Canada/US Foreign Policy

Who said this?

"There are three legs to the stool of ________ foreign policy: defence, diplomacy and development."

If you said Canada's last International Policy Statement, you'd sort-of be right. We established 3D as the cornerstone of our foreign policy several years ago. But this exact quote came today from Hillary Clinton, the new US Secretary of State.

I am pleased. I wonder if the millions of people constantly fretting about how we're puppets of American Imperialism feel now that they're taking pages from our books!

A New Hope

Today is an amazing day in the history of humanity. I don't think there is much more than needs to be said than that. Everybody who sees it, and many of those who won't, will remember where they were at 12:00pm on this date in history, when the powers of the President of the United States of America were transferred to Barack Obama. For many, this is an event that they never believed they would see in their lifetimes. For myself, it is an amazing moment that I did not believe I would see at this point in my lifetime--I believed that he was maybe 4 to 8 years away, that he was too inexperienced at this point in his career to be ready, that either Clinton would beat him in the primary or that he would come up short in the general election. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong and that I underestimated what an incredible figure he has become in such a short time. He represents the very best of America. It is a testament to his character, his ideas, his ideals, his values, and his amazing broad appeal that he advanced that timetable.

Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States.

Ottawa Makes a Move to Appeal to Obama

Smart.

This move represents the smartest action I've seen the Canadian government undertake on the issue of climate change. With Kyoto in tatters here and ignored in the United States, proposing a plan like this to the incoming Obama Administration--which has pledged to put climate change on the map as an issue in Washington--is the best means that our two countries can utilize to get a real agenda moving forward. There has been so much hot air on climate change in recent years, it looks as though there may finally be some concerted action on the way. Canada alone cannot reduce the impact of global warming. British Columbia's carbon tax cannot reduce the impact of global warming. California alone cannot reduce the impact of global warming. But working together to create a comprehensive strategy that will compel major producers to take serious steps to reduce their emissions--rather than factor in the costs of so-called "carbon credits" as an expense--can Canada and the United States make a difference? To borrow that very popular slogan, "Yes we can."

Other Smile of the Day

American Leadership and the Future of the Bush Doctrine is now available on Amazon!

Smile of the Day

Pakistan's Parliament is looking into impeaching former military dictator--now just very unpopular and corrupt President--Pervez Musharraf. I've long argued that Musharraf has only retained his popularity in the United States due to realist concerns that he's the least-bad option in the strategically-important country. He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard, so the thinking goes. If not Musharraf, it could be a leader affiliated with the Taliban, or another extremist that would be more inclined towards Osama bin Laden than to Washington in terms of choosing side in the War on Terror & Tyranny.
Luckily, the voices of democracy are being heard in Pakistan. The country went through the trauma of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto (herself not exactly liberty's greatest ally, but a more reliable friend than Musharraf) and is looking to move forward in a progressive manner. Should these forces mobilize and reach critical mass, it may be only a matter of time until Musharraf is replaced.

McCain v. Obama

Now it's official. Both parties can focus their energies on running a presidential campaign rather than an internal competition, and if people thought the primaries were on the nasty side, this is going to be a whole lot nastier.
There are so many interesting facets to this race that we may actually need a dozen different 24-hour news networks to cover them all over the course of the next 5 months. Consider:
1. Who will be the running mate on the respective tickets?
2. What impact will the historical first of an African-American candidate have on people's decisions?
3. The generational divide: a Vietnam war hero in his 70s against a young, vibrant 40-something.
4. The Bush Factor: Obama is seeking to portray himself as the un-Bush, while McCain will seek to continue what he feels are the strong points of the Bush Doctrine.
5. More like a 4a, but Iraq is a major dividing point between these two. Obama wants out within a year, while McCain has laid out his vision of America in Iraq until the end of his first presidential term.
6. Will the message of "hope and change," which has been more rhetorical than policy-driven, trump the down-to-earth realist approach favoured by McCain?

We'll find out the answers to all of these questions, and many, many more, in exactly 5 months. Let the race begin.

Stupid Question of the Day

"In the next few years, under a new president, will America regain its lost status as the world's only superpower or will its current decline continue?"

