Ignatieff Announces Sweeping New Foreign Policy Agenda

[nicky10013]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-canadian-trainers-should-stay-in-afghanistan/article1605071/

“If they do not achieve that goal, the country risks becoming again the safe haven from which al-Qaida could resume its previous threats and planning against western democracies.”

Mr. Ignatieff is also promising to promote the “right to protect” doctrine, which he, as an academic, helped the United Nations develop. And he's vowing to back that up with Canadian soldiers on UN-mandated missions to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing.

“When the world must act to stop large-scale slaughter of innocent people, Canada will be there with highly skilled, battle-hardened military capacity, experienced in the complexities of modern conflict,” the document says.

Mr. Ignatieff is billing his foreign policy plan as a “global networks strategy,” emphasizing the need for government to work with non-governmental organizations, artists and business leaders and take advantage of their connections abroad.

He's proposing to negotiate a new kind of bilateral agreement with emerging economic superpowers China and India, involving not just trade but building long-term relationships in key economic, knowledge and cultural sectors.

If he's got a pedigree with anything, it should be foreign policy and he shows it with this. This type of agenda shows real promise, not only with helping out in the world but with rebuilding Canada's image abroad.

Edited June 15, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Here is the actual global networks strategy briefing book.

http://can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf

[Argus]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-canadian-trainers-should-stay-in-afghanistan/article1605071/

If he's got a pedigree with anything, it should be foreign policy and he shows it with this. This type of agenda shows real promise, not only with helping out in the world but with rebuilding Canada's image abroad.

There is nothing wrong with our image abroad. Unless you mean we should suck up to brutal Muslim dictators again and abstain during the bi-weekly anti-Israel resolutions the Islamic bloc pushes through the UN with such dreary regularity.

[ToadBrother]

There is nothing wrong with our image abroad. Unless you mean we should suck up to brutal Muslim dictators again and abstain during the bi-weekly anti-Israel resolutions the Islamic bloc pushes through the UN with such dreary regularity.

Apparently because we shoot misogynistic Islamists, we're now officially bad people.

[PIK]

And tomorrows foreign policy will be...............

[nicky10013]

There is nothing wrong with our image abroad. Unless you mean we should suck up to brutal Muslim dictators again and abstain during the bi-weekly anti-Israel resolutions the Islamic bloc pushes through the UN with such dreary regularity.

Canada has lost ground on the world stage. Governed by an ideological tactician who did not travel outside North America before becoming Prime Minister (except for one trip as Leader of the Opposition when he accompanied Prime Minister Paul Martin to a World War II commemoration), Canada has stood still in a fast-paced world. Happening to be in office when it is Canada’s turn to host summit meetings does not add up to a vision for Canada’s place in the world. Liberals, like many other Canadians, believe the Harper government cares about international affairs exclusively in a tactical sense for chasing votes of particular demographic

groups. This leads to a long and growing list of embarrassments and missed opportunities, including:

• At the Copenhagen climate change summit, Stephen Harper earned for Canada the disdain of the world, attending only because President Obama went, and then thwarting progress, not even attempting to reconcile conflicting views within the Canadian delegation he was purportedly leading.

• The Harper government’s simplistic approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and calculated efforts to exploit it for partisan advantage, have not only undermined Canada’s credibility,thus squandering our influence in the region, it has even led to uneasiness among some supporters of Israel, who fear the consequences of further polarization in Canada.

• Mr. Harper took nearly four years as prime minister to go to India and China, an astonishing

fact making him stand out in an era when world leaders are working hard to develop deeper relations with the emerging economic giants. Though it was unprecedented, it was hardly surprising that China’s Premier Wen openly rebuked him for being a laggard when he finally did show up.

• Suffering another unprecedented low point, the Harper government had to listen in embarrassment as the visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took it to task in unusually blunt language on three different issues in a single visit: mishandling a meeting of the Arctic countries with a lack of inclusiveness; ignoring evidence and experience about maternal health in the Third World by reversing Canada’s decades old consensus on abortion; and a continuing and stubborn reluctance to clarify what Canada’s role in Afghanistan will be after the end of its combat mission in 2011.

If anything, you should be happy. The policy calls for involvement, though in a non-combat role, past 2011.

Edited June 15, 2010 by nicky10013

[ToadBrother]

If anything, you should be happy. The policy calls for involvement, though in a non-combat role, past 2011.

Which is an example of how that worthless notion of peacekeeping is still a virus in the Liberal mind.

