Originally posted by jester:

quote:

---

In my opinion,Canada should have a srong military aligned with an independent foreign policy that reinforces Canadian values.

---

quote:

---

Any time I see or hear someone talking about "Canadian values" my bullshit detector goes into the red zone.

Maybe this should be the subject of a separate thread, but I don't believe there is such a thing as "Canadian values".

---

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: jester ]

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: jester ]

What I'm getting at is a foreign and defense policy that reflects the committments Canadians are willing to make rather than the ad hoc policies made on the fly to placate Canada's allies,especially the US.

The UN is now a basketcase where the dictators du jour send their less competent relatives as modern day remittance men and UN functionaries prey on the people they are sent to help. NATO is a dysfunctional nest of competing geopolitical objectives held together by some sort of delusional spinmeistering.

Where is Canada's place on the world stage and what resources shold we commit to our international presence?

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

Where is Canada's place on the world stage and what resources shold we commit to our international presence?

---

Why isn't our foreign policy as simple as the Golden Rule? Do unto others ... ?

Canada has a terrible human rights history. Yes, we are more tolerant now, but the history is still there. And if the government committed some atrocity against us, the citizenry, would we want third countries to then drop bombs on our homes?

If another nation is engaged in actions that we would consider deplorable or worse, we should respond with economic penalties and that policy ought to be applied equally whether China or Israel.

Unarticulated "interests", as held by our Prime Minister with regard to Lebanon, ought not to over rule basic humanity and commitment to human rights.

There is no value in Canada investing heavily in fighting wars. Because we can't defend ourselves militarily from the two emerging threats, and if we spend the money anyway, then we are corralled into fighting foreign wars to earn our keep within the Empire. Why do we want to do that?

We already do plenty in terms of hewers of wood and drawers of water and fillers of SUVs.

What we save in military spending we can pay back through investing in schools, from the day care space to the Ph.D., at home and all over the world while living up to the principles we claim to hold true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
I suppose "Canadian Values" is too shop worn a term to hold any meaning. Whenever a politician or talking head uses it, everyone's BS detectors go off.

---

quote:

---

What I'm getting at is a foreign and defense policy that reflects the committments Canadians are willing to make rather than the ad hoc policies made on the fly to placate Canada's allies,especially the US.

---

There are many Canadians, for example, who are willing to commit to whatever will placate the United States. Those Canadians are happy with the current Harper foreign policy, and are absolutely convinced it represents "Canadian values".

quote:

---

The UN is now a basketcase where the dictators du jour send their less competent relatives as modern day remittance men and UN functionaries prey on the people they are sent to help.

---

quote:

---

NATO is a dysfunctional nest of competing geopolitical objectives held together by some sort of delusional spinmeistering.

---

NATO is not dysfunctional. It is a powerful military alliance of allies led by the USA, and has demonstrated time and again that it is ready and able to take military action when the USA thinks it's time to do so.

This is why Canada should withdraw from NATO immediately.

[ 30 December 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Every politician likes to think - and likes everyone else to think - that they believe in "Canadian values". That's why Canadian values are bullshit; it just means "my values".

---

I disagree. As the world evolved into a more fractured entity after the collapse of the Soviet Union, international efforts in failed state intervention have had to evolve from 3rd generation manoevre warfare to 4th generation assymetrical warfare against an insurgent foe rather than a recognisable formation.

Canadians values still recognise the sacrifices and accomplishments of 3rd generational warfare,including the Cold War and the various UN peacekeeping missions.

Time and time again in the recent deployments,Canadians have voiced support by lining overpasses for the return of deceased soldiers and Red Friday events while at the same time, the anti-war activists can't muster much of a crowd at their events.

quote:

---

Again, I disagree.
NATO is not dysfunctional. It is a powerful military alliance of allies led by the USA, and has demonstrated time and again that it is ready and able to take military action when the USA thinks it's time to do so.

This is why Canada should withdraw from NATO immediately.

---

NATO is dysfunctional. France has no military committment to NATO, Germany is only interested in Euro defense and makes vague gestures toward involvement in NATO adventures,Italy is only interested in Italy and the rest are reluctant contributors to American sponsored meddling.

I agree that Canada should leave NATO. Your suggestion that criticism of the UN be a separate thread fails to recognise that NATO is in Afghanistan under the auspices of a UNSC resolution.

In a perfect world, the UN could be a powerful influence for good that Canada could wholeheartedly contribute to but in the present instance,the UN is a corrupt entity used as a vehicle to furthur the self -serving interests of the participants. The military contributions of countries with professional militaries have been replaced by contributions from militaries more interested in the funding than the mission. These contributions allow for pedatory practices upon the people the troops are supposed to protect.

