International Borders and Our Responsibility

[cybercoma]

So here's a question, should we care about foreign countries moving their borders, even if it's by force? Russia took over part of the Ukraine, but in what way does it matter for us? Both countries are sovereign and have their own destinies. Is it not up to the Ukraine to defend its own borders? But put Ukraine aside, we don't seem to care at all when these things happen in Africa. Meanwhile, there's near universal consensus that ISIL is a serious threat that needs to be stopped. So the question is, when should we get involved in these conflicts and when should we step back and let sovereign nations handle their own affairs?

[cybercoma]

Thinking out loud here, I believe that being a multicultural state makes our government more prone to entering these conflicts. When the country has a number of people from a region under conflict, there's going to be calls for our government to get involved and help from those who are from those regions. Multiculturalism could be a factor that pushes countries like Canada and the US to get involved in conflicts all over the world.

[TimG]

when should we get involved in these conflicts and when should we step back and let sovereign nations handle their own affairs?

I see two factors that drive political reactions to conflicts:

1) Is military intervention remotely plausible? (in the case of Ukraine and North Korea the answer is clearly no because any attempt could escalate to a war between China/Russia and the West)

2) Is there a perception that the conflicts could escalate beyond their region? (in the ME the answer is usually yes, in Africa the answer is usually no);

I think it is a waste of time to try and define a clear principle used to rationalize interventions. Pragmatic considerations will always be the primary driver.

Edited November 9, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

I think the least pragmatic thing we can do is park our principles, especially when it comes to any conflicts involving interventions.

[Argus]

Thinking out loud here, I believe that being a multicultural state makes our government more prone to entering these conflicts. When the country has a number of people from a region under conflict, there's going to be calls for our government to get involved and help from those who are from those regions. Multiculturalism could be a factor that pushes countries like Canada and the US to get involved in conflicts all over the world.

Canada is not a multicultural state in any significant way

[Argus]

So here's a question, should we care about foreign countries moving their borders, even if it's by force? Russia took over part of the Ukraine, but in what way does it matter for us? Both countries are sovereign and have their own destinies. Is it not up to the Ukraine to defend its own borders? But put Ukraine aside, we don't seem to care at all when these things happen in Africa. Meanwhile, there's near universal consensus that ISIL is a serious threat that needs to be stopped. So the question is, when should we get involved in these conflicts and when should we step back and let sovereign nations handle their own affairs?

I think when it comes to Africa most of the world has kind of thrown up its collective arms in despair and given up.

As for redrawing borders, it is not in our interests to see a world in which borders are redrawn by force, depending on who has the most guns and tanks. Because that's never going to be us.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada is not a multicultural state in any significant way

You appear to have argued against multiculturalism in the 'Multiculturalism is a Huge Failure' thread, using the term 'you blissfully multicultural Torontonians'.

You're saying now that we're not multicultural ? So that means our so-called multicultural policies mustn't be a thread and can continue as is...

[Bob Macadoo]

You appear to have argued against multiculturalism in the 'Multiculturalism is a Huge Failure' thread, using the term 'you blissfully multicultural Torontonians'.You're saying now that we're not multicultural ? So that means our so-called multicultural policies mustn't be a thread and can continue as is...

Maybe TO, VAN, MON....are multicultural states.......Saskatoon.....not so much.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think when it comes to Africa most of the world has kind of thrown up its collective arms in despair and given up.

As for redrawing borders, it is not in our interests to see a world in which borders are redrawn by force, depending on who has the most guns and tanks. Because that's never going to be us.

The "world" pretty much screwed Africa, and not just Africa, by redrawing borders many years ago. Maybe we should go change them back or maybe better still, just leave well enough alone.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ain't nobody changing anything in African borders...go tell your queen that imperialism is over.

[Argus]

You appear to have argued against multiculturalism in the 'Multiculturalism is a Huge Failure' thread, using the term 'you blissfully multicultural Torontonians'. You're saying now that we're not multicultural ? So that means our so-called multicultural policies mustn't be a thread and can continue as is...

The topic was multiculturalism, not OUR multiculturalism.

If you read my last post on the topic you are referring to you needn't question me about my statement on this one. If we get into that here it will derail this topic.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

The "world" pretty much screwed Africa, and not just Africa, by redrawing borders many years ago. Maybe we should go change them back or maybe better still, just leave well enough alone.

I wouldn't disagree with this. I think a lot of African borders ought to be redrawn, but you can't really do so against the wishes of the inhabitants.

[Derek 2.0]

So the question is, when should we get involved in these conflicts and when should we step back and let sovereign nations handle their own affairs?

A succinct, Reader' Digest answer: We should involve ourselves in such conflicts when said conflicts threaten our own interests and those of our Allies.......When we have no direct interest (other than morality), we should only interject ourselves via humanitarian aid and support for NGOs. Also, on a case by case basis, it could be determined to be beneficial for our military to aid in training and supporting a regional Peacekeeping Force(ie support to the African Union Force)....

[Big Guy]

"When should we get involved in these conflicts?"

When we can answer "yes" to each of the following;

Is Canadian vital national security threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the Canadian people?

Do we have broad international support?

If we cannot answer "Yes" to each of those questions then we should stay out.

[On Guard for Thee]

I wouldn't disagree with this. I think a lot of African borders ought to be redrawn, but you can't really do so against the wishes of the inhabitants.

