Today while standing on Spring Garden Rd. a large number of vehicles were driving along honking their horns in celebration. The first couple didn't have any markings or anything really defining about them, so I turned to Anna Lou and asked, "Did somebody win something?" Then I saw the first Kosovo flags. Yes, indeed, somebody "won" something today. That the people of Kosovo have declared their independence from Serbia today is an amazing fact. When you think back to the horrors of the late 1990s, resulting in the humanitarian intervention led by NATO (which the Russians attempted to prevent by vetoing a Security Council resolution at the UN--real proud moment in the organization's history) to protect them from further ethnic cleansing by the vile and thuggish Milosevic regime, it is truly a happy day for Kosovars today. It almost brought a tear to my eye to see Kosovars in Canada and their supporters being able to celebrate this moment, and I was happy to give a big thumbs up to the people as they drove past.
The NATO intervention into Kosovo was a marked shift in how we look at international relations. It was one of the first incursions into a state that was committing atrocities against its own people, and certainly the most successful, with the missions into Somalia and Rwanda being disastrous for the West. Since Kosovo, the concept of the Responsibility to Protect has been developed and fleshed out to the point that it is nearly accepted in international law. We have Michael Ignatieff, who has spent considerable time in Kosovo, to thank in part for advancing the idea. Tony Blair championed the concept among world leaders, demonstrating that liberals can and should stand up for liberal principles and apply them on a universal scale. In his lengthy career, which is marked by a strong interventionist set of credentials, Kosovo is perhaps his greatest accomplishment. Meanwhile, Ignatieff's work on the International Comisssion on Intervention and State Sovereignty is widely accepted and serves to put all states on notice that if they commit heinous acts against their own populations they will face consequences and be held accountable. What happened today demonstrates the long-term positive impact of what can happen when governments work in concert to protect civilian populations from tyrannical regimes.
In news far less important, Carey Price got his first NHL shutout last night. The young phenom was just that last night against the Flyers, making 34 saves and staving off a lengthy 5-on-3 disadvantage. Too bad the jerk Briere shot the puck into the crowd to deprive Price of his momento; he really enjoys earning those boos from the Montreal faithful. I had been bidding on an autographed photo taken the night of Price's first NHL win against Pittsburgh (plain white helmet and everything), and that I won it was a neat little thing. It'll make a fine addition to my collection.
And this morning we booked a bunch of stuff for our trip to Montreal!
Showing posts with label Tony Blair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tony Blair. Show all posts
17 February 2008
12 October 2007
Al Gore's Nobel Prize
First off, let me try to issue a clarification/apology to all my readers: I'm not a weekly columnist, I'm trying to write with greater frequency, but the truth be told I'm just not really finding a whole lot to be worth writing about of late. I'm also doing a lot of reading, having polished off Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream earlier in the week and currently going through a collection of essays under the title American Power: Potential and Limits in the 21st Century. Also lurking around is the massive Mulroney memoirs and a small pile of others. Plus, that hockey thing. I was terrible during Election 2004 because of it, but what can I say? I love my Habs.
Anyways, the big news of the day is that Al Gore is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007. I'm pretty stunned by this announcement given that Al Gore hasn't brought peace to anything. He's done a lot of great work raising awareness of climate change in the United States, and made a popular movie to boot, but peace? Nothing Al Gore has done has made the world a less dangerous place than it was a year ago; conflict in Iraq, nuclear weapons being built in Iran, instability throughout the Middle East, and genocide in Darfur and the Congo are all still raging in spite--in spite!--of Al Gore's best efforts to raise awareness of the problem of man-made global warming. Yeah there were a few big concerts back in July that had everybody buzzing about the "Climate in Crisis" for about 48 hours--sort of like how Live8 solved famine in Africa--but the continuing lack of consensus among the world's major, middle, and non-powers about collective action on global warming sticks out like a very sore thumb.
