For those concerned with the future of  international relations, global issues, and Canadian foreign policy, President Obama’s January 28th State of the Union address contained some critical new commitments.

The President pledged to avoid “open-ended conflicts”, to “give diplomacy a chance to succeed” and to put an end to the United States’ “permanent war footing”.

But can he deliver?

To answer that question, I am reminded of an axiom familiar to many political scientists: watch what governments do, not what they say, and follow the money.

The record to date suggests that if Obama is restore  the reputation of his presidency, radical course corrections will be required.

Read more…

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.

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.

Read more…

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:

Read more…

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.

Read more…

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.

Read more…

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…

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.

Read more…