babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I can't argue too much with the idea of some of the defence cuts. The department is bigger than it needs to be.
Many of the civilian workers losing defence positions could have been moved to other positions in the government-- but those are being cut as well and I do not support those cuts.
I also support the idea of having a military-- but like others think it should be tasked with defence and potential UN missions-- including humanitarian. It also needs to provide to Canada strong search and rescue given our geography and ironically that mandate is being reduced.
One thing that could be interesting could be to move a large number of "fighting" services to be trained specifically for emergency and assistance roles (a little like an enviro national guard that could also be lent to other countries in times of need).
Without the massive military procurement we could easily afford this.
Just some thoughts as I have not spent a lot of time thinking about this lately so I am not that aware of the relative size of the DND civilian workforce or what they do.
The UN is now an imperial warhouse. Afghanistan was a UN mission. Don't support CF doing this dirty work any further.
The problem with abandoning the UN would be give it over totally to US control. We can always refuse to take part in particular operations that are offensive (in both meanings of the word) but in the long run we need some international organization to mediate international disputes and we do not have any other such institution.
I don't see why the Canadian Forces can not be used more here at home to help with, for example, infrastructure in areas difficult to reach - they have the capability for heavy lifting, and they are already paid by the taxpayers of Canada. No more bombing and occupation of other countries!!!
Coherent? Well, maybe not but you can read about the defence policy here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf
The UN doesn't mediate international disputes. There is a World Court of Justice that resolves international disputes that are referred to it.
Any intervention by the UN in international (or domestic) disputes is done at the behest of the United States through the Security Council. Nowadays this usually involves delegating authority to NATO to make war against one side or the other, depending on where the interests of the United States lie.
And once NATO is involved, Canada pretty much has to participate.
I tend to agree with Dennis Bevington and Michael Byers who say that remote northern regions need civilian infrastructure not military outposts. If Canada is to make a credible claim in our share of the Arctic, there has to be civilian infrastructure to support Canadians living there. All of Mulroney, Chretien or Martin basically ignored Northern Canada. Harper wants military outposts in the Arctic but little else. And the NDP says civilian infrastructure is what's needed.
Military-- or some kind of national service is a back up to such civilian development -- this is not a contradiction.
The point is that the military is a flexible resource used for physical work that can be inserted anywhere.I support a move form a military war-making function to this direction.
Third world conditions all over the north. The military needs something to defend other than a few homeless Polar bears and some people who've never heard of Ottawa. Our corrupt stooges have basically ignored remote Northern Canada for decades.
In this entire (and, no doubt, very progressive) thread, jerrym's comment contains the only mention of peacekeeping.
In a new book Scarce Heard Amid the Guns: An Inside Look at Canadian Peacekeeping, billed as "a highly readable account of a great Canadian institution while at the same time offering the reader an insider's perspective," Lt. Col. John Conrad writes persuasively that Canada has an opportunity and a duty to take up once again the challenge of peacekeeping.
Hm-mm-mmm?!
And rightly so. Most "very progressive" people are well aware that Canada's reputation as a peacekeeping nation and honest broker in international conflicts is entirely fictitious.
Your Lt.-Col John Conrad is engaged in a propaganda and mythmongering exercise.
Your opinions are always interesting , M.S., and the one above is no exception.
To judge by Paul Weinberg's review in Rabble, one would conclude that Yves Engler's book, though an indictment of Lester Pearson's (foreign) policies, makes no attempt to demonstrate that Canadian peacekeeping is a fiction. Perhaps you will write a book that does that. If you do, I will read it. Below is my response to Weinberg's review.
Paul Weinberg's review (of Lester Pearson's Peacekeeping: The Truth May Hurt by Yves Engler) makes scant mention of the reason that most Canadians know of and/or remember Lester Pearson and the reason for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: his immense contribution to the historic invention of armed UN peacekeeping forces and to the establishment of UNEF, the first armed peacekeeping mission.
To get a thoroughly modern view of Canadian peacekeeping in general, readers could do worse than turn to the book Scarce Heard Amit the Guns: An Inside Look at Canadian Peacekeeping by L. Col. John Conrad, 2011.
Weinberg notes Engler's claim that "Pearson was primarily interested during the Suez crisis of 1956 in mediating a conflict among NATO partners." Conrad agrees, stating that Pearson's pitch for the first armed peacekeeping force "was not one of unselfishness, but one more centered on Canadian national security. . . . The very first mission was in the Sanai in 1956 was to keep the ceasefire between the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion force and the Egyptians."
