Harper is ruining our ability to act as an honest broker.

[gnam]

My cynicism comes from a few places, not the least of which is the lunacy I told you earlier. If you cannot understand how one could have an apathetic view toward a society that so looks down upon the hand that feeds itself, then I seriously doubt you have ever been a driver.

Secondly, government screws up or half-asses everything it touches. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is a good thing to screw up. Especially when the UNSC has already stepped in with troops and is actively negotiating a lasting ceasefire. My view is that with more nations included in the process, as in the UNSC, the process is more likely to be effective because the likelihood of one nation's interests being in conflict with either of the two involved and affecting the outcome is much less. If Canada wants a say then they ought to seek to gain sufficient affluence to be a sustained member of the UNSC.

Besides, from what I have read here most people who want our government to step in, want them to step in and support a terrorist organization. I cannot support that.

My resume notwithstanding, I'm not sure what your job has to do with your cynicism in regard to canada's international sovereignty.

I agree with you that more nations included is important... note: peace talks went nowhere in the UNSC until France took some initiative in that regard. Thank goodness things didn't get left up to the United States.

I have to agree with you when you say "Besides, from what I have read here most people who want our government to step in, want them to step in and support a terrorist organization. I cannot support that." Like you, I would be unwilling to support that, however, it became clear in the first few days of the conflict that Israel's tactics were ineffective and causing unacceptable civilian casualties rather than collateral damage. As such, I think many canadians were for an immediate ceasefire and not a blind allegiance to US policy and the officially released story concerning Israeli interest. In other words, I think you are misinterpreting those who wanted to see someone, whether it be Canada or not (and seeing as most of the posters are canadian there is no reason for them to call for action from anyone but their own government), step in and attempt to put an end the indiscriminate, wanton, and escalating violence.

You just said it. Let Canada continue to be whatever influence we can be in the UN. Canada need not be a foreign affairs cowboy. The US steps in every time the UN doesn't agree and everyone whines, now that some of you disagree with the UNSC, you propose Canada do the same thing. The difference between the two is that the US believes it it defending itself, you want Canada to interfere between two other countries where Canada really has no place. I suggest lobbying member countries. A country that positively refuses to offer its military to help solve problems, preferring to come in and clean up afterward has no place in deciding what should be done, nor should they act the monday morning quarterback.

No one is suggesting that canada not utulize whatever influence it has in the UN. But why shouldn't it use the UN as a forum for developing and pushing through the policies it develops, either on its own or in conjunction with other countries. I don't think anyone really disagrees that strongly with the UN ceasefire or thinks that Canada should be a foreign affairs cowboy. Insofar as the UN ceasefire continues to be effective I don't see a whole lot of posts suggesting that Canada go ahead with some alternate plan of action. Lobbying member countries is also a good idea (we seem to agree on more than I originally thought, or was willing to admit). However, Canada needs to continue to develop foreign policy for those occasions (historically quite numerous) when the UNSC has handcuffed itself and stalled into inaction.

[Argus]

... I will address your comments themselves before I respond to your challenge. The reason that there was no direct response to these comments is that I appealed to an understanding of canada's traditional international role that is quite commonplace for support of my position.

A commonplace error is no less an error.

Your challenges, in this case, are devoid of substance.

No, Canada's reputation - which exists only in Canada, and is a self-perpetuating myth, is what is devoid of substance.

If you are questioning the truth of an assumption that is commonly held to be true (or mostly true) then the onus is on you to outline the grounds for your incredulity.

Insofar as one cannot be challenged to prove a negative, the onus is on you to back up the nonsense about Canada's "honest broker" reputation.

You make no effort in this post to do so. What's more, your objection to the claim that "...canada has a history of being a leader within the UN" (I assume this was the part you objected to, you were unclear on this matter) is subsequently contradicted by you a few lines later when you admit that the Pearson government's work in the Suez crisis was a true example of said leadership (even if it is the only one -though this is not my position-, you nevertheless contradict yourself).

Only in Canada among its liberals can you get a "reputation" from one incident half a century previous. The plain and simple fact is Canada has no international leadership role and has not for a long, long time.

So by all means, give us a summary of Canada's glorious history as an international "honest broker" and all the wonderful things we've been able to accomplish through the years due to our terrific negotation skills and our influence as noble people of virtue, peace and integrity.

If you need extra space, use two pages.

...My position is that we have NO international reputation of any kind which would lead anyone to respect us as an "honest broker". We could get one, but not under the craven, gutless, dishonest governments we've had over the last two decades. Perhaps, if the government of Canada makes a habit of taking positions based in large measure on its sense of real values, and holds to those positions with a measure of integrity, we might one day achieve a certain status where others listen to us as a voice of reason and morality. But we're nowhere near there now....

I certainly will not summarize Canada's international political history here,

Why? It won't take long.