I worked a number of years in Africa, mostly west coast, but one of the things I learned was that, politics aside, and of course that ain't easy, but borders should be drawn more north-south, than east-west. There is a substantial portion of the population that is nomadic and the climate dictates that they must be able to move north south in order to sustain their herds. If you curtail that the next thing you have are starving people that need help, and up go the costs. Whitehall should learn to keep their god damn noses out of things they are totally ignorant of.

[bush_cheney2004]

That settles it....General Colin Powell should determine when Canada should get involved. Amazing !

Edited November 10, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

If we cannot answer "Yes" to each of those questions then we should stay out.

The majority of the Powell Doctrine is subjective......In September of 1939, for example, if the King Government applied said doctrine as a response to the Nazi invasion of Poland, we never would have entered the Second World War.....

[On Guard for Thee]

"When should we get involved in these conflicts?"

When we can answer "yes" to each of the following;

Is Canadian vital national security threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the Canadian people?

Do we have broad international support?

If we cannot answer "Yes" to each of those questions then we should stay out.

It's an interesting little list of questions you have there, but it's not terribly realistic. What if the answer to question # 1 was YES? I hasten to add I'm not necessarily supporting what we are doing, but trying to bracket it within the confines of those questions would have us sitting on our hands.

[Big Guy]

There are volumes and volumes that have been written on WWI and son of WWI. To start to argue their contents is a waste of time. We still do not know exactly what criteria King used for his decision making. It might have been conjuring up Leonardo Da Vinci or his dead mother or the advice of one of his dogs named Pat. The Ouija Board or his Crystal ball might have given his the "Yes" to all those questions I submitted.

My opinion is if you can truthfully answer "yes" to each of the questions posed then Canada should get involved. If not then NO!

That is the question posed in this OP.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry...the Powell Doctrine fails CanCon requirements. May as well be Confucius if that is the standard.

Edited November 10, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Big Guy]

TO On Guard For Thee - I submit then that we had been far better to "sit on our hands" then get involved in Somalia or Afghanistan ofr Libya or this civil war in Iraq.

Sometimes it is far better to sit on your hands than to stick them into something that will cut them off.

[On Guard for Thee]

TO On Guard For Thee - I submit then that we had been far better to "sit on our hands" then get involved in Somalia or Afghanistan ofr Libya or this civil war in Iraq.

Sometimes it is far better to sit on your hands than to stick them into something that will cut them off.

Yeah but you kind of hemmed yourself in, and you seemed to conspicuously ignore my question related to your little list of questions: As is what if the answer to your Q# 1 was yes?

[Derek 2.0]

There are volumes and volumes that have been written on WWI and son of WWI. To start to argue their contents is a waste of time. We still do not know exactly what criteria King used for his decision making. It might have been conjuring up Leonardo Da Vinci or his dead mother or the advice of one of his dogs named Pat. The Ouija Board or his Crystal ball might have given his the "Yes" to all those questions I submitted.

From the context of September 1939, the majority of the questions posed by the Powell doctrine either would have been no or couldn't be defined.....as such said doctrine lacks flexibility in the real world.

My opinion is if you can truthfully answer "yes" to each of the questions posed then Canada should get involved. If not then NO!

The Powell doctrine applied by Canada from the start of World War II:

Is Canadian vital national security threatened?

The Nazi invasion of Poland had little effect on Canada

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Return Poland to the Poles, defeating both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union I suppose......

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

How could Canada determine the costs, from the onset of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, for such action? Sounds like another no....

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Yes, Nazi Germany has crossed the Polish border........

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

No

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Sure, likewise the consequences of our inaction......

Is the action supported by the Canadian people?

Namely yes......Quebec is iffy...

Do we have broad international support?

Is the United Kingdom and France good enough?

If we cannot answer "Yes" to each of those questions then we should stay out.

As such, applying said doctrine, you would have preferred Canada to stay out of the Second World War.......

[Moonlight Graham]

I see two factors that drive political reactions to conflicts:

1) Is military intervention remotely plausible? (in the case of Ukraine and North Korea the answer is clearly no because any attempt could escalate to a war between China/Russia and the West)

2) Is there a perception that the conflicts could escalate beyond their region? (in the ME the answer is usually yes, in Africa the answer is usually no);

I think it is a waste of time to try and define a clear principle used to rationalize interventions. Pragmatic considerations will always be the primary driver.

I mostly agree with this. I think every situation needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

I'll simplify the first part of your post. One thing primarily drives government reactions to conflicts, and that is what is best for the country's national interests. There's a lot of factors that go into making up "the national interest", but states almost always react based on what they think is best for themselves.

[Peter F]

I think the Powell Doctrine is a very smart doctrine - for a Great Power. It doesn't really apply to the little people though. Great powers are in a position to seriously answer the questions. Small powers are not in that position and very often have the will of the great powers imposed upon them.

As Derek mentions re WWII, sometimes the smaller powers choose to partake or not (Canada partook, Sweden did not). But mostly the lesser folks - like us - Don't have much of a choice at all when the vital interests of Great Powers are at stake.

Our recent 'wars' in Afghanistan or Libya were done purely for domestic political reasons and nothing else. This is why they were (and the ISIS involvement) prosecuted to a certain limited point but not beyond. The outcome of those wars/involvments were/are not vital to us.

The USA did not impose the Iraqi or Afghan wars on us simply because their own vital interests were not at stake. Once the US vital interests are at stake we'll know soon enough.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Peter F