In his review, Weinberg remarks that Steven Staples, of Ceasefire.ca and president of the Rideau Institute, views "Canada's peacekeeping tradition, however flawed, as a political alternative and counterweight to Stephen Harper's militarism." Conrad holds a similar view. While reporting many of the flaws in Canadian peacekeeping, Conrad quotes Walter Dorn, a contributer to Afghanistan and Canada: Is There an Alternative to War? edited by Lucia Kowaluk and Steven Staples, as follows:
"Some may dismiss the UN's 60 years of peacekeeping as outdated and out-moded, but today's UN operations are in fact, the result of steady evolution . . . . If we want to restore Canadian leadership in the world . . . we should start where we are able and universally recognized to have provided solid leadership in the past: peacekeeping missions."
Conrad's narrative (he calls it a travelogue) of the Canada's 35 UN peacekeeping missions and 5 non-UN missions makes this important point: "a credible, disciplined combat force is the only force that can aptly handle peacekeeping duties." He ends his book with this:
"The UN keeps calling for Canadian troops to serve as blue berets. . . . Peacekeeping still has a place for Canadians as an instrument of policy. Our soldiers have demonstrated time and again that we have the essential skills and attitudes to do the job with verve. Canadians have indicated in survey after survey, poll after poll, that they are proud of the peacekeeping mosaic. . . . It is time perhaps to pick up the tool once again.
"Over 120,000 Canadians have served the UN as peacekeepers--114 of whom were killed in the line of duty. Are we letting the sun set on one of the UN's original fire brigade nations? . . . The UN needs Canada now. Our service men and women are among the world's best soldiers, superb grist for the UN peacekeeping mill--without apology, the world's best peacekeepers. . . . We should renew our faith in the UN. Peacekeeping is not doing less on the international stage. In many ways, peacekeeping is about doing more. It certainly demands more of a soldier. This cannot be the way we close out our contribution in the service of peace."
So, what do I say of Pearson and his contribution to Canada and the world: good guy or bad guy? We don't get a whole loaf from anyone, do we, but for Canadians who value peace, the truth about Pearson's contribution to peacekeeping doesn't hurt.
Canada found the stubborness of the 'Peacekeeping' myth was interfering with support for the Afghan mission, which was perceived by many to constitute an abandonment of 'cherished national principles'. It was thought necessary to correct the record thusly:
The Peaceable Kingdom? The National Myth of Canadian Peacekeeping - by Eric Wagner
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo7/no4/wagner-eng.asp
"The peackeeping myth dominates discussions of Canada's post-war military past, and continues to confuse debates over Canada's military future. However, the peacekeeping myth, in claiming that Canada was motivated to keep the peace primarily by altruism and moral virtue, is false and misleading.."
No need for me to write the book. Engler has done so already. It's called The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. I suggest you read it.
From an interview he gave to David Lvingstone:
Is that like when the British Navy and marines sailed into the American hemisphere and invaded the Falklands in '82? The Yanks must have been miffed over that one, too.
They're all the the same bloodthirsty psychopath. They are one, and they are legion.
No, it's like when the Russians put missile bases in Cuba.
What an interesting constellation of agreement:
(1) According to Weinberg's review, Engler claims that "Pearson was primarily interested during the Suez crisis of 1956 in mediating a conflict among NATO partners.
(2) Conrad agrees, stating that Pearson's pitch for the first armed peacekeeping force "was not one of unselfishness, but one more centered on Canadian national security."
(3) You quote Wagner as above: "the peacekeeping myth, in claiming that Canada was motivated to keep the peace primarily by altruism and moral virtue, is false and misleading.."
(4) Spector quotes David Livingstone as follows: "what Lester Pearson was doing, going back to 1956, with the creation of the UN peacekeeping force, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for, was during the Suez Crisis in 1956, when France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt, what he was doing was really helping the Americans out."
There is a remarkable amount of agreement in the comments of these four people. As I see it, the essence of that agreement centres on the motives or intentions of Pearson and the Canadian government. None of these sources are claiming that the outcome of Pearson's efforts was something other than peace. And peace is a desireable outcome--for some of us.
No justice, no peace.
And Pax Americana/Canadiana is neither justice nor true peace.
Your claim is reasonable, though not one with which I agree. For me, peace is not an end proximate to the pursuit of justice, but an ultimate end valued for itself.
Perhaps we do agree, however in believing that we progressives are consequentialists, if not by nature, then certainly by habit.