If Canada is not to have a military role there, then let's just pull out and be done with it. The pretense that we can help Afghanistan without killing or driving off the religious maniacs who are making the country's recovery all but impossible may soothe your soul, but to me it's a demonstration of the lack of will that has come to typify Canada, a nation of wafflers.

[dre]

Which is an example of how that worthless notion of peacekeeping is still a virus in the Liberal mind.

If Canada is not to have a military role there, then let's just pull out and be done with it. The pretense that we can help Afghanistan without killing or driving off the religious maniacs who are making the country's recovery all but impossible may soothe your soul, but to me it's a demonstration of the lack of will that has come to typify Canada, a nation of wafflers.

The pretense we are operating under in Afghanistan is equally bogus. The idea seems to be that we are going to build the central government into an area that stop terrorists from training there.

[nicky10013]

Which is an example of how that worthless notion of peacekeeping is still a virus in the Liberal mind.

If Canada is not to have a military role there, then let's just pull out and be done with it. The pretense that we can help Afghanistan without killing or driving off the religious maniacs who are making the country's recovery all but impossible may soothe your soul, but to me it's a demonstration of the lack of will that has come to typify Canada, a nation of wafflers.

If you read the document that the virus of peacekeeping is no where in the document. It calls for the living up to the idea of the responsibility to protect but also fully admits that peacekeeping 20 years ago isn't what Canadians think it is. It's much more dangerous and violent than we give credit.

As for involvement in Afghanistan, Dre is perfectly right. The Canadian military mission there after 2011 isn't some altrustic endeavour. It's to help train Afghan forces to protect whatever state is in place after the training is over. The real work that needs to be done in terms of Afghanistan is found in the rest of the document, in the spirit of the document. It's that global networks, the increase in trade and exchange in information is the way to reduce poverty, prevent and eliminate conflicts. After the training is over, trade missions, cultural exchanges and private and public economic development teams are going to be the true weapon against radicalism. It may sound wishy washy but that's the way the world works. Military force didn't bring the Soviet Union down. Gorbachev's easing on censorship and radio free europe (which allowed citizens access to outside, non government info) did. Iranian pro-democracy protests last year were coordinated over the internet through western websites as simple as twitter. The Afghans are a long way away from a stable democratic state. However, this type of development, not international intervention, is the way to go.

[punked]

You don't win elections on Foreign Policy end of story.

[Wild Bill]

If he's got a pedigree with anything, it should be foreign policy and he shows it with this. This type of agenda shows real promise, not only with helping out in the world but with rebuilding Canada's image abroad.

Well, if he ever does win power let's hope he breaks with Liberal tradition and continues the Tory policy of playing catchup with our woefully obsolete military equipment. When trucks break rims because they've rusted through...

For years I was sickened watching Chretien seize the photo-op to send our troops out on UN missions, armed with bows and arrows against lightning!

[nicky10013]

You don't win elections on Foreign Policy end of story.

I don't disagree. That being said, knowing a thing or two about this, I can say that this is one of the most modern, up to date and effective foreign policy proposal I've seen. Hopefully the party can work out something similar vis-a-vis domestic policy.

[Smallc]

Ignatieff is done...at least I hope so.

[nicky10013]

Well, if he ever does win power let's hope he breaks with Liberal tradition and continues the Tory policy of playing catchup with our woefully obsolete military equipment. When trucks break rims because they've rusted through...

For years I was sickened watching Chretien seize the photo-op to send our troops out on UN missions, armed with bows and arrows against lightning!

Depends on what equipment you view as necessary. With the exception of purchasing new (used) battle tanks and 4 C-17s which were purchased without the foresight of building a hangar to house them, the force that's fighting in Afghanistan today is the result of Liberal upgrades that came to maturity during Conservative government. A lot of the extra money being put into the military isn't being put towards upgrading equipment, but replacing battle damaged and worn out equipment that's been used overseas. The makeup of the armed forces in terms of major equipment is almost identical to that of what it was in 2006 when the Liberals left office.

[Smallc]

Depends on what equipment you view as necessary. With the exception of purchasing new (used) battle tanks and 4 C-17s which were purchased without the foresight of building a hangar to house them,

No, we simply didn't have the hanger when we first got them.

the force that's fighting in Afghanistan today is the result of Liberal upgrades that came to maturity during Conservative government. A lot of the extra money being put into the military isn't being put towards upgrading equipment, but replacing battle damaged and worn out equipment that's been used overseas. The makeup of the armed forces in terms of major equipment is almost identical to that of what it was in 2006 when the Liberals left office.

That's somewhat true, but not Completely true. The Conservatives did increase the budget to higher levels than the Liberals were going to spend, and they did make several key equipment purchases (such as mine hardened vehicles and helicopters).