Leave it to the Globe and Mail, eh? I'd really like to know what criteria they used to determine how America is not the world's only superpower. Are there others? Has American power declined to such a significant extent that it isn't super anymore? Because any rational examination of the global situation, even with the troubles in Iraq factored into the equation, cannot realistically claim that the answer to either question is yes. No other country comes close to being able to put forward the amount of power and legitimacy that is required to maintain the international system as it stands today. That same system remains strong and intact because of American power.
Further, the question implies that the next president, be it Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain, is going to go out and ramp up American power again. Will America seek to re-establish its "strategic preeminence" in the world, or will there be that "humble foreign policy" that candidate Bush spoke of prior to being elected president? Just a few years ago folks like the Globe et al. were bemoaning the supposed "American empire." Are they getting nostalgic? There's just so much wrong with that poll question that it's not even funny.

News That Is News

Giuliani is dropping out and endorsing John McCain, according to the folks at NBC. That's a big one. "America's Mayor" saw his campaign fizzle out in pretty short order once we got to the nitty-gritty, and banking everything on a single primary--Florida--obviously did not pay off for him. It's a huge pick-up for McCain, as he gets a big name backing his bid in addition to his victory tonight, giving him even more momentum going into next week's "Super Tuesday."
Even with another victory, McCain still has a long way to go to secure the nomination based on the margins of victory he's had thus far. He may have a plurality of delegates but he lacks a majority; look what happened to Michael Ignatieff as a lesson in what happens when you have a solid lead but not a lock. There's still the chance that the conservative wing of the Republican Party will formulate an anyone-but-McCain bloc that puts someone like Romney into prime position to win at the convention. If that happens, it'll probably be lights out for their hopes of winning the White House, because there's little chance that moderates or slightly right-leaning Democrats are going to embrace somebody endorsed by the religious Right who holds anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage views. Sure, McCain isn't exactly on the progressive side of these issues, but they're not hallmarks of his candidacy and he doesn't spend nearly the amount of time talking about these "hot button social issues" as his colleagues do. McCain's appeal lies in his character as much as in his policy, which gives him the opportunity to move towards the centre and poach some of those voters that are in the middle. We'll see what adding Giuliani to his roster does as well. Ticket, perhaps?

News That Isn't News

Gotta love the Crappy News Network for reporting on this "story," something that I addressed in my thesis (back in 2006!!!) and which has been discussed at length in various academic articles including a major essay in Foreign Affairs in 2006. It goes like this:

Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn't anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on "60 Minutes," scheduled for Sunday broadcast.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro.

During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack," Piro said. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."

"He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" Correspondent Scott Pelley asked.

"No, not initially," Piro answered.

Once it was clear that an invasion was imminent, Hussein asked his generals to hold off the allied forces for two weeks, Piro said. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," the agent said, referring to the insurgency.

But Piro said he was not sure that the insurgency was indeed part of Hussein's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," he said.

Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

So he was playing a game of chicken, relying on a belief that Bush was as half-determined as Clinton to deal with the Saddam problem, and had intent to reconstitute his WMD programs. I enjoy reading articles like this because they re-affirm things which I argued almost two years ago and put a measure of justification to the decision to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. Unfortunately for Saddam, his posture put him in a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which it was always in his best interest to maintain the appearance of maintaining WMD and, according to the democracy promotion aspects of the Bush Doctrine, it was always in America's best interest to remove Saddam. The two combined to be his downfall.

$20B for the Saudis!?!

So much for the idea that propping up Middle Eastern tyrants is a thing of the past. It was announced today that the Bush Administration is going to pump $20 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia in order to bolster that decrepit regime against the decrepit regime in Tehran. I'm really at a loss for words over this one. All that wonderful prose in the Second Inaugural about spreading the untamed fires of liberty and supporting democrats wherever they may be, it turns out to be a little less than equally applied. Right now the Saudis are holding prisoner, without charges for over a month, a blogger who had the unmitigated gall to be critical of his regime. The Saudis do not allow women the right to vote. 15 of 19 hijackers on 9/11. On and on. And they get a big arms deal because they're less bad than the Iranians. Pardon me while I lament another part of the Bush Doctrine passing into history.

Clinton and McCain

Hats off to both for pulling off victories in New Hampshire. A few months ago many pundits were all but proclaiming McCain's candidacy dead in the water, while Clinton was trailing Obama by double-digits only 24-48 hours ago. Big victories for both that may set the table for a long run towards the national conventions later this year.

