Embassy
Canada’s “diplomatic ecosystem”‘ is on life support. That’s not good enough. We can, and must take action.
Embassy
Canada’s “diplomatic ecosystem”‘ is on life support. That’s not good enough. We can, and must take action.
The world is beset by a host of daunting, seemingly intractable problems, ranging from climate change and environmental collapse to diminishing biodiversity and pandemic disease. These profound threats, unlike political violence or religious extremism, afflict everyone on the planet.
Many citizens, alarmed by the declining quality of their lives, have become cynical and dismayed as the downward spiral accelerates. National governments, frequently captured by special interests or trapped in old ways of operating, have failed to act remedially.
Bereft of creative alternatives, when faced with trouble the first instinct of many decision makers has been to reach for the gun.
Since the post-9/11 advent of the Global War on Terror, in many Western countries policy has become an instrument of war. Fears have been conjured and insecurity instilled, thus undercutting support for fundamentally different approaches to the construction of world order. Right wing think tanks have reliably provided ideological grist for the defence-industrial mill. The consequences have been calamitous, not only in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, but on the home front, where privacy has been invaded, rights and freedoms circumscribed and inequality exacerbated. Society is increasingly militarized and the armed forces have become dominant national institutions.
There is, however, another way forward. That alternative proceeds from the conviction that because long-term, equitable and sustainable development has become the basis for security in the age of globalization, diplomacy must replace defence at the centre of international policy.
In other words, in an increasingly heterpolar world, security is not a martial art.
CDFAI Policy Papers
In Canada as elsewhere, the “diplomatic ecosystem” is on life support. How to fix diplomacy, the foreign ministry and foreign service?
There is something for almost everyone in the judgement delivered yesterday against Bradley Manning, the army private who single-handedly conveyed hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic documents and military battlefield reports to the so-called whistleblowing web site WikiLeaks.
This is the largest unauthorized transfer of government-origin classified information ever recorded.
Manning’s detractors – those who see him as a criminal and a traitor – will look with satisfaction upon his conviction on charges of espionage, computer fraud , possession of restricted documents and theft. These could bring him a total of over 100 years behind bars.
Manning’s defenders – those who see him as a patriot and a hero – will be relieved that he was acquitted on the two most serious charges of aiding the enemy. Daniel Ellesberg, for instance, commented that: ‘It could’ve been worse’ – a lot worse, not just for Bradley but for American democracy and the free press on which it depends”.
Whatever the sentence, the mixed messages implied by the judgement may end up satisfying no one completely.
Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, was ambiguous: “We won the battle, now we need to go win the war… Today is a good day, but Bradley is by no means out of the fire.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, himself a fugitive and holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, described the verdict on Twitter as “dangerous national security extremism.”
If reflecting on what to make of the verdict seems difficult, consider this. The most critical issues of public policy raised by the Manning case have yet to be broached:
Globe and Mail
Critical matters of public policy lurk just behind the headlines in the sensational trial of whistleblower Bradley Manning.
Ed Snowden, the US citizen and cyber-surveillance whistleblower, has been somewhere in the transit area of Moscow’s labyrinthine Sheremetevo international airport for almost one month. His disclosure of documents detailing mass telephone and internet monitoring by US, UK, NZ, Australian and French intelligence agencies, often with active private sector collusion, has resulted in him being proclaimed a hero in some quarters, and a traitor in others.
The US Government has charged him with the theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified intelligence to unauthorized persons. They are seeking his extradition, and have criticized the governments of Russia and China for their failure to cooperate. Washington appears intent on sparing no effort in its attempt to ensure that Snowden’s fate resembles something closer to that of Bradley Manning than that of Julian Assange.
Stuck in a legal and immigration netherworld with time on his hands and no obvious way to take up offers of asylum received from Venezuela, Ecuador or Nicaragua, Mr. Snowden may be reflecting on the implications of his decisions.
Globe and Mail
By illuminating the extent of state-sponsored cyber-spying directed at both domestic and foreign targets, Mr. Snowden’s disclosures have both produced winners and losers and set the stage for possible remedial action.
Amidst breaking news of convulsions shaking Egypt, Turkey and Brazil, the election of a moderate president in Iran, the despatch of a UN “intervention force” to the DRC, and revelations of massive cyber-surveillance, Canadians are understandably distracted. Few seem to be paying much attention to an issue of longer-term, yet potentially much larger domestic consequence – this country’s changing place in the world.
When it comes to foreign perceptions of Canada, a fundamental shift has occurred.
This country and its people, although certainly not reviled, are no longer accorded the admiration and esteem which until recently was the norm.
The red maple leaf, once a widely recognized and even revered as symbol of Canadian internationalism, does not evoke the enthusiastic response which once made it the envy of backpackers everywhere.
The magic is gone.
Editor’s note
Over the past six months I have had occasion to spend much of my time working and travelling overseas. I spent the first few months of the year teaching a course on science, technology, diplomacy and international policy at Otago University in Dunedin, New Zealand, and last month I participated in several conferences in Europe.
Although these activities have resulted in fewer postings to the GD blog, being abroad has proven useful in terms of gathering insights not so easily gleaned from home.
What did I learn about changing international perceptions of Canada?
Stay tuned for a special Canada Day posting…
CDFAI Media Brief
The outcome of the election in Pakistan is unlikely to enhance the prospects for peace in Afghanistan.
There has been much commentary and speculation in recent weeks regarding Pakistan’s national elections, and the possible impact of the results upon events in Afghanistan. While the nature of developments in Pakistan might well amount to the single most important external influence, not least because of the shared Pashtun population on either side of the Durand Line and Pakistan’s longstanding pre-occupation with Indian designs in the region, in Afghanistan there are many other factors and actors at play.
That country, situated at a crossroads of civilizations, is an almost bewilderingly complicated place. The burden of history is enormous: over the past few centuries, Afghanistan has more often than not been treated as a pawn in the imperial “great game.” It has deservedly developed a reputation as the “graveyard of empires,” not least because outsiders’ forces have only ever succeeded in pacifying small parts of the country. Internal stability, such as it has ever existed, has been predicated typically upon the decentralized, often shifting political arrangements between the capital and the provinces.
That pattern was long gone by the time NATO intervened. Still reeling in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the U.S.-led coalition effectively took sides in a complex ethnic, tribal, sectarian, and geographically rooted civil war. Twelve years later, ISAF is shrinking by the month, and is further than ever from prevailing. Unsurprisingly, the continuing presence of foreign forces, viewed widely as occupiers by the population, has exacerbated the conflict.
Will elections this weekend in Pakistan improve the prospects for peace and develoipment in Afghanistan?
OPENCANADA.ORG
The rub
The Government of Canada should be doing everything in its power to support its employees on the foreign policy front lines. Alas, for diplomats this is not the case. Years of underinvestment, exacerbated by over $300 million in cumulative cuts imposed on DFAIT by the 2012 federal budget, have severely degraded the work environment.
Add to that what amounts to bad faith bargaining and the lingering absence of a contract, and all elements are in place for a perfect storm of labour unrest.