[stmichaels]

sham democracy...

[nicky10013]

No, we simply didn't have the hanger when we first got them.

Yeah, exactly my point.

That's somewhat true, but not Completely true. The Conservatives did increase the budget to higher levels than the Liberals were going to spend, and they did make several key equipment purchases (such as mine hardened vehicles and helicopters).

Don't disagree with this. Yet, most of the stuff was purchased used (tanks, helicopters).

[ToadBrother]

If you read the document that the virus of peacekeeping is no where in the document. It calls for the living up to the idea of the responsibility to protect but also fully admits that peacekeeping 20 years ago isn't what Canadians think it is. It's much more dangerous and violent than we give credit.

As for involvement in Afghanistan, Dre is perfectly right. The Canadian military mission there after 2011 isn't some altrustic endeavour. It's to help train Afghan forces to protect whatever state is in place after the training is over. The real work that needs to be done in terms of Afghanistan is found in the rest of the document, in the spirit of the document. It's that global networks, the increase in trade and exchange in information is the way to reduce poverty, prevent and eliminate conflicts. After the training is over, trade missions, cultural exchanges and private and public economic development teams are going to be the true weapon against radicalism. It may sound wishy washy but that's the way the world works. Military force didn't bring the Soviet Union down. Gorbachev's easing on censorship and radio free europe (which allowed citizens access to outside, non government info) did. Iranian pro-democracy protests last year were coordinated over the internet through western websites as simple as twitter. The Afghans are a long way away from a stable democratic state. However, this type of development, not international intervention, is the way to go.

Until we deal with Afghanistan and the porous border into Pakistan, this is all pointless fluff. What's needed is more troops, more ops in Taliban-dominant areas, not sitting behind bunkers in Kabul training cops and soldiers. In other words, firepower, and as much of it as we can bring to bear.

[Smallc]

Don't disagree with this. Yet, most of the stuff was purchased used (tanks, helicopters).

Well, the tanks were barely used, and the helicopters are only an interim measure.

[William Ashley]

There is no need for Canada to be involved in this, short of not liking the US and the rest of NATO sticking around. It is far more efficient for those countries actually staying in the fight to train.

This whole must find Canada a method of throwing away its military budget to help a country that even after toppling it doesn't reflect the humanitarian or legal standards of Canada, ain't exactly beneficial.

The US will do this exact same stuff so why keep personnel there?

This need not even be a nationalized endevour and just lead it to private security or people the afghan government hires to train them. It seems less so "an occupation" if they can pick who they want to train their soilders and police.

Isn't it odd this "non occupying force" is the one setting the guidelines and training all the "governments" forces.

[nicky10013]

Until we deal with Afghanistan and the porous border into Pakistan, this is all pointless fluff. What's needed is more troops, more ops in Taliban-dominant areas, not sitting behind bunkers in Kabul training cops and soldiers. In other words, firepower, and as much of it as we can bring to bear.

Fluff? There's a saying that people who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So, keeping that in mind we have a few questions to ask. When in the last 50 years has this tactic worked? We even have an example of it happening IN Afghanistan 20 years ago to be met with complete failure. They don't call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires for no particular reason. Where does the hubris come from to think that without a substantive change to policy that our outcome will be any different.

The whole point of traning troops is the fact that the Afghans should patrol their OWN borders. It's not our responsibility to ensure the viability of the Afghan State. When their army can do it, we take off. How well even that will work, I'm not sure. However, the point of the policy released today wasn't to only deal with Afghanistan. I'd check out the rest of the document.

Edited June 15, 2010 by nicky10013

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-canadian-trainers-should-stay-in-afghanistan/article1605071/

If he's got a pedigree with anything, it should be foreign policy and he shows it with this. This type of agenda shows real promise, not only with helping out in the world but with rebuilding Canada's image abroad.

Nicky, Nicky, Nicky. Where is this "sweeping" new Foreign Policy? All he's said is he'd like to train Afghan soldiers....and this from a "leader" of the party that wanted all troops out by 2011. This is his foreign policy "vision"? The Conservatives have also said they would like to train Afghan soldiers also - but the opposition has always questioned how they could do that without getting out in the field with them to engage the enemy? What do you think Nicky? We'd just open a school and let Mr. Ignatieff be a professor - he could throw books at the Taliban? This is a non-story....no meat on the bones.....let's see what Mr. Ignatieff's policy will be tomorrow - and then next week.