McCain, Obama Leading in New Hampshire

Quick note on the news: I'm very happy to see John McCain leading the way in the Republican half of the New Hampshire primary, and also happy for Barack Obama to have a solid lead in the Democrats' race to win the key battleground state. McCain and Giuliani are the only Republicans running in '08 that I believe I can support, while I remain undecided as to whether Clinton or Obama would make the best candidate for the Democrats. In any event, this is good news. It's still very early yet, of course.

Foreign Policy is Not a Three-Word Catchphrase

This morning CNN is providing graphic evidence of why it's called the Crappy News Network. It's also providing graphic evidence that the majority of its website's viewers think that American foreign policy is so basic that it can be reduced to a perjorative campaign slogan. Feast your eyes on the "Quickpoll" that exists on the right-hand side of the main page after a little bit of scrolling:


By a nearly 4-to-1 margin, CNN readers believe that "go it alone" wraps up American foreign policy better than my mom can wrap a Christmas present. I realize that we're in the age of the 6-second soundbite, where simplicity matters more than thoroughness, and that a lot of people have been led to believe that American unilateralism is at an all-time high. But to see it all manifested so succinctly still causes me great concern. It is beyond the pale to describe a country that is the foremost promoter of free trade, which has a huge trade deficit, that has more political-economic-military alliances with other countries than you can possibly shake a stick at, that is involved in numerous international organizations--often in a leadership capacity, and so many other things that to mention all of them would require a list thousands of pages long as having a "go it alone" foreign policy. May everyone who clicks "Yes" in that poll get a terrible present under their tree on Tuesday for being so thoroughly ill-informed and simplistic.

Musings

Kosovo is set to unilaterally declare its independence from Serbia in the next few weeks, following years of intransigence between the Albanian-dominated province and Belgrade. This is a move that Canada should support, having invested blood and treasure in protecting the lives of Kosovars in 1999 and thereafter. Canada should also not pay much attention to the Russian promise to veto conferring legitimacy on the UDI by Kosovo in the UN Security Council, something that the Russians say "is the first attempt to say that the West is no longer interested in the United Nations, that they will now solve complicated international problems outside the United Nations." Well, that's fine with me. The West's leader, the United States, has been little interested in the UN for many years now, and other countries are seeing its limitations as well. It is well past time to move towards a new multilateralism based on the realities of the 21st century, not the world order of 1945. I know that if Canada were governed by the Liberals, they would acquiesce to the will of the UN after Russia vetoes any resolution proclaiming Kosovo's independence, but I have confidence that the Harper-led government will do what is right and support the principle of self-determination for Kosovo.

In other hits, I got my Carey Price rookie card last night! Yay for eBay!

The view from my office window is almost nothing but cars packed into the mall parking lot. Looks like most folks aren't done their shopping yet. Must be awful.

In case I don't blog again between now and Tuesday, Merry Christmas!

Stream of Consciousness

Boredom is reigning supreme today, and after having entered "110753" and "31.5" into a computer a couple hundred times this morning I'm finding myself thinking that there has got to be more to life than this. So to help alleviate this, I'm going to keep this window open for a good chunk of the morning and pop in whatever pops into my head that may be discussion-worthy and press "Publish Post" at the end of the day and see what comes of it.

* I was glad to read last week that Iran gave up uranium enrichment for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon in 2003. So that means the Iraq War is now responsible for: getting rid of Saddam Hussein, compelling Qaddafi to forsake terrorism, establishing a democratic bridgehead in the Middle East, and getting Tehran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. These are 4 very strong positives. It's unfortunate that there have been as many negatives to emerge as a consequence as well.

* Pursuant to my recent post on US Presidential 2008, I'm pretty much certain that if it's not Giuliani or McCain I'll be supporting the Democrats.

* Canada fancies itself a progressive country, and Halifax embodies that attitude. If that's true, why are Canadians and Haligonians seemingly very supportive of one of the following two tracks regarding prostitution: legalization or maintainig the status quo in which women are criminalized for being used as a thing? Seems to me that the real progressive countries, ones that are genuinely dedicated to equality, are taking the approach that regarding women as things to be purchased and then disposed of is an act of violence against them and is a criminal offence. You don't see Sweden, ranked #1 in the world in terms of gender equality, undertaking sting operations to throw prostituted women in jail. Progressive means moving away from failed policies towards new ones that positively affect citizens, does it not?

* Christmas shopping has been a lot more fun this year. I'm still glad I'm done, though.

