Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

September 26th, 2007

Tags

,

Comments

19 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Échappatoire

The official opposition of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government argues that Canada should leave Afghanistan after its mission officially expires in 2009 even if no other NATO country is willing to step in. Stéphan Dion, the leader of the Liberal Party, says he is looking at the bigger picture. Canada must step-up because:

“We need to know if NATO works… otherwise other countries will be more and more reluctant to take any responsibility, because they will be afraid to be there forever.”

Boy, that sounds like a responsible argument. I think I tried using similar logic on my parents when I was a kid trying to get my Christmas presents early. I hope Dion gets about as far as I did with that line…

Comments to this entry

snow
September 27, 2007
1:32 am
Unfortunately, there seems to alot of support in Canada for Dion's position. It seems that many Canadians consider Afghanistan to be a US war and thus want to have nothing to do with it. IMHO, it is this belief coupled with the fact that it is a military operation as opposed to peacekeeping that has garnered so much opposition in Canada. Of course, such opposition ignores the fact that Canada and the US are strong allies, and also ignores the threat of terrorism, because many believe that terrorism is the US' problem (who cares if Afghanistan goes all to hell, it's the US' problem anyway).

Many Canadians think they can just be a peacekeeping nation forever and leave the heavy lifting to others (namely the US). Unfortunately, so many of the US' allies think the same way while trying to distance themselves from the actions of the 'bully' (if we just keep our heads down and criticize the bully, then any enemies will ignore us and hit the bully instead-they deserve it anyway). We enjoy the freedoms and protection that come from the US military umbrella while publicly and privately ridiculing and hating the provider of that umbrella.

If we aren't interested in helping out our allies, what's the use of NATO? It seems that so many want a UN-led world in which everyone cooperates, until it comes to military action, then nobody wants to do anything. Cooperation through inaction (the bully will take care of it).
Arcane
September 27, 2007
4:53 am
“We need to know if NATO works”¦ otherwise other countries will be more and more reluctant to take any responsibility, because they will be afraid to be there forever.”?

I wonder if Dion has considered the effect of having one country pull out as soon as they become disenchanted with the war... what will happen if other countries in NATO become disenchanted with the war and decide that they are going to unilaterally pull out and expect somebody to take their place? Before long, nobody will be there except for the US, so either way Dion words it, NATO ultimately will cease working because of nation's like his.

I agree with most of what "snow" has said. However, I hate how Canadians think that they are this great "peacekeeping nation." Fact of the matter is that Canadians peacekeeping efforts and operations have had a negligible effect, at best, and that Canada has few troops deployed in peacekeeping operations. It's a great national myth not backed up by any fact. It makes them feel good, though.
IJ
September 29, 2007
5:55 pm
The criticism of Canada by Snow reminds me of the speech by US Col. Jessep in 'A few good men':

we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it?

But US President Reagan famously wanted walls torn down - the Canadian attitude perhaps:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
September 29, 2007
10:08 pm
Does anyone commenting here (except YH of course) actually know what Canada has been doing in Afghanistan since 2001? I only ask since it seems there is a lot of talk about a certain Canadian Attitude here.
snow
September 30, 2007
5:55 am
IJ, that's not the Canadian attitude. Funny how you completely misread everything I wrote. I just happen to think that my point of view makes alot of sense for Canada.

As I said, a common Canadian attitude is to let someone else (the US) do the heavy lifting. Military matters have become increasingly distasteful to the point that many Canadians have no problem with a peanut sized military. I believe that if Canada wants to have a real voice in the world to back up their economic power, they need a strong and effective military. This doesn't mean jumping into military conflicts all over the place, it just means being able to provide support or take the lead when deemed necessary by the country's leaders.

How can we expect to hold independent positions vis a vis the US when we rely so heavily on their military umbrella? Canada needs a more independent stance that a relatively strong military would provide, I can't see what this has to do with building walls. If we believe that a strong NATO is in our best interests, we have to support it, instead of undermining it. And yes, Reagan was all into tearing down walls, backed by a strong military.
IJ
September 30, 2007
7:14 am
Snow, thanks for the comments.

I'm sorry you think you're intentions have been misread. Nevertheless how are NATO members to proceed in the future? Should they surrender their sovereignty, as suggested, and allow the US to determine their foreign policies, the mix of their public services, and how much tax their citizens should pay - all to support what American foreign policy has been in the past? Remember multilateralism is the foreign policy route that the President says he wants to take now.