I believe that Canada requires a new White Paper to delineate the challenges that Canada is prepared to accept internationally and the vehicle(s) by which Canada will achieve its aims. This will allow Canadians to individually analyse the policy and support or not support the policy on its merits.

But the ignorance around it is so great that it is worth saying as a starter that the boots on the ground, even in 'old style peacekeeping' [separating combatants], could only be there because they had the full agressive war fighting capabilities of the day.

Ideally- even usually- the capability to attack and defeat opponents was not used in such missions, but the Canadian Forces deployed could only be in the operation if they were fully capable.

To go on any kind of international missions- whtever the terms of engagement and whatever they are called- requires forces with the training and the equipment of todays warfare. Or we don't go [and don't have any real defense capability at all].

There are two things problematic for the left that follow from that: having that kind of war fighting capability in the first place, and the resource requirements.

Those are challenging issues for the left even if you assume we aren't going to play footsie with the US and its adventures any more.

We ttreat the questions of resources on war fighting capabilities as is they are only there so that Canada can be the tool of the US. "We should get back to real peacekkeping."

Whatever 'real peacekeeping' is [another thing the left dodges] it entails contemporary war fighting capability... and all the issues that entails.

[ 01 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Your suggestion that criticism of the UN be a separate thread fails to recognise that NATO is in Afghanistan under the auspices of a UNSC resolution.

---

quote:

---

Did the UNSC initiate NATO’s involvement or did NATO present a fait accompli to the UN Secretary General? Clearly, it was not any UNSC resolution that sought NATO involvement. Instead, what is available on record is that NATO informed the UN Secretary General, through a letter from its Secretary General, dated 2 October 2003, that on 11 August 2003 NATO had assumed “strategic command, control and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)”.6 This was followed by another letter from the NATO Secretary General to the UN SG informing the latter of the North Atlantic Council’s agreement on a “longer-term strategy for NATO in its International Assistance Force (ISAF) role in Afghanistan.” Both these letters were sent to the President of the UNSC by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on 7 October 2003, with the request that they be brought to the attention of the UNSC. So, in effect, NATO presented the UNSC with a fait accompli. Source

---

quote:

---

NATO was in Afghanistan before the UNSC gave its retroactive blessing. The excuse was not a Security Council mandate, but Article V of the NATO Charter, which was improperly invoked after 9/11 by the US.

---

"Get back to peacekeeping" assumes two things that are both patently false: a) that all Canada has ever done is Pearsonian peacekeeping, which ignores Canadian military history before 1956, and b) that peacekeeping does not require warfighting capacity.

From Vimy to Normandy, Canadians were not known for Pearsonian peacekeeping. They were known as very effective warfighters.

And what made Canadians effective peacekeepers from Suez to Cyprus to the Middle East to Africa was not the Liberal Party myth of the armed boy scout, but that Canadians were known to be effective at using force, as required, to make the warring sides behave.

Neither of these are arguments against Pearsonian peacekeeping per se, but they put the lie to the empty "get back to peacekeeping" mantra of those who see peacekeeping in an historical, military and intellectual vacuum.

The decline in peacekeeping over the past 10 - 20 years has little to do with a preference for more aggressive warfare, but to a gradual sea change in the nature of armed combat. Most conflicts of the past 20 years defy the use of traditional Pearsonian peacekeeping for a number of reasons - including the increased use of irregular forces and especially the tendency for conflicts to be internal to a state.

Pearsonian peacekeeping is a tool, but it is not the right tool for every application. Rwanda, to use one example, and the current cause celebre of Darfur, for example, likely require a more robust application of force since their is no peace to keep.

On another point. I agree that the term "Canadian values" is so malleable as to be meaningless. Stephen Harper's "Canadian values" and Jack Layton's are certainly not the same.

quote:

---

MF:
The decline in peacekeeping over the past 10 - 20 years has little to do with a preference for more aggressive warfare, but to a gradual sea change in the nature of armed combat.

---

And also, it could in addition be that there is more interest in having conflict rather than peace. Conflict is a very profitable enterprise for some on one hand, and a potent political tool on the other (witness the politics after 911).

quote:

---

And what made Canadians effective peacekeepers from Suez to Cyprus to the Middle East to Africa was not the Liberal Party myth of the armed boy scout, but that Canadians were known to be effective at using force, as required, to make the warring sides behave.

---

Bang on. Soldiers who aren't well trained and capable of bringing superior force are sitting ducks. Even if we were to dedicate our military primarily to peacekeeping they would have to be trained to effectively employ considerable violence when required.

quote:

---

That said, if one proposes that Canada have an independent foreign and military policy, that means Canada must either operate independent of alliances, or at least must be more judicious in entering into alliances. That in turn means increased resources to increase the size and capability of the Canadian Forces.

---