If one truly wants to consider peace efforts in the world in the past year, why not look at North Korea? A year ago, Kim Jong-Il successfully detonated a nuclear weapon and was acting very boldly following his ascension into the nuclear "club." Conflict in the Korean Peninsula seemed to be in the short term, following a summer full of missile launches into the Sea of Japan and the usual rhetoric emanating from the aptly-titled "Hermit Kingdom." Yet here we are a year later, and legitimate and sustained serious talk about North Korean nuclear disarmament is ongoing. As in the past, the DPRK has indicated that it will disable and dismantle all of its nuclear weapons facilities, and work is underway to ensure that this is done by the end of 2007. Imagine that, from testing nuclear weapons to giving them up in barely more than a year. The six-party talks have proven effective, and the extraordinary face-to-face meetings between the North and the South--only the second such talks since 1953!!--have obviously paved the way for a more sustainable rapprochement between the two Koreas than we have witnessed in our lifetimes. There is even talk of allowing the Internet into the DPRK in limited areas. A completely closed society, governed by fear and propaganda, is slowly taking steps that open it to the rest of the world. There is to be an economic zone within North Korea that allows companies from the South to set up shop. This is amazing progress.
In the end, then, it seems to me that the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize was as much a political rebuke of the Bush Administration as was the awarding of the Prize in 2002. Carter, like Gore, has been incredibly outspoken in his hostility to the Bush Administration, and that appeared to be a motivating factor for the Nobel committee in its deliberations (remember, this occurred during the build-up to war in Iraq). I can only imagine what John Kerry must be thinking at this moment--perhaps something along the lines of finding his own cause celebre to chastize President Bush and gain favour with people around the world. I saw his book last summer, it appears as though there is something about losing to Bush that turns a person into an environmentalist. But that avenue has already seen its ticker-tape parade, so Mr. Kerry will have to look elsewhere. He's unlikely to secure the role of "Middle East peace envoy" since that's been given to Tony Blair (speaking of, where is he?) already. Maybe he can go on a Joe Wilson-style "fact finding mission" in Iran about its nuclear program. That'll for sure wow the Nobel committee.
Anyways, the big news of the day is that Al Gore is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007. I'm pretty stunned by this announcement given that Al Gore hasn't brought peace to anything. He's done a lot of great work raising awareness of climate change in the United States, and made a popular movie to boot, but peace? Nothing Al Gore has done has made the world a less dangerous place than it was a year ago; conflict in Iraq, nuclear weapons being built in Iran, instability throughout the Middle East, and genocide in Darfur and the Congo are all still raging in spite--in spite!--of Al Gore's best efforts to raise awareness of the problem of man-made global warming. Yeah there were a few big concerts back in July that had everybody buzzing about the "Climate in Crisis" for about 48 hours--sort of like how Live8 solved famine in Africa--but the continuing lack of consensus among the world's major, middle, and non-powers about collective action on global warming sticks out like a very sore thumb.
If one truly wants to consider peace efforts in the world in the past year, why not look at North Korea? A year ago, Kim Jong-Il successfully detonated a nuclear weapon and was acting very boldly following his ascension into the nuclear "club." Conflict in the Korean Peninsula seemed to be in the short term, following a summer full of missile launches into the Sea of Japan and the usual rhetoric emanating from the aptly-titled "Hermit Kingdom." Yet here we are a year later, and legitimate and sustained serious talk about North Korean nuclear disarmament is ongoing. As in the past, the DPRK has indicated that it will disable and dismantle all of its nuclear weapons facilities, and work is underway to ensure that this is done by the end of 2007. Imagine that, from testing nuclear weapons to giving them up in barely more than a year. The six-party talks have proven effective, and the extraordinary face-to-face meetings between the North and the South--only the second such talks since 1953!!--have obviously paved the way for a more sustainable rapprochement between the two Koreas than we have witnessed in our lifetimes. There is even talk of allowing the Internet into the DPRK in limited areas. A completely closed society, governed by fear and propaganda, is slowly taking steps that open it to the rest of the world. There is to be an economic zone within North Korea that allows companies from the South to set up shop. This is amazing progress.