As such, we are not mindless of motives. Indeed, we are fully aware of the great mix of human intentions that underlie any effort to move a progressive social agenda forward. However, our judgements are focused more on consequences than on intentions, on outcomes than on motives.
We (at least I do) see peace as a consummation, about which, though we are not optimistic in the present, we are ever hopeful for the future. We have a regard for any analysis that sets us working for peace; we seek not analysis in itself but the peaceful fruit of those labours that our analysis provokes.
As a result, I suggest that (most) progressives agree with Arne Naess, who, in another context, counselled wisely, but simply that "the front is long":
"There is arrogance among socialists who think that they should be leading the ecological movement [and the peace movement--GB], because they have a 'class analysis' and are anti-capitalist. What comes across is that the Left believes it is entitled to intellectual hegemony in the green and environmental movements, by virtue of prior knowledge. The Left does not seem to be able to absorb the pluralism of green and environmental politics - as Naess informed us, 'the front is long' - let alone accept the earned leadership of others by virtue of their practical or theoretical work.... The idea that deeper environmentalists and greens can come to an anti-capitalist critique based on their own experiences, without studying Marxism or social ecology, but based on field experience, seems, apparently, difficult to grasp for the Left.
http://deepgreenweb.blogspot.ca/2011/01/deep-ecology-and-left-contradictions.html\
But this has taken me far from the topic of this thread, so I fold my tent and steal away, if not silently, then at least agreeably, pleased to have had the chance to exchange these views with you, Spector.
I think Moscow and Beijing realize they are dealing with megalomaniacal psychopaths here in the west even today.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall the heavily-armed NATO countries have been devoid of imagination as to the prospects for world peace and prosperity.
Without justice the marginalized in any society never have peace.
Their playbook makes increasing use of "strategy of tension". It's about mercenaries for hire and funding right wing religious extremists abroad to destabilize and create chaos in targeted countries. IOW's, state-sponsored terrorism dating back to the 1950s.
Canada's Military Hunting For 7 New Bases - by Allan Woods
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1205776--canada-s-mi...
"The military is hunting for 7 strategically placed nations willing to host a network of Canadian bases aimed at cutting costs and boosting response times to future wars..
Two of those bases in Germany and Kuwait have already materialized, but the full extent of the plan to create overseas beachheads for military planes, ships and equipment has not been previously acknowledged. When the collection of operational support hubs is complete, Canada's military will also have a permanent footprint in the Latin America and Caribbean regions, on both sides of the African continent, in the swath of countries marked by the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as in South East Asia..."
"peacekeeping?"
“This government likes to talk about its support for the Canadian Forces,” said NDP Deputy-Critic for National Defence Christine Moore. “But failing to meet the basic health and safety requirement of fire alarm inspections proves once again how superficial this support really is. And I’m not just talking about the bases; the infrastructures on the reserves are also in a very worrying state.”
“The government has failed to ensure that bases get the money they need in time to complete basic maintenance and repairs”, said Official Opposition National Defence Critic Jack Harris. “The long term effects of these compounding maintenance failures could be quite costly.”
http://www.ndp.ca/news/poor-maintenance-military-bases-conservatives-affecting-canadian-forces
How are these guys progressive again? Some days I am not sure if I can tell the difference between them and the conservatives.
I think it's important to keep in mind that the government is supposed to be the government for all people, regardless of their political leanings, and, second, regardless of how you feel about the military, they are men and women who have just as much right to a safe working environment - and infrastructure - as anyone. So, yes, the NDP has to stand up for a safe working environment for the military, but also show themselves highly critical of the government in military procuremment boondoggles like the F35's and government overspending, and in stupid military crusades we don't need to be involved in. Be responsible when it comes to military matters, but draw a line in the sand, too.
Show me a government anywhere in the world that doesn't support its military.
My point is that the NDP will have no choice in governing but to support the military. I was responding to the previous post, by the way.
The NDP does have a choice however they choose to ignore their rightful of duty and call for the Armed Forces to be disbanded and criminal charges laid against each member of the forces (past and present) for thier crimes against humanity.
However they continue to support the women and child murdering psychopaths in their Capitalist Crusading adventure(s) against the
non-western world.
I agree with your moral analysis of the situation, but that makes me part of a very small minority. If we had proportional representation, I would look for a party that takes the positions you recommend, and vote for it, in hopes that it would reach the 5% threshold and elect a few MPs to speak truth in the House of Commons. As it is with first past the post, any party which took these morally honest postions would have no more chance of electing MPs than the CPC(ML).