However, in the spirit of open discussion and debate I will happily offer a few more pieces of evidence to support my position. Canada is currently, according to the US central intelligence agency, an active member in the following international organizations:

ACCT, AfDB, APEC, Arctic Council, ARF, AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, BIS, C, CDB, CE (observer), EAPC, EBRD, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITU, MIGA, MINUSTAH, MONUC, NAFTA, NAM (guest), NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS, OECD, OIF, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), UN, UNAMSIL, UNCTAD, UNDOF, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNMOVIC, UNTSO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO, ZC

... this suggests a very active ministry of foreign affairs, whose accomplishments, both minor and significant I am sure are well documented.

Not by you, however. The fact we are a member of numerous commitees and clubs and whatnots is hardly an example of world leadership. No-doubt Argentina and Iceland could similarly be considered members of numerous international organizations. That does not make them world leaders.

Below is the list for Algeria:

ABEDA, AfDB, AFESD, AMF, AMU, AU, BIS, FAO, G-15, G-24, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt (signatory), ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITU, LAS, MIGA, MONUC, NAM, OAPEC, OAS (observer), OIC, ONUB, OPCW, OPEC, OSCE (partner), UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNMEE, UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO (observer)

Woop de woop.

In addition, while canada has been slow to act on and implement environmental standards that would certainly bolster its international credibility regarding disputes in those matters, it has nonetheless signed on to and played an important role in developing many of the following international environmental aggreements:

party to: Air Pollution, Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides, Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants, Air Pollution-Sulfur 85, Air Pollution-Sulfur 94, Antarctic-Environmental Protocol, Antarctic-Marine Living Resources, Antarctic Seals, Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species, Environmental Modification, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Marine Dumping, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands

signed, but not ratified: Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds, Marine Life Conservation.

And yet, Canada's air pollution controls and laws are weaker than those of the EU, United States or Australia. So all you're showing above is we love to belong to committees and sign papers but we really don't follow through on anything, much less show leadership.

Additionally, Canada has been a strong advocate for multilateralism over the past 60 years.

Uh, this is just another way to say Canada takes no independant positions or stands, but likes the committee approach, where we can pass the buck onto others, or at the very least share the load and blame.

Examine Australia's efforts over the past ten years, vs Canada's. What international contribution have we made that match this smaller country? Australia has been a positive influence in the Pacific, and has put its money and troops where its mouth is on a number of occasions, increasing their influence throughout the Pacific and in the world in general.

Acting in the spirit of the Pearson government's peacekeeping policy canada has sought to fascilitate the honest brokerage of international disputes by serving in more than 50 peacekeeping missions, including every mission until 1989, though participation has diminished over the past few years (ref: see wikipedia reference entry on Canada).

Uhm, yeah, 1989 was SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO. In case the math was a little challenging. And while Canada participated, it was often in small ways. When was the last time we took a leading roll in the way the Australians have in East Timor or the Solomon Islands? Canada currently ranks 50th out of 95 nations in its contribution to UN peacekeeping operations. And this is about where we've been for the last ten years.

Canada's official domestic policy of multiculturalism has piqued quite a bit of interest internationally

Among potential immigrants and would-be economic refugees, you mean?

Many countries, are looking to canada as a prototype from which to try and deal with the massive immigration problems that are currently facing Europe.

Name one.

Additionally, with the scheduled inclusion into the EU of a number of countries with large Muslim populations, Canada is increasingly being looked to as an international leader in dealing with minority religious groups.

By whom?

Much of the dialogue between the international community and canada is currently taking place at the academic level, and as such,

Has no real-world value or importance. Thanks.

In light of the preceding comments I maintain my position that canada should continue to articulate its own positions in matters of foreign affairs in order to attempt, in its capacity, to act as an honest broker.

Canada has not articulated any foreign policy of substance in decades. We defend human rights - unless it's with countries we trade with or have investments with. We defend democracy, unless it will offend wealthy trading partners. We fight terrorism, unless it might cost us ethnic votes. We lecture other countries about their environment records while doing precious little ourselves. Sanctimonious hypocrisy is what Canada's foreign policy has been about for the last few decades. It would be nice if the tories would change that. So far they appear to be trying to aim for something better.

By the way, as you are new here and your understanding of how the system works is necessarily imperfect, I thought I would let you know that there are no extra points for excessive verbiage.

[Argus]

I don't care that unlettered savages in shithole countries, ignorant Eurotrash, and Jew-hating Arabs think the US is the great satan. I don't think we should base our positions on whether or not it places distance beween us and them. We should support what is right, morally speaking, and right for us as a nation, not try to suck up to anyone, including the Muslim block at the UN and their paid allies.

And what is both morally right and right for us as a nation is to oppose the rise of Islamic hate and violence.

Actually, what is morally (or otherwise) right for us as a nation (differentiated from the concept of 'state') of Canadians has never really been for us to make a habit of referring, in broad strokes, to entire groups of people in the derogatory, lazy, and essentially thoughtless terms

Which are nevertheless true. I call a spade a spade, and tend to do so with a lot less verbiage - not to mention inaccuracy - than you do. And I don't particularly care if some ivory tower types dissaprove of my plain-spoken style.