In the end, then, it seems to me that the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize was as much a political rebuke of the Bush Administration as was the awarding of the Prize in 2002. Carter, like Gore, has been incredibly outspoken in his hostility to the Bush Administration, and that appeared to be a motivating factor for the Nobel committee in its deliberations (remember, this occurred during the build-up to war in Iraq). I can only imagine what John Kerry must be thinking at this moment--perhaps something along the lines of finding his own cause celebre to chastize President Bush and gain favour with people around the world. I saw his book last summer, it appears as though there is something about losing to Bush that turns a person into an environmentalist. But that avenue has already seen its ticker-tape parade, so Mr. Kerry will have to look elsewhere. He's unlikely to secure the role of "Middle East peace envoy" since that's been given to Tony Blair (speaking of, where is he?) already. Maybe he can go on a Joe Wilson-style "fact finding mission" in Iran about its nuclear program. That'll for sure wow the Nobel committee.
25 June 2007
In The Headlines
There is no shortage of big-ticket news items today:
There is a major meeting happening in Egypt today involving the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. This is the first diplomatic initiative to occur since the election of Hamas last year. With Abbas flailing after losing control over Gaza, it is important that he be seen to be effective and still the real leader and champion of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. As always, skepticism and severely guarded optimism is the best approach, but that these parties are all talking again is a first step.
Tomorrow is Tony Blair's final day as the Prime Minister of Britain. America's best ally in the War on Terror and Tyranny is stepping down, and already rumours are circulating as to where he goes from here. The G&M has a story about Blair possibly being named a peace envoy to the Middle East for the Quartet. This is a position that many have said previously would be the perfect fit for Bill Clinton, but Blair would also be tremendous in the role. He's an expert diplomat, calm and reassuring yet tough and principled, and would have the full support of the West. Here's hoping that it turns out to be true, because this is a leader that should remain connected to major processes.
Also, this is an example of why I like the Government of Canada more than its elected representatives. This analysis of the 2006 US National Security Strategy is one of the best that I've seen--and I've seen many...and even written one. There's a lot in this document that is pretty similar in its conclusions to what I wrote about in my thesis. It focuses, naturally, more on the implications of the NSS for Canada than I did (since I was writing from an IR perspective and not a Government of Canada perspective), and I was pleased to read that it concludes that there are "many positive signs" for Canada in the new overarching US grand strategic policy blueprint.
There is a major meeting happening in Egypt today involving the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. This is the first diplomatic initiative to occur since the election of Hamas last year. With Abbas flailing after losing control over Gaza, it is important that he be seen to be effective and still the real leader and champion of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. As always, skepticism and severely guarded optimism is the best approach, but that these parties are all talking again is a first step.
Tomorrow is Tony Blair's final day as the Prime Minister of Britain. America's best ally in the War on Terror and Tyranny is stepping down, and already rumours are circulating as to where he goes from here. The G&M has a story about Blair possibly being named a peace envoy to the Middle East for the Quartet. This is a position that many have said previously would be the perfect fit for Bill Clinton, but Blair would also be tremendous in the role. He's an expert diplomat, calm and reassuring yet tough and principled, and would have the full support of the West. Here's hoping that it turns out to be true, because this is a leader that should remain connected to major processes.
Also, this is an example of why I like the Government of Canada more than its elected representatives. This analysis of the 2006 US National Security Strategy is one of the best that I've seen--and I've seen many...and even written one. There's a lot in this document that is pretty similar in its conclusions to what I wrote about in my thesis. It focuses, naturally, more on the implications of the NSS for Canada than I did (since I was writing from an IR perspective and not a Government of Canada perspective), and I was pleased to read that it concludes that there are "many positive signs" for Canada in the new overarching US grand strategic policy blueprint.
10 May 2007
End of an Era
As I sit here on Day 10 of the Great BC Adventure of 2007, I am faced with bad news that I knew would reach me no matter how great the holiday is.
