Although the UN mission in Congo is one of the largest world body’s peacekeeping operations, Canada has never had more than a dozen people there. Early April, Canadian Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie was a candidate to run a UN mission in Congo due to his growing success with peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Recently, it has been revealed that the Canadian Defence Department announced that General Leslie will take on another job involving redesigning the post Afghanistan Canadian Forces. [6] Even if they would only be giving up a few dozen troops, the Defence Department decided not to take a high-profile command on a troubled mission.

So back to the original question…

Given the scale and nature of the conflict in the D.R. Congo, is there any evidence Canadian foreign policy still operates on the human security agenda?

So the image of Canada’s military is just to “peace-keep”.  And because Congo is a failed state, shouldn’t Canada be helping them out? But to help them out, Canada would need mobility to transport essentials but then they would need roads, something DRC needs. Couldn’t Canada help build roads, then start helping the DRC because if you have a safe, stable environment, it could make the transition easier. (This is what they are doing in Iraq/Afghanistan right now) [7] But by moving several dozen troops would be shifting the focus of the public eye from what is going in Iraq/Afghanistan to DRC, so this could be one of the reasons Gen. Leslie would take another job. [8]
There is little to no evidence that the Canadian foreign policy still operates on the human security agenda in the DRC. They’ve been there for nearly 30 years (even with twelve soldiers) and nothing has changed much.[9] The Canadian government would rather focus on helping and peacekeeping in Afghanistan/Iraq even if they have almost 2,500+ troops building roads, handing out food, teaching the civilians that there are other ways of getting money other than investing in opium fields and promoting democracy which they could/should be doing in the DRC as well. [10]

So yes, of course Canadians love and are good at peacekeeping, but are they doing a very good job at it in Congo? No.

For example, in Machiavelli’s points in his article, “The Prince” such as the point that as a leader, it is better to be feared than loved, why? Because if the leader is feared, his citizens will know not to underestimate him and take advantage of him. Regarding the troops of the prince, fear is necessary to keep the army under the leader’s control rather than the army doing whatever they would like.

Obama begins his speech by talking about how his country has been the victim of terrorist attacks and the Taliban. By speaking up against the very people who are killing the citizens of USA, he is gaining the country’s support and presenting himself as the good and supportive president. Whenever something bad happens in Afghanistan, he is able to deliver a passionate speech about loss but when he needs to stand up for his country, he is able to, for example by sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Another point Machiavelli states is that that to be a successful leader, they must never let his guard down in war AND during peace. Even though there hasn’t been recent threats on the US, he is still working on tightening security in many places such as airports.

Through many more examples in his speech delivered on December 1st, he has become one of the most admired leaders in the history of leaders yet he still follows Machiavelli’s simple points to becoming a great and successful leader.

Realism: developed after WWII after the failure of idealism. Realpolitik- “poitics of realism”, power politics and the treacherous — amoral and selfish — nature of humans in shaping interstate relations. Realists such as Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger viewed the world as governed only by the “law of the jungle,” wherein each state’s leaders must protect the state’s vital interests, political independence and territorial sovereignty at any cost. (Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, only the fittest survive!)
[taken from article on Realism handed out in class]

Stephen Harper wants G8 to honour past promises, not make new ones

“Stephen Harper is proposing a new major role for the G8 as co-ordinator for aid. As the host of G8 and G20 summits this year, it offers a chance to re-shape Mr. Harper’s image, too. But the Harper twist is this: to warn the focus should be on keeping past promises, not making new commitments.
The Prime Minister has already said that at the G8 summit in Muskoka in June, Canada will champion the cause of improving the health of pregnant mothers and children – one of the millennium goals the United Nations set in 2000, but one on which progress is scarce.
But there, and at the G20 summit that will follow in Toronto, Mr. Harper will call for countries to live up to the promises they’ve already made on aid and financial reforms, rather than start making new ones, his spokesman says. Mr. Harper will make that clear when he outlines his agenda as summit host in a speech in Davos, Switzerland, today.”