* Environmental activists are mad at John Baird because he went back to a meeting that would potentially get results for the environment rather than stick around to take a browbeating from them. You just can't win, eh?

* I saw a trade rumour that had Saku Koivu and Michael Ryder being shipped to San Jose in exchange for Patrick Marleau and Jonathan Bernier. If Marleau and Bernier can score and avoid taking selfish penalties, it might not be a bad idea.

Down to Business

I'll freely admit that I've been paying relatively scant attention (by my standard, anyways) to the 2008 US Presidential Race. As a Canadian, it's something of an abomination to see a two-year campaign cycle, and the amount of money required to run a campaign is equally grotesque. One of the greatest accomplishments of Jean Chretien's career was to drastically reduce the influence of the wealthy and virtually wipe out the ability of large corporations to disproportionately affect an election race to their preferred outcomes. It is commendable that Stephen Harper has followed up on this, further limiting the extent to which an individual can contribute. None of these restrictions apply in the United States, and thus we hear of a $250 million warchest for George W. Bush and a not much smaller one for John Kerry in 2004.
One of the great problems with such a prolonged campaign is that someone who appears to be a virtual lock in the early stages turns into a total non-factor by the time the actual election occurs--hello and goodbye, Howard Dean. The potential for a timebomb to appear at a strategic time is also increased--witness Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or Dan Rather's accounting of GWB's Vietnam record. There is always the possibility for similar things in a Canadian election cycle, of course, but the compressed timeframe means that we're not subjected to multiple variations of the same theme ad nauseum. Thirdly, there are relatively few things that are discussed at a YouTube debate in August 2007 that are likely to still be resonating in the minds of voters by the time November 2008 rolls around. It's merely preliminary verbal jousting for months on end that does little to establish long-term positioning, especially in this, the era of "the flip-flop."
However, the primary season is almost upon us, and that means it is time to start paying attention. What is said in the next few weeks will determine where the Democratic and Republican bases park their votes. True frontrunners are likely to emerge in the next 50 days, while players that were playing well previously will be compelled to throw their weight behind others that have a genuine shot at winning their party's nomination. The mid-carders will start dropping off shortly, and the high-profile main eventers will have a greater number of even more intense spotlights shining on them. That means tough choices for a number of candidates, and that means the intrigue and interest will certainly be picking up.
Off the start, let me say that I am quite likely to be supporting a Democrat for 2008 unless either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani take the Republican nomination. There are a number of shortcomings facing the other Republican candidates that almost instantly disqualify them in my eyes. I cannot reasonably support a candidate who says such things as, and I'm paraphrasing here, "While Mitt Romney was promising to do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, I was moving in the opposition direction." It's unfathomable to me that a candidate for President of the United States would be proud to say that he was moving to deny a group of people rights--and of course, Romney himself no longer supports gay rights for Americans. With so many of the Republican candidates pandering to the religious right, they're alienating themselves from people like me who believe, to borrow Irwin Cotler's term, "a right is a right is a right." Other major issues for me include:
* Foreign Policy - I'll be looking for positions regarding the continuance of the Bush Doctrine, seeing who adopts what and who seeks to be the un-Bush when it comes to America's strategic role and primacy in the world. The candidate who articulates the strongest vision for American leadership, victory in Iraq and the broader War on Terror and Tyranny, ending genocide and human suffering, counter- and nonproliferation of WMDs, and the remaking of the system of international institutions is likely to earn my support.
* Domestic Policy - though I like my American leaders to largely follow the principle of the imperial presidency and leave the domestic agenda largely to Congress (and let's be honest here, being Canadian, what Americans do within their own borders is less relevant than what they do beyond them), there are some initiatives I would like to see. Someone has to reasonably tackle the challenge of increasing violence in the United States--against women, among gangs, as a result of drug trafficking, and otherwise. There's the looming Social Security and Medicaid crises. Education is another big issue. Homeland security and intelligence reform.

There's a lot going on in America that will be relevant and pertinent to a successful candidate for 2008. I'm looking forward to seeing who emerges in the coming weeks and months.