[gnam]

I don't care that unlettered savages in shithole countries, ignorant Eurotrash, and Jew-hating Arabs think the US is the great satan. I don't think we should base our positions on whether or not it places distance beween us and them. We should support what is right, morally speaking, and right for us as a nation, not try to suck up to anyone, including the Muslim block at the UN and their paid allies.

And what is both morally right and right for us as a nation is to oppose the rise of Islamic hate and violence.

Actually, what is morally (or otherwise) right for us as a nation (differentiated from the concept of 'state') of Canadians has never really been for us to make a habit of referring, in broad strokes, to entire groups of people in the derogatory, lazy, and essentially thoughtless terms

Which are nevertheless true.

Again, lazy and essentially thoughtless... as opposed to 'calling a spade a spade' you, instead, exhibit a preliminary knowledge of foreign people and society that is notable for its lack of nuance.

[Argus]

I don't care that unlettered savages in shithole countries, ignorant Eurotrash, and Jew-hating Arabs think the US is the great satan. I don't think we should base our positions on whether or not it places distance beween us and them. We should support what is right, morally speaking, and right for us as a nation, not try to suck up to anyone, including the Muslim block at the UN and their paid allies.

And what is both morally right and right for us as a nation is to oppose the rise of Islamic hate and violence.

Actually, what is morally (or otherwise) right for us as a nation (differentiated from the concept of 'state') of Canadians has never really been for us to make a habit of referring, in broad strokes, to entire groups of people in the derogatory, lazy, and essentially thoughtless terms

Which are nevertheless true.

Again, lazy and essentially thoughtless... as opposed to 'calling a spade a spade' you, instead, exhibit a preliminary knowledge of foreign people and society that is notable for its lack of nuance.

One knows a man by his reputation unless, of course, one has cause to get to know him on a deeper level. The reputation of third world shitholes is obvious. And on the occasion I have found it necessary to get to know them individually on a deeper level I have generally found the reality is actually worse than the reputation. One can take a nuanced approach to the barbarism, violent racism/bigotry/misogyny, religious fanaticism corruption, ignorance and crudeness of most of the cultures of this world, of course, but their underlying lack of civility and sophistication is essentially impossible to ignore. Peace, Order, & Good Government is a trite, if dull measure of a nation's essential character, but the lack of same is so widespread throughout the world that it is impossible to regard them as our equals - so I don't.

[August1991]

Canada is currently, according to the US central intelligence agency, an active member in the following international organizations:

ACCT, AfDB, APEC, Arctic Council, ARF, AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, BIS, C, CDB, CE (observer), EAPC, EBRD, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITU, MIGA, MINUSTAH, MONUC, NAFTA, NAM (guest), NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS, OECD, OIF, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), UN, UNAMSIL, UNCTAD, UNDOF, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNMOVIC, UNTSO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO, ZC

... this suggests a very active ministry of foreign affairs, whose accomplishments, both minor and significant I am sure are well documented.

You're joking, right? I suppose we must have a "very active" foreign service, flying around and going to all those meetings and what not. I once met a bureaucrat who measured his productivity by the number of meetings he held. I recoiled in silent horror and realized that we have but one short life to lead and this person happily chose to pass his in meetings with other bureaucrats. Why would anyone want to go to hell sooner?

Also, the following rankings indicate that Canada retains a fairly lofty international reputation in a number of significant areas of

International rankings

Organization -- Survey -- Ranking

A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine -- Globalization Index 2005 -- 14 out of 111

IMD International -- World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005 -- 5 out of 60

The Economist -- Worldwide quality-of-life index, 2005 -- 14 out of 111

Yale University/Columbia University -- Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005 -- 6 out of 146

Reporters Without Borders -- Press Freedom Index 2005 -- 21 out of 167

Transparency International -- Corruption Perceptions Index 2005 -- 14 out of 159

The Wall Street Journal -- Index of Economic Freedom, 2006 -- 12 out of 157

Canada was ranked number one country by the United Nations' Human Development Index 10 times out of 16 between 1980 and 2004. (The preceding information came from the wikipedia entry on Canada)

All of these rankings use purely arbitrary criteria. They are akin to awards given out at the end of the year in primary schools. They have the faint air of the schoolteacher about them.

In any case, if Canada is successful as a country, it is because ordinary Canadians get up in the morning and go to work and do their job. It is doubtful whether much of what occurs in Ottawa is a great help in that process. It is even more doubtful whether our foreign policy is helpful at all.

[gerryhatrick]

It DOESN'T mean that we give credance to Hezbollah or take their side. We're concerned with Lebanese civilians and Israeli civilians.

Why don't you get over it?

Any conflict or war between countries there will always be civilian casualties.

You should thankful it is not worse than it is regarding civilian casualties.

What a deep and thoughtful understanding you have of the issue.

I am always thankful that there is not more stupidity than there already is, yet that does not stop me from railing against the stupidity that exists.