First, Tony Blair has announced his resignation, effective June 27th. Blair has been a staple of global politics for the past decade, acting as a key ally of the United States and Canada on a number of issues, from terrorism to strengthening NATO to reeling in Slobodan Milosevic to presenting the case against Saddam Hussein. He has been at the tip of the sword when it comes to re-defining a number of key regimes in international relations, giving credence and legitimacy to concepts such as the responsibility to protect and acting on them. As liberal interventionists go, Blair boasts serious credentials that most neoconservatives can only aspire to. I will best remember this great British Prime Minister for his steadfast calm after 9/11 and standing firm by the United States as it sought to establish new rules for the War on Terror and Tyranny. Bob Woodward has a great quote from George W. Bush in his first book in the Bush at War series, as the President turned out to be awfully prophetic when he stated early on that within a few years, "only the Brits may be with us." So long as Tony Blair was at the helm, the United States had a staunch ally, friend, and supporter to boost the Washington-London special relationship.
The second bit of bad news is that a good friend in the blogosphere has all but packed it in as a result of receiving numerous death threats against herself and her children. Biting Beaver is a very strong feminist voice, the first feminist blog that Tasha and I read regularly and enjoyed for months. The extreme lengths to which the enemies of women went to silence her are despicable and hopefully they will be exposed and held accountable for such domestic terrorism.
On a last note, one far less negative, I've got five bucks each on the Sabres and the Ducks against my dad. Mostly this is here so that I remember it.
First, Tony Blair has announced his resignation, effective June 27th. Blair has been a staple of global politics for the past decade, acting as a key ally of the United States and Canada on a number of issues, from terrorism to strengthening NATO to reeling in Slobodan Milosevic to presenting the case against Saddam Hussein. He has been at the tip of the sword when it comes to re-defining a number of key regimes in international relations, giving credence and legitimacy to concepts such as the responsibility to protect and acting on them. As liberal interventionists go, Blair boasts serious credentials that most neoconservatives can only aspire to. I will best remember this great British Prime Minister for his steadfast calm after 9/11 and standing firm by the United States as it sought to establish new rules for the War on Terror and Tyranny. Bob Woodward has a great quote from George W. Bush in his first book in the Bush at War series, as the President turned out to be awfully prophetic when he stated early on that within a few years, "only the Brits may be with us." So long as Tony Blair was at the helm, the United States had a staunch ally, friend, and supporter to boost the Washington-London special relationship.
The second bit of bad news is that a good friend in the blogosphere has all but packed it in as a result of receiving numerous death threats against herself and her children. Biting Beaver is a very strong feminist voice, the first feminist blog that Tasha and I read regularly and enjoyed for months. The extreme lengths to which the enemies of women went to silence her are despicable and hopefully they will be exposed and held accountable for such domestic terrorism.
On a last note, one far less negative, I've got five bucks each on the Sabres and the Ducks against my dad. Mostly this is here so that I remember it.
20 February 2007
British Withdrawing; America Alone?
Word going around is that tomorrow British PM Tony Blair is going to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq. The initial "stand down" will be some 1500 troops, rumoured to be completed within weeks, and another 1500 by year's end. That represents almost half of the British contingent of 7,000 troops, most of whom are stationed in the predominantly Shi'ite south of Iraq, in places such as Basra and Umm Qasr. These areas, while far less dangerous than Baghdad and the rest of the Suuni Triangle, still have their share of danger, and the British have done an admirable job of bringing a significant measure of security to that region of the war-torn country.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer was quick--almost a little too quick--to highlight that the British have been America's most steadfast ally in the Iraq War and that this move by Britain represents a potential split between the two allies, citing that they may not be "on the same page." To me, this sounds like an attempt to portray the United States and the Bush Administration as isolated on Iraq. I can't believe that Blair would announce such a significant policy without at first consulting with Bush, giving him something of a heads-up. Blind-siding your best friend and ally isn't something in Blair's character, so my wager is that Bush was aware of this maneuver and gave it his blessing. He may be frustrated at the move, as it does seem a paradox that Britain is lowering its force output while America is "surging" its troop numbers in Baghdad, but he has no other option but to respect the sovereign decision of London.