[nicky10013]

Nicky, Nicky, Nicky. Where is this "sweeping" new Foreign Policy? All he's said is he'd like to train Afghan soldiers....and this from a "leader" of the party that wanted all troops out by 2011. This is his foreign policy "vision"? The Conservatives have also said they would like to train Afghan soldiers also - but the opposition has always questioned how they could do that without getting out in the field with them to engage the enemy? What do you think Nicky? We'd just open a school and let Mr. Ignatieff be a professor - he could throw books at the Taliban? This is a non-story....no meat on the bones.....let's see what Mr. Ignatieff's policy will be tomorrow - and then next week.

What a brain dead response. I posted the link directly to the policy initiative. If all the initiative is about is Afghanistan, well, then, you just didn't read it at all.

Read the entire thing and then come back and tell me the same thing.

[YEGmann]

Yeah, exactly my point.

Why do you want a hangar for new C-17 for the first five years of their operation?

Do you have any idea about modern aircraft? I do not think so.

[Argus]

Canada has lost ground on the world stage.

Althought you didn't bother to attribute this stuff I'll answer it regardless.

So... who did we lose ground to? And in what manner? According to what evidence? By whose opinion?

Liberals, like many other Canadians, believe the Harper government cares about international affairs exclusively in a tactical sense for chasing votes of particular demographic

groups.

That's actually kind of hilarious given the foreign policy of this country during the entire Liberal term in office was conducted exclusively for the benefit of Liberal ethnic politicking. To this end, we either meekly went along with one-sided anti-Israeli resolutions to please Muslim voters, or abstained on the ones which even the Liberals couldn't find an excuse to support. We refused to go along with the rest of the world in declaring the Tamil Tigers a terrorist group purely so Liberals in Toronto could get votes from the Sri Lankan community there. We walked a tightrope on our relations with India in order to try to please both Hindus and Sikhs, and refused to condemn Chinese human rights violations in order to please Chinese. We flirted with anti-Americanism - or crossed into it - whenever the Liberals thought they could get Lefty votes from it and let both our foreign aid and immigration systems become hostage to local ethnic politicking.

And the Liberals complain because, it seems, the Tories are "playing politics" by supporting Israel in a craven bid to please the 350,000 Jewish voters instead of bravely opposing them to please the 1 million Muslims - like the Liberals have been doing. How it makes sense, from an ethnic politics perspective is kind of confusing given the numbers.

This leads to a long and growing list of embarrassments and missed opportunities, including:

• At the Copenhagen climate change summit, Stephen Harper earned for Canada the disdain of the world, attending only because President Obama went, and then thwarting progress, not even attempting to reconcile conflicting views within the Canadian delegation he was purportedly leading.

So he should have gone, signed a pointless treaty he had no intention of ever doing anything about, and called it a day - like the Liberals did? It gets me how the Liberals have the unmitigated gall to criticize ANYONE on global warming given how they completely betrayed their own promises for Kyoto. In fact, Martin played politics during the previous election by trying to link Harper with Bush on global warming - which went embarrassingly south for him when it turned out that despite their opposition to the whole concept of Kyoto the Americans had still done TWICE as well as Canada had in slowing the growth of emissions.

• The Harper government’s simplistic approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and calculated efforts to exploit it for partisan advantage

:lol: :lol:

The gall and deceitfulness, the dishonesty and bald-faced dishonesty of the Liberals!

• Mr. Harper took nearly four years as prime minister to go to India and China, an astonishing fact making him stand out in an era when world leaders are working hard to develop deeper relations with the emerging economic giants.

I seem to recall that Chretien's visits to China involved him spending a lot of his time on his hands and knees, licking Chinese shoes, for which he got a pat on the head and nothing more. His much ballyhooed visit to India was said to have resulted in billions in signed agreements, all of which disappeared within the following months. For all Chretien's jet setting ways there's no evidence his innumerable and expensive trips all over the world accomplished a single, solitary thing for Canada, and certainly did NOTHING to impress the world or "improve our reputation".

• Suffering another unprecedented low point, the Harper government had to listen in embarrassment as the visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took it to task in unusually blunt language on three different issues in a single visit

:

Clinton showed her amateur side, not to mention her hypocrisy in criticising Canada over not wanting to fund abortion in the same week her President signed a health bill wherin he promised not to spend any federal money on abortion.

and a continuing and stubborn reluctance to clarify what Canada’s role in Afghanistan will be after the end of its combat mission in 2011.

You gotta give them credit for their inventiveness in their bald faced lying weasel ways. Clinton actually was badgering us to stay in our combat role, one which the Conservatives had pulled out of mostly because of the dishonest, dishonorable, contemptible opposition to the war instigated by the Liberals right after they lost the election - even though they were the ones who sent us there.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Argus