Incidentally, the latest is that France may fully rejoin NATO - but not on the old terms terms though. The international scene is changing - see the Burma post for some details.
snow
September 30, 2007
3:21 pm
Thanks, IJ. I read your post on Burma, very interesting. As for your comments here, maybe I missed something, but I don't know where you're getting the ideas about surrendering sovereignty to the US, or the points about tax and all. Supporting NATO has nothing to do with these things, at least not directly. I believe that Canada should continue to be involved in Afghanistan because its in the best interests of Canada (important in the fight against terrorism, which, if left unchecked will certainly affect Canada in the future). Likewise with a strong military (important to be able to have an independent stance in world affairs as a military power). I believe these things are in Canada's interests, first and foremost, and if they align with the interests of the US, that's fine (just because those interests may coincide or be similar doesn't mean we should avoid them for fear of being insulted as the US' poodle or whatever). The US is an important ally, but Canada must act in its own interests.
IJ
September 30, 2007
9:33 pm
How are NATO members to proceed in the future? They should surrender their sovereignty on foreign policy and follow the wishes of the US administration, thinks Snow in essence. That is their best course. We'll leave aside, for now, all the economic implications.

It's an interesting debating point.
snow
October 1, 2007
2:52 am
IJ, I still don't know what you're talking about surrendering sovereignty and foreign policy to the US. That is not, in essence, what I said. You seem to be implying that NATO is little more than an instrument of US foreign policy. If so, and the member countries don't feel that it acts in their best interests, why are they involved in the first place? If NATO is not operating in the interests of the members, either change it or leave it.
IJ
October 1, 2007
9:45 am
Snow, a NYT Op-Ed today thinks an American lead for the world is the way ahead. Lots of sovereignty may need to be surrendered:

The Politics of Confidence

the extent of American power will continue to invite resentment whoever is in the White House. . . Asians are focused on growth, Europeans on integration: different priorities cause friction.

The American idea can still resonate.

Multilateralism without a global arbiter has been tried. It produced World War I and World War II.
snow
October 1, 2007
10:37 am
IJ, thanks for the link. I heard about the article but haven't read it yet. I don't mind the US taking the lead in world affairs (if anyone is to take the lead, I would prefer it be the US rather than the Chinese), but I'm not so keen on the idea of surrendering alot of sovereignty to make it happen. The article does sound intriguing, though. Thanks.
Arcane
October 2, 2007
1:22 am
One issue at a time:

Should they surrender their sovereignty, as suggested
What NATO country has surrendered its sovereignty to the United States?

allow the US to determine their foreign policies
The United States does not determine what NATO does and what NATO doesn't; that's decided by votes in the North Atlantic Council and the Security Committee.

the mix of their public services
The United States does not control the policies of individual NATO countries. If anything, the OECD has far greater influence than the United States.

how much tax their citizens should pay
Military expenditures consume very little of NATO country's national budgets. In fact, their military expenditures have been very low over the past decade and make up less than 5% of most country's budgets.

all to support what American foreign policy has been in the past?
Huh?
Arcane
October 2, 2007
1:38 am
Also, IJ, you ignore all the positives about NATO membership. What's with that? You have a very simplistic concept of what NATO is and what it does... an almost Chomsky-esque simplicity.
IJ
October 2, 2007
8:37 am
Hello Arcane. Let's focus on what seem to be key questions.

NATO's future is in serious doubt. What should be its status in the UN hierarchy? Should it operate out with its area? Can it exist alongside an EU defence structure? What are the roles of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the rising ShanghaiCooperation Organisation (prominent at the UN) and the African Union - to name but three multilateral organisations?

Lots of scope for debate here.
IJ
October 2, 2007
10:10 am
To help any debate along, see The rise of the Pacific alliance.

The potential for military alliances is mentioned in the feedback on September 9th, at 4.01PM.
snow
October 3, 2007
3:44 am
Sorry guys, I don't know enough about these various alliances to comment about the role of NATO or these other organizations. My comments were focused on the particular issue of Canadian participation in Afghanistan as a member of NATO.

A Pacific alliance may be a good idea as a counter to Chinese power in Asia, but I'm not sure how large a role it would really be able to play in the region beyond security for shipping and such. I'm not sure all of the members would want it to play a larger role, such as the defense of Taiwan if it ever became necessary. I think most countries would want to leave that mess to China and the US.

And though such an event would be of great concern to others in the region, they may very well just keep a low profile and hope that the US takes care of it all. South Korea would probably not want to antagonize China and thus would possibly refuse to allow the US to use its Korean bases as staging grounds for any action. Japan, likewise would be very nervous about any repercussions and might not wish to be involved in any obvious way.
IJ
October 3, 2007
8:25 am
Snow, the extent of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan - indeed any other country's involvement in Afghanistan - really hinges on the broader security framework. I'm unaware of much debate on this vital subject so far.

Stopping the spread of narcotics is one aim, according to NATO. This seems also to be an aim of the CSTO and SCO. Why is there no alliance?
snow
October 3, 2007
9:52 am
My guess to your question, IJ, is that it is difficult enough as it is to coordinate NATO's response, let alone coordinating an alliance with other alliances. It seems that these various alliances have overlapping aims. Coordination between them may be a good idea, though I would be leery of the idea of ever-growing alliances.
IJ
October 3, 2007
10:11 am
Snow, on such a vital matter I hope nobody is stopping an effective alliance being built. It'll no doubt be difficult - Canada is not the only country suffering meantime in Afghanistan.