Where does this leave Washington? Getting closer and closer to fulfilling Bush's prophecy of some years ago that "at some point, we may be the only ones left" fighting in the War on Terror & Tyranny. Though I remain supportive of the theoretical framework behind the Iraq War, it is clear that there have a number of wasted opportunities to rebuild the country and further assist its transition to a functional, secure, and fully sovereign democratic state. Though the UN was formally given a role in reconstruction via the passage of a Security Council Resolution internationalizing post-war Iraq, the United States has been unable to get other states to assist it. Whether due to lingering wounds over the war debate or a reluctance to allow other states to carry the weight (a point on which I can empathize to an extent), the inability to get other states more on-board, to get them to feel as though they have a stake in the country's future, is a diplomatic failure for which Secretary Rice needs to be held accountable. She has been largely invisible in recent months, notwithstanding her recent trip to Iraq, a major disappointment given the promise she held when she first took over the role from the much-respected Colin Powell.
In the end, the only thing that matters at this point is securing Iraq to the extent that it can at least govern itself without permitting terrorist organizations or neighbouring Iran to hold significant influence over its future. Either of these scenarios would represent a nightmare, antithetical to the stated objectives of the United States for removing Saddam Hussein. The British have not announced a total withdrawal, and it is in their interest as well as Washington's to consider the notion of moving troops closer to the middle of the country to help out in the most dangerous regions. That is something which only Britain can ultimately decide, but the close London-Washington relationship and Britain's own considerable stake in the outcome of Iraq would hopefully lead them to consider all the options that are on the table before them.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer was quick--almost a little too quick--to highlight that the British have been America's most steadfast ally in the Iraq War and that this move by Britain represents a potential split between the two allies, citing that they may not be "on the same page." To me, this sounds like an attempt to portray the United States and the Bush Administration as isolated on Iraq. I can't believe that Blair would announce such a significant policy without at first consulting with Bush, giving him something of a heads-up. Blind-siding your best friend and ally isn't something in Blair's character, so my wager is that Bush was aware of this maneuver and gave it his blessing. He may be frustrated at the move, as it does seem a paradox that Britain is lowering its force output while America is "surging" its troop numbers in Baghdad, but he has no other option but to respect the sovereign decision of London.
Where does this leave Washington? Getting closer and closer to fulfilling Bush's prophecy of some years ago that "at some point, we may be the only ones left" fighting in the War on Terror & Tyranny. Though I remain supportive of the theoretical framework behind the Iraq War, it is clear that there have a number of wasted opportunities to rebuild the country and further assist its transition to a functional, secure, and fully sovereign democratic state. Though the UN was formally given a role in reconstruction via the passage of a Security Council Resolution internationalizing post-war Iraq, the United States has been unable to get other states to assist it. Whether due to lingering wounds over the war debate or a reluctance to allow other states to carry the weight (a point on which I can empathize to an extent), the inability to get other states more on-board, to get them to feel as though they have a stake in the country's future, is a diplomatic failure for which Secretary Rice needs to be held accountable. She has been largely invisible in recent months, notwithstanding her recent trip to Iraq, a major disappointment given the promise she held when she first took over the role from the much-respected Colin Powell.
In the end, the only thing that matters at this point is securing Iraq to the extent that it can at least govern itself without permitting terrorist organizations or neighbouring Iran to hold significant influence over its future. Either of these scenarios would represent a nightmare, antithetical to the stated objectives of the United States for removing Saddam Hussein. The British have not announced a total withdrawal, and it is in their interest as well as Washington's to consider the notion of moving troops closer to the middle of the country to help out in the most dangerous regions. That is something which only Britain can ultimately decide, but the close London-Washington relationship and Britain's own considerable stake in the outcome of Iraq would hopefully lead them to consider all the options that are on the table before them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)