daryl.copeland

In response to the rising violence which has attended the Bangkok Shutdown  movement, on January 21st  the beleaguered Thai government imposed a state of emergency. Armed with sweeping new powers, for the next 60 days state security agencies may impose curfews, detain suspects without charge, censor media, ban political gatherings of more than five people and declare areas off-limits.

With what amounts to a declaration of martial law, Thailand’s fledgling democracy has taken a debilitating hit, and the festering political confrontation which began with a coup in 2006 has deepened disturbingly. A military intervention has been mooted.

It wouldn’t be the first.

Read more…

When historians look back at the first few decades of the 21^st century, 2013 will almost certainly be seen as a game-changing year.

That judgement can in the main be attributed to a series of disclosures made by American fugitive Ed Snowden, formerly a low level CIA employee and National Security Agency sub-contractor whose flight and subsequent revelations have given rise to sensational reverberations across the globe.

According to Snowden’s principal journalistic collaborators, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the material released so far is barely the tip of the iceberg relative to what is yet to come.

As we await the jarring geopolitical screech that will undoubtedly attend the next set whistles to be blown, it is perhaps worth reflecting on some of the larger, longer-term implications.

Read more…

We need action not only to end the fighting but to make the peace…

Lester B. Pearson, November 2, 1956

This inscription on Canada’s national peacekeeping memorial, and indeed the monument itself have now taken on new meaning.

Earlier this month the Pearson Centre, a Canadian institution devoted to the promotion of peace, security, human rights and the rule of law around the world, closed its doors in Ottawa for the last time.

Very much in keeping with the overall response to this country’s steady global retrenchment, news of the closure evoked barely a whimper among members of the public or the press.

This retreat from the front lines of thought and action on critical issues of international affairs is cause for concern.

Here’s why.

Read more…

Among those prefer dialogue, negotiation and compromise to the use of force in international relations, the last few weeks have been both exceptional and instructive.

For more than a decade – in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – major powers have reached first for the gun. Defence, rather than diplomacy or development, has been the international policy instrument of choice.

That said, recent events suggest that something better may be in store.

The USA, for instance, is talking constructively with Iran for the first time since 1979.  The greatest achievement, however, has been the US – Russian deal to avert a widened war in Syria. Just over a month ago, a US-British-French attack on the Assad regime looked inevitable. It mattered little that more civilians may have been killed in the strikes than saved as a result of them, or that this course of action may have bolstered the position of extremist elements fighting to depose the regime in Damascus.

The release of another riveting episode of “shock and awe” seemed just a matter of time.

Then along came an amazing series of events which underscored not only the signal importance of the unanticipated, but also the powerful sway of shared interests, suddenly revealed.

Add to that alchemy a sprinkling of chance, luck and timing, and within days the game had changed.

What exactly has happened, and how best to make sense of it all?

Read more…

Whatever else might be said about the age of globalization, one of its defining qualities is the speed with which circumstances can change.

The last few days have been particularly head-spinning.

Just over a week ago, in response to allegations of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime, some kind of armed Western intervention in Syria seemed imminent.

In Washington, London and Paris, sabres were rattling, and the ground was being prepared for war. All signs pointed to another round of shock and awe.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…  redux.

And then, the tide turned.  By the time of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg September 5-6, divisions over Syria within the international community were so sharp and deep that the meeting was effectively hijacked.

What has happened, and how might these events be interpreted?

Read more…

It seems to be happening.

Again.

In Washington, the drums of war are beating more loudly with each passing day, and if the breathless media commentary is to be believed, the die has already been cast.

Yet little or nothing will be gained from Western military intervention in Syria at this juncture, while the downside risks associated with possible collateral damage or widening the scope of the conflict are very real.

A strike using so-called precision munitions might bolster Obama’s credibility on the home front, but it would be unlikely to affect the military balance in the civil war and would do nothing or address the continuing humanitarian crisis.

Even the deterrence argument is shaky because of  the Assad government’s increasingly uncertain control over the Syrian state’s arsenal.

At an absolute minimum, no action should be taken in advance of receipt of the UN weapons inspectors report. If that submission points clearly to regime culpability in the use of chemical weapons, then the issue should be placed immediately before the Security Council.

Only at that point, and only if a substantial majority of Council members favour action but are blocked by Russia and/or China, should alternatives be considered.

Still, it is difficult to imagine that the use of armed force would make matters anything but worse. And, notwithstanding the predictable moralizing and equivocation, recourse to measures outside of international law would doubtless inflict further damage upon NATO’s already battered reputation.

There is still time for sober second thought. But instead of holding your breath, it is probably more prudent to stand-by for “shock and awe”, the sequel.

Could it possibly end more badly?

Do we ever learn?

Does Canadian diplomacy still matter? What might be done to restore its relevance and effectiveness in the age of globalization and heteropolarity?

Listen here.