kosovo had UN backing. unfortunately, that was in diplomatic rhetoric only. the UN, and NATO to an extent, provided hardly ANYTHING to the soliders involved in those missions.
we shouldn't be sending our military ANYHWERE until we provide them with the financial and physical resources that will enable them to fight (and it's all fighting now, we can no longer go in with blue berets and standard-issue guns and expect to keep peace like in the golan heights and cyprus) and protect themselves. canada has done a pitiful job of keeping the military prepared for anything. as to when we should send our military in, well obviously that's up to the people in power. if it were me, i would be waiting until the military was capable of actually participating in international missions with money and proper resources before even considering sending them anywhere. our military is a joke. we keep trying to uphold our international 'peacekeeping' status, so we send in underequipped and underqualified 'peacekeepers' to essentially fight wars. it's
in that case, it depends on whether or not we choose to align ourselves, as we normally do, with UN-backed intervention missions. if we keep the status quo, we'll be going into missions like the ones in haiti which have questionable motives. in the recent foreign policy and defence statement, i believe martin said that canada would be going into areas with UN or NATO backing. i can't see that changing anytime soon, there'd be too much public outcry
( ... )
In a perfect world I would like to see us stop genocide and protect innocent people. But I've grown cynical in my old age, and I don't think that will ever happen. It would be nice though
That is what I am having the hardest time with really. The UN is useless in this respect because only the Security Council can authorize force, and the Veto that can be used by the Perminent Members makes that unlikely.
I just don't see any international concensus building over many areas of the world. I don't see much attention paid to Africa by the UN.
And it seams that even when the UN does authorize it there are groups that oppose it as just an arm of Western Imperialism.
I also have a general problem with the UN when they can put countries with horid human rights records in charge of the UNHRC.
Canada has only been involved in major offensive actions once, the Gulf War, since Korea. We are a country that should use our massive wealth to help bring peace and stable institutions to countries in need of them, and we are a country which should rely on our economic and moral strength to give our diplomacy weight, not our military.
The Mugabe situation is indeed a difficult one, but his people would be no better served by a full scale invasion to remove him, or anything of that nature.
What little military we have should be used specifically in situations like Rwanda, as part of a multilateral force. What happened there, however, has nothing to do with just use of force, or an underfunded military. It has to do with international inefficacy and racism. Pure and simple.
What little military we have should be used specifically in situations like Rwanda, as part of a multilateral force. What happened there, however, has nothing to do with just use of force, or an underfunded military. It has to do with international inefficacy and racism. Pure and simple.
Agreed on the cause of Rwanda!
Which rasies another question, do you go into an area where that would happend again without international approval (asuming you have the capability to do it)? Or do you sit by and watch it happen because the international community is paralized by politicing?
Its easy for us to have a black and white possition on things like this, but the world is all shades of grey.
we should intervene in cases of human rights abuses. where the deuce were we while atrocities were being committed in darfur? our companies helped facilitate the climate of death out there, and we didnt do much.
some of our soldiers behaved disgustingly in somalia, and i think that mistrust still lingers. for some reason, this demoralizes canadians. i dont really think the entire forces should continue to be judged against a few sickos.
multilateralism is as realistic as any unilateral project - im sure you wont have too much trouble finding people who find american/russian/indian/israeli foreign policy unrealistic.
sovereignty is being eroded at home, and a military doesnt seem like the best thing to counter the loss of sovereignty in the market and in terms of individual privacy.
Comments 47
we shouldn't be sending our military ANYHWERE until we provide them with the financial and physical resources that will enable them to fight (and it's all fighting now, we can no longer go in with blue berets and standard-issue guns and expect to keep peace like in the golan heights and cyprus) and protect themselves. canada has done a pitiful job of keeping the military prepared for anything. as to when we should send our military in, well obviously that's up to the people in power. if it were me, i would be waiting until the military was capable of actually participating in international missions with money and proper resources before even considering sending them anywhere. our military is a joke. we keep trying to uphold our international 'peacekeeping' status, so we send in underequipped and underqualified 'peacekeepers' to essentially fight wars. it's
Reply
I should have said "assuming we have the capabilities".
Reply
Reply
And Honest!
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That is what I am having the hardest time with really. The UN is useless in this respect because only the Security Council can authorize force, and the Veto that can be used by the Perminent Members makes that unlikely.
I just don't see any international concensus building over many areas of the world. I don't see much attention paid to Africa by the UN.
And it seams that even when the UN does authorize it there are groups that oppose it as just an arm of Western Imperialism.
I also have a general problem with the UN when they can put countries with horid human rights records in charge of the UNHRC.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
We are a country that should use our massive wealth to help bring peace and stable institutions to countries in need of them, and we are a country which should rely on our economic and moral strength to give our diplomacy weight, not our military.
Reply
Your stance is admirable, but I fear unrealistic. Do you think Robert Mugabe will change his ways becaue of our moral strength?
And should we sit buy while our economic and moral strength do nothing and another Rwanda happens again?
Reply
What little military we have should be used specifically in situations like Rwanda, as part of a multilateral force. What happened there, however, has nothing to do with just use of force, or an underfunded military. It has to do with international inefficacy and racism. Pure and simple.
Reply
Agreed on the cause of Rwanda!
Which rasies another question, do you go into an area where that would happend again without international approval (asuming you have the capability to do it)? Or do you sit by and watch it happen because the international community is paralized by politicing?
Its easy for us to have a black and white possition on things like this, but the world is all shades of grey.
Reply
some of our soldiers behaved disgustingly in somalia, and i think that mistrust still lingers. for some reason, this demoralizes canadians. i dont really think the entire forces should continue to be judged against a few sickos.
multilateralism is as realistic as any unilateral project - im sure you wont have too much trouble finding people who find american/russian/indian/israeli foreign policy unrealistic.
sovereignty is being eroded at home, and a military doesnt seem like the best thing to counter the loss of sovereignty in the market and in terms of individual privacy.
Reply
Leave a comment