I feel like Harper is trying to change from being a idealist to a realist  because he has made promises like these before (such as his promises to strengthen D.A.R.T.) and haven’t gotten through with them so he has earned himself the reputation of not following through. If the UN hasn’t made any progress on improving the health of pregnant women and children, how are we supposed to know this will eventually go through? Again, Stephen Harper has the reputation of making promises and not going through with them that most of the population has lost complete and utter trust/faith in him.

“”We [at Save the Children] started saying let’s target the G8 summit, this one coming up, because it’s 2010 and there is a bit of a millennium goal review, and maybe we can make it happen,” David Morley, the president of the aid group, said in a telephone interview Wednesday.” (click here for full article)

Again, yes this goal was set in 2000 by the UN but what is the difference between now and 10 years ago? Things aren’t better, they are actually worse like the case in Afghanistan where instead of all the Taliban being captured and the citizens learning how to communicate, fend and protect themselves against them, they have relied on more violence to get what they want even if it isn’t from the Taliban. Again, yes this will be a “goal” for the world but can they really make this happen? Could it be another idealist view on something they are trying to achieve but may never succeed?

Although all these ideas of improving the health of pregnant mothers and children seem like an idealist idea, if you dissect his announcement and Stephen Harper himself, you can see that he is actually a realist. Why?

Machiavelli: “goodwill is only useful so long as it secures the stablitiy of a Prince’s reign”
–> Stephen Harper might not be improving the health of pregnant mothers and children for the benefit of improving the health rather than acting in his own interests.  As Canada knows, Stephen Harper is leading a minority government holding 40.3% of the seats (124 out of 308 seats) and he might just be preparing himself for his next election. Through this G8 announcement, he is giving off the vibe that he sincerely cares about humanity and the people in Canada over war. He could also be using G8 to try to make up for all his broken promises and a way to gain votes to a majority government.

If the lens of realism are applied, it is clear that Machiavelli is right in the G8 announcement. Stephen Harper doesn’t really care about the health of pregnant mothers and children, but is doing it to stay in power and to secure his position as a prime minister AND to gain a majority government.

Anwar al-Awlaki, an avid blogger until days after the shooting, wrote that he approved of the psychiatrist’s attack on the American soldiers. Awlaki was known by the U.S. by being one of the Americans to know at LEAST one of the 9/11 hijackers. Under the headline “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing”, he states:

“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist.”

On December 23, 2008, Awlaki also encouraged Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq on his blog. He has now closed his blog and although he was believed to be in Yemen until this week, Awlaki’s whereabouts are now unknown and it’s hard for the American government to always rely on the Yemen government to keep tabs on Awlaki due to the fact that they may not always want to cooperate. Especially if it’s about terrorism.

AS IF. After reading this article (find it here), I was almost fuming with anger. SERIOUSLY? You support a man, who was trained to comfort and help other soldiers, who killed 13 men, all who were loved and what not and injured even more? Also, I find something very contradicting in his quote about how he thinks Hasan is a hero. “…who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.” But what’s strange is that, what about the Taliban? And Al-Queda? They are killing Muslims in their own country. What has that say? And Awlaki encouraging Muslims across the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. Troops are there to try to build a democratic, controlled and strong state, not kill people. It’s not even Afghanistan, or Iraq that is bad in general as a state, it is a specific group of people (aka Taliban and Al-Queda) who use violence to get what they want and citizens consider them as a common threat and would like to keep their lives. The troops don’t want it to result in war to achieve their goal but if they have to kill Talibans and Al-Queda groups to do so, they will because they are also considered as a threat.

I have to say, Awlaki makes me sick. I’m surprised that he hasn’t been silenced for encouraging terrorism.

This is definitely a changing point in politics for the U.S. It could work, it couldn’t work. Obviously, its benefiting those who aren’t able to afford health care but what about those who can? They are now at the same status as those who can’t and probably not too happy about this. They are adapting Canada’s health care plan that we adapted in 1985 (Canada Health act).