The Value of Information

Since 9/11, Western governments have put a premium on information, specifically intelligence information. Knowing what al Qaeda and other terrorist operatives are up to, where they are, where they intend to go, what they intend to do, and so forth are vital aspects of the Global War on Terror & Tyranny that the West seeks to prosecute while instituting tranformative change in the Middle East. While this is mostly defensive--protecting the homeland and Canadian/American allies--it also allows us to go on the offensive, targeting terrorist training camps, rooting out insurgents, and eliminating threats to the stability and reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, one element that has been conspicuous in its absence--and which I have called for on a number of occasions--is a sustained campaign dedicated to winning over hearts and minds of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, our allies, and indeed here at home. It's incredible that a NATO-led, UN-sanctioned mission to rebuild a war-shattered country only enjoys 50/50 support in Canada, and not the good kind of incredible. It represents failure on the part of successive governments to put out a coherent and cohesive message for what the Canadian Forces and Canadian aid workers and diplomats are doing in that faraway land about which many Canadians know little. Given due explanation, it is my belief that the public would more warmly embrace the efforts of our fine men and women to bring a modicum of peace and security to a country that has not enjoyed it for decades. People who criticize "neo-conservatives" will no doubt see this as another example of a "neo-con" and his abiding faith that a little propaganda is all it takes to magically sweep people off their feet.

It is that simple word--propaganda--that has become a barrier to Canadian efforts (and those of its allies) to win over hearts and minds domestically and abroad. Any effort on the part of the government to disseminate information is automatically cast as something about which people should be dubious and skeptical, the very word conjured up to remind people of Goebbels and Hitler and the Nazi Propaganda Ministry. There is a fantastic article in the current issue of Parameters, the US Army's quarterly academic journal, that focuses on the problems that a democracy faces in waging an information campaign alongside a military one. Whereas terrorists have no inhibitions about stretching the truth or saying things which are blatantly false, democracies must rely solely on pure, unadulterated fact. And even when this is deployed, the press is usually there to portray the government as doing something sinister to guide people along a pre-determined path of their choosing. Never mind that national interests and objectives are at stake. I'm all for retaining a healthy sense of skepticism, but forcing information agencies to shut down within weeks of being established is going too far and indeed hinders the government's ability to achieve the objectives of the state.

To check out the article, written by Dennis Murphy and James White, click on the link. All comments for discussion are, of course, welcome. Propaganda: Can a Word Decide a War?

Rove Leaving White House

This just came down about twenty minutes. Karl Rove is resigning from his position as President Bush's chief domestic adviser and other politically-related positions effective the end of August. It's another optical politics blow to the Bush White House, but from an actual politics standpoint, it's less devastating than it seems. Rove, as the domestic adviser, has been ineffective in recent months, as Bush seemingly has no domestic agenda. This is a White House that has bypassed the lame duck phase of its presidency and gone straight to the dead duck portion. I had high hopes for the foreign policy of this Administration as it sought to re-write the rule book to be more effective in implementing positive change in the 21st century and tackling the tough grand strategic issues of our time. That has not panned out particularly well, and with no domestic policy platforms that have any traction, things have not been looking good for the White House for a long time. So losing Rove, while it will be used to make considerably political hay, isn't going to be the death knell for George W. Bush's legacy or any other such nonsense that people will no doubt try to spin out of it. Anti-Bush people will lose one of their favourite punching bags, but there's not much more to it than that other than cutting out a spent force.

Summer Reading

With the Haligonian weather being its usual terrible self, I've had a good amount of time for reading lately. As I'm wont to do, here's my latest batch of readings and recommendations.

If you're interested in such topics as America's will to win the war on terror and tyranny, Clausewitz, and whether military personnel should pursue graduate-level education at civilian universities (and I'm looking through the Internet at my old Dal colleague, Rob, here), check out the latest issue of The American Interest. It's a journal that I usually look at online but I had to buy this one so that I could re-read it a couple times after the subscriber-only firewall goes up. It's one of their best issues and has had some very compelling reads.

Beyond that, I'm reading a book about Canadian intelligence services and another on the importance--and limitations--of intelligence in war. The latter is written by John Keegan, a truly fantastic historian whose histories of the world wars ought to be required reading for any aspiring historian/political scientist. I know that they were for me. Good old Nellis.

Also, BB's back posting at the Den, which is awesome.

Finally, think good thoughts for George Bush, as he's getting a colonoscopy. Remember, if it goes horribly, President Dick Cheney.

Self-Promotion

If you want to see my thesis abstract on the Internetz, go here:

http://politicalscience.dal.ca/grad/thesislist06.htm

You can also order a copy of it at Library and Archives Canada. Just go here.

I have an ISBN number and a Canadiana number for it, which is pretty cool.