Canada at War: Dr. Jekyll Becomes Mr. Hyde

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Canada has lost its good name as peace keeper and honest broker. Thanks to the new Prime Minister, we are now marching in lockstep with the Washington warriers. It will be a long effort to ever get back our good reputation.
................................
Canada at War: Dr. Jekyll Becomes Mr. Hyde
September 10, 2006
.
Canada's foreign policy has taken an abrupt, almost head spinning right turn. But that is not news to anyone in the "true north strong and free" as the national anthem goes. What is news to the world is how the country has morphed from a peace-loving nation with a history of rejecting anything to do with warfare into a militaristic "middle power" marching in lock step to Washington's drumbeat. It seems an almost overnight transformation from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde to those of us who have viewed this change with abhorrence and deep dismay. Once known as an "honest broker" that steadfastly denounced and at times even derided the use of force in the world almost as if it were beneath the country's dignity to resort to violence and long considered a peacemaker, Canada is now a warrior nation in the best traditions of military campaigns.
.
To get the army the tools it needs to get the job done, this summer the Harper government announced a huge increase in arms spending. The shopping spree price tag stands at a trifling $17 billion and counting. Which is hardly small change for a state that has traditionally had one of the smallest military budgets for a NATO member state.
.
In terms of manpower, Ottawa has sent over 2,000 troops to "weed out" the Taliban fighters and other terrorists in the south of the war-torn warlord-run nation.
.
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2486.cfm#down

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,373 • Replies: 45

No top replies

Interesting that Canada is referred to as a state in this piece.

Does anybody believe that Mr. Harper will be in power for another term?

0 Replies

Welcome to the Party.

This is the price you have to pay to be free.

0 Replies

Would we be any less free if we were not in Afghanistan?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Interesting that Canada is referred to as a state in this piece.

Does anybody believe that Mr. Harper will be in power for another term?

welcome to the party

This is the price you pay to be powerful, rich and operate without regard to anyone else.

See that subtle difference?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Welcome to the Party.

This is the price you have to pay to be free.

I didn't realize that not being in Afghanistan made us less free.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Welcome to the Party.

This is the price you have to pay to be free.

I didn't realize that not being in Afghanistan made us less free.

So long as you have BIG BROTHER in the south to protect you, you will remain free.

Thanks for the help. We appreciate it.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Interesting that Canada is referred to as a state in this piece.

Does anybody believe that Mr. Harper will be in power for another term?

Quote:

A poll published on thursday by the Decima pollster showed the Conservatives with a 32 per cent approval rating

Source

....and falling from what I am hearing.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Welcome to the Party.

This is the price you have to pay to be free.

I didn't realize that not being in Afghanistan made us less free.

So long as you have BIG BROTHER in the south to protect you, you will remain free.

Thanks for the help. We appreciate it.

I didn't realize we were in need of American protection. Our historical record as a peace keeping nation, comined with a long standing foreign policy that doesn't b*ttf*ck anyone and everyone for our benefit and to their detriment sort of keeps us low on the radar.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

woiyo wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Welcome to the Party.

This is the price you have to pay to be free.

I didn't realize that not being in Afghanistan made us less free.

So long as you have BIG BROTHER in the south to protect you, you will remain free.

Thanks for the help. We appreciate it.

I didn't realize we were in need of American protection. Our historical record as a peace keeping nation, comined with a long standing foreign policy that doesn't b*ttf*ck anyone and everyone for our benefit and to their detriment sort of keeps us low on the radar.

Right...Sure it does.

0 Replies

Pleased to hear that we agree.

0 Replies

0 Replies

It is possible that the Western troops will pull out of Afghanistan after five years of constant fighting.
.
They will let the locals do what they have done for thousands of years: run the country in their own fashion.

0 Replies

The formal committment expires in 2009 if I'm not mistaken.
If Mr. Harper or the conservatives do not succeed in retaining power, be it a majority or minority, they put the successors in a precarious position.

On the one hand we have Ignatieff, a liberal who would continue the mission, and on the other, we have Layton who'd pull out almost immediately....and, the conservative position speaks for itself. They love flexing the muscles of other people's kids in a show of their own might and "moral" conviction.

It was suggested in Time magazine that when we examine these conflicts, instead of formulating value judgements about the participation in them, it woudl be best to engage in a national dialogue about what in fact are Canada's "national interests", what is the future mandate of Canada's foreign policy, what is the direction we see ourselves going in what apears to be an ongoing and never ending battle.....and it needs to be framed around something wioyo touched on.
Sharing the border with one of the largest international bullies might just influence our direction and take us in one that we otherwise would not have taken. Some Americans like woiyo seem to think that geographical proximity is a gift to Canada...when in fact it is quite plausibly curse.

0 Replies

As a member of the United Nations, Canada has an obligation to help the UN in peace keeping efforts.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

I would hate to see Canada withdraw from the UN.

0 Replies

Thanks McG.
This is of significance to my earlier post:

Quote:

All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Under PM Harper, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan has evolved, and not necessarily in a positive sense of the term, markedly from that of peacekeeping nation to one providing active military involvement.

I don't think there was ever the suggestion that Canada pull out from the UN. Canada values the organization and have participated whenever duty called us in....likewise, we have enjoyed international recognition for being a reliable and positive peacekeeping force.

I will add this a stark contrast to the role Canada plays with the UN, vs. the role the US has historically played, and the role that it will likely continue to play in the future.....as stated explicitly by the Bush favorite, John Bolton:

Quote:

The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question, the only question for the United States is what is in our national interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact.

Source

No, we won't withdraw, nor will make the the UN be a function of our foreign policy, or national interests.
What I asked above was entirely separate; what are our national interests in Afghanistan, what will be the mandate of out foreign policy independent of the policies of the US etc.

0 Replies

Well, to be fair, the US has a far greater stake in world events then Canada does. Comes with being a global super-power, a concept Canada has not had the burden of.

0 Replies

Not to mention that everyone south of the Canadian border are imperialistic warmongers our to subjugate the world. Afghanistan and Iraq today, Canada tomorrow. We can not, and will not allow a nation of saintly pacifists to exist on our northern border. It seems that some Canadian, or at least ExPat Americans fleeing from the overwhelming oppression, have finally discovered that they never needed any defences against the Soviets. Of course, there is no danger that radical Islamic terrorists would target Dawson. There are no radical Islamic terrorists, that's just wicked American fiction justifying world conquest and the suppression of freedom everywhere on earth. Oh well ....

0 Replies

Asherman your sarcasm is so well masked and subtle that I fear you may have missed your chance to make a point.... you really must dumb it down a bit for the rest of the great unwashed majority...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Well, to be fair, the US has a far greater stake in world events then Canada does. Comes with being a global super-power, a concept Canada has not had the burden of.

We certainly have not had that burden, nor have we made the financial committments or dedicated the man and industrial power to manifest ourselves as a global power or to ensure hegemony.
On one hand, the power is perceived as a burden, on the other, the defining characteristic of an entire nation.

What d.i. was referring to in their initial posting was that there has been a transformation of sorts. A movement toward pretending that we shoulder the weight of superpower, mimicing and appeasing our neighbor to the south, whilst ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of Canadian citizens.

We have intentionally moved from the Canada of Vimy Ridge, Dieppe and Normandy to the Canada of Somalia, Yugoslavia and Haiti.
We continually distance ourselves from the militaristic policies of the US generally and Bush specifically.

There is a fundamental difference in the way Canadians look at international conflicts, conflict resolutions, our role in conflicts, our responsibilitis as a nation etc.

0 Replies

Canada at War: Dr. Jekyll Becomes Mr. Hyde

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know