The focus of the health care plans is on health human resources and wait times. But currently in Canada, let’s take Ottawa, Ontario as an example, the wait times are extremely long due to the fact that there is a decline in family doctors. I go to the walk-in clinic when I get sick but the one I used to go to, it opens at 9am and people are lining up at 8am just to get a spot, and once you get in, you have to wait 1-4 hours to see a doctor. But thankfully, there’s another walk-in clinic across the street so I don’t have to wait that long there, but is this going to happen the U.S.? Maybe. Maybe they’ll do things differently there, see Canada’s flaws in the act and change it for them.

What comes up in my mind when I think of the new health care plan for the U.S. is when my family headed over to the States for a family trip; we went to The Grand Canyon and when we were there, one man actually asked us where we were from. We told him Canada, and my father and him started talking about how the U.S. government was planning on taking after Canada’s health care plan. The man from the U.S. thought it was a good idea, he stated that it was helping everyone who wasn’t as privileged but my dad, surprisingly disagreed with hirch found that 86.2% of Canadians strongly supported “public solutions to make our public health care stronger.” I guess my dad wasn’t part of the 86.2%.m telling him that the health care plan in Canada is horrible. I think in my father’s mind, he was thinking more on how we have to wait SO long in a walk-in clinic  than on the fact that we are getting FREE HEALTH CARE.

Many of the women there have lost their sons, fathers and husbands due to the 26-year war. The men have been missing, sent to prison, tortured and then released and even killed. The women are then left to tend for themselves and their families, and also doing all the tasks men should be doing such as trying to earn money to support their family, finding food for them, etc. Without a man in the family to either protect them or provide for them, leaving the women to be completely vulnerable to emotional and physical abuse such as sexual molestations and torture.

I feel like if the government hadn’t had pressure from the Western governments, they wouldn’t have gotten around to freeing 70%-80% people from the camp by the end of the year. I feel like they would’ve gotten the press to state that they were gradually letting people out but really, they would be way too busy with other “problems”, would eventually forget about it, and let the people die. Even if a lot of the people in camp are women and children. But I am glad the Western governments have been putting so much pressure, because without that pressure, 20 000 people would not be free right now trying to rebuild their lives.

The Western governments have been giving money to rebuild towns and to improve the lives of the captured but recently released ones but I feel like they should’ve offered to help rebuild the towns themselves and oversee the progress by sending people to help. How would we know the Sri Lanka government is actually using the money to do these things? How do we know they aren’t using it to do something else?

I feel like the person in this article is being a bit biased. They are definitely siding with the Western governments and trying to prove to people how good the “government” is.

My first reaction to reading this article was, “Wow, I think this is a pretty good idea. It would definitely keep more of the drunk drivers off the road.” But as I read through the article’s comments, I find a lot of people are arguing that implicating this law goes against the Charter. To answer the question, I think that yes, legally, this is going against your right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. But it is also law that you should never drink and drive. It has been proven that driving while drunk is very unsafe and that is why it has been made illegal. And yes this right is being violated, but it is also benefits the public. Using the proportionality test, the safety of the public outweighs the right of the individual. If doing these random breathalyser tests scares drunk drivers off the road and there are fewer accidents, so be it. Driving is a privilege and if you choose to break the rules and get caught, you shouldn’t be driving at all.

Edit: I’ve definitely had personal experience to it. Recently this year, a car crash involving four teens (who had been drinking at a housewarming party) left three dead and one with life-threatening injuries. In my school, many kids do drink but they are quite careful about drinking and driving but I wouldn’t be surprised if some had been drinking and driving because they were just “tipsy” not drunk. The crash affected many people in my school who had partied or met the three teens but it was also a wakeup call for everyone; this could happen to everyone whether you are just “tipsy” or “drunk” while driving. If there had been random breathalyzer tests (even at 1am in the morning), the test could’ve possibly stopped this crash from happening and saved their lives even if they have had gotten in trouble with the police.