they stop caring as much. There has been so much fear and change in the world because of and since 9/11, further terrorist threats are actually becoming common place and treated by citizens with a degree of complacency. Although there is still initial shock when another terrorist plot is exposed the same fear no longer lasts---the story doesn’t linger because of the incident itself.

The December 29, 2009 issue of the Ottawa Citizen ran a story entitled, “I’m the first of many, bomb suspect warns.” The article outlined a plot by Umar Farouk Abdulmitallab who was supposedly associated with al-Queda in Yemen. He attempted to blow up an airliner over Detroit. The reason for this bomb attempt was allegedly retaliation for an attack on suspected militants in Yemen a few days earlier where US intelligence and hardware were used by Yemen government forces and resulted in 60 dead. However his tickets were supposedly purchased before the Yemen attack.
The attempted bomber started his voyage in Ghana then went through Amsterdam.

The device he was attempting to use could only have been detected by a full body scanner. This technology obviously raises privacy concerns and could certainly be abused.

The “system’ currently in place to intercept terrorism on aircrafts failed, given that Abdulmutallab had been on a US watch list and his own father had called Nigerian and Us authorities with concerns about his son.

In a separate article in the same edition of the Citizen, “Online postings show suspect’s loneliness,” it reveals that attempted bomber had a past of loneliness with no friends. How easy is it them for lonely people, friendless people and even very spiritually religious people to be led astray with easy access on the internet by zealot terrorists?

I don’t have the answers. I do know we are all becoming numb as we accept terrorist threats as a way of life. There is little doubt in my mind that the world of travel will change once again and full body scanners will become the norm. Note to self, better invest in Goodlife fitness their stock may be rising soon!

What strikes me most is that although we must fight terror to protect our citizens, the world political leaders also need to look to kinder, gentler ways to prevent youth like Umar from being interested in terrorist extremists in the first place. Maybe if Canada and the US shared as much wealth as they do on war efforts in helping others they would be taking the right first step.

……isn’t it amazing the effect Osama Bin Laden has had on the world! One man’s twisted views have impacted so many and will continue to do so for so long.

World needs Climate Agency

A few blogs ago, I wrote about the Copenhagen Accord. In the December 21, 2009 issue of the Ottawa Citizen they ran an article called “World needs climate agency British Prime Minister says”. British PM Gordon Brown condemns the consensual method of UN negotiation which currently appears to require all 192 countries require agreement. Brown argues global deals should not be ‘…held to ransom by only a handful of countries”.

There are so many varied perspectives which touch many matters a majority rules approach may not always work. However on an issue such as protection of the world’s environment , he has a point. Maybe each little country doesn’t deserve equal voting rights just based on population, but no country should have and effective veto. Something closer to majority rule appears to be in order at least on certain issues. Do we all agree? Can we reach a consensus on that? What voting mechanism will put that one through?

Dead: Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri

In some corners of the world the politics and political agenda are closely tied to religion and sometimes the death of a religious figure brings the world’s attention to the politics of a region. That is the case with the death of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri in Iran as noted in the December 21, 2009 issue of the Ottawa Citizen. Although he was instrumental in the deposition of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and was a close friend and confident of Ayatollah Khomeini he later became critical of the hard line leadership and fell out of favor. He called for legalization of political parties and condemned mass execution of political prisoners and spoke against the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. He became the voice of protest in Iran.

In the December 22, 2009 issue of the Citizen they ran an article entitled “Ayatollah’s death brings revolution back to life.” That article focuses on the effect of his death. Iran’s leadership is fighting back viciously to stop protesters who support Montazeri’s call for reforms in Iran. The mourners who support calls for reforms number “tens or hundred’s of thousand.” Even 12 leading Ayatollahs went to the funeral as did two defeated candidates in June’s questionable election.

The scenario could hardly be worse for the current Iranian regime but because of the timing of the death which coincides with a religious holiday the situation is indeed aggravated further. A perfect storm!

The Ottawa Citizen’s report on December 29, 2009 indicates other world leaders are weighing in on the crackdown in Iran. Obama is encouraging the opposition and even Russia who is a significant trading partner has called for restraint. Undeterred, the Revolutionary Guard and Basij ( the current Iranian regime) has indicated it is prepared to “ eradicate the plot and urge the judiciary to act firmly.” I wonder if arrested protesters will get a fair trial…ha .Translation, they will beat, kill and punish to the extent necessary to stop the protestors.

Perhaps it is when this type of desperation and brutal force are used so excessively that a brighter future, a fairer regime has an opportunity to take over. I hope Iranians are strong enough to persevere to see that day!