Canadians are often heard exclaiming our virtue as peacekeepers, a proud tradition started by Lester B. Pearson. For his pivotal role in resolving the crisis and essentially inventing modern UN peacekeeping, Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957. As one observes our behaviour of late, one begins to believe we’ve lost our way in this regard.
Peace is the ounce of prevention. It is looking at
geopolitical interests and anticipating how our actions may affect the
interests of others. It is also analysing where potential conflicts are and
seeking to be preemptive in curtailing the emergence of a conflict. Perhaps
most important, is to intervene in conflict to effect its end. Which of these
key elements is our present government engaging at the moment? I see none.
Presently, we are financing the war in Ukraine as well as
sending equipment and personnel to the conflict. One can argue as to the
effectiveness of this choice from a Canadian perspective. To date, we’ve
committed $25.8 billion to this conflict at a time when Canada herself needs to
strengthen our military. One can argue about the nature and degree of our
participation here; what there is no argument about is that there has yet to be
a penny dedicated to a peace initiative by this government. We have permitted a
one-sided narrative to emerge, rather than taking the high ground and
recognizing that there are valid interests on both sides of the conflict. We
have taken sides and financed a war as a nation, absent any meaningful effort
to engage the Russians.
Pipeline Folly - No Courage, No Plan and a Cost-Plus Reaction.
Another key element of maintaining peace is to avoid
unnecessary confrontations and/or provocations. One should avoid ever
suggesting you would take up arms against a longtime allied country, especially
when they are a good neighbour and the biggest guy on the block. At a time of
instability in the world, one should avoid engaging in activities that
contravene the same good neighbour’s clearly stated foreign policy—namely the
Monroe Doctrine—so having high-level military talks between us and China at
this point is both provocative and unnecessary. We have a successful and
longstanding military allegiance with the United States that must be
maintained.
My review of available materials related to present trade
talks offers no indication that the United States is a meaningful threat to our
sovereignty (it must be said our government has failed to be forthcoming with
data in this regard, in much the same way it was tardy in reporting to us with
respect to the China/Canada military discourse). The USA has defined its
present state of relations with China as “competitor,” one it is aggressively
addressing in the context of the Monroe Doctrine. This action, in combination
with accelerated trade talks and references to a new world order, has the USA’s
hackles up, and who can blame them. Has the USA been aggressively moving toward
resource security? Yes—they have a readily identifiable set of interests that
we can work with. How is it rational to identify the USA as a threat to our
sovereignty on the basis of rhetoric muted by an extended allegiance, and fail
to identify China as the threat to our sovereignty? They are aggressive also—it
was just a short time ago they slapped sanctions on many of our commodities for
arresting a person accused of serious crimes.
One finds oneself quaking at the events in Europe as they
relate to Russia. The history affecting this rivalry stretches back over
centuries. The mélange of theological and geopolitical trauma, assaulted pride,
post-Cold War mismanagement, continued Western aggression, and Russian
aggression has placed us all in a precarious place. The appropriate interface
for Canada in this area is to aggressively work toward a lasting and stable
peace between Europe and Russia. Our association in relation to trade can take
whatever creative form that emerges. It is critical that we stay within the
confines of NATO on matters of military concern. The single biggest determining
factor in the West’s prominence through to the completion of the Cold War has
been NATO. NATO and USA hegemony got us through to the fall of the wall. Since
the fall of the wall, there have been serious failings in our association with
Russia and instability has ensued. There is a significant risk this could
escalate and be a trigger to a broader world conflict; this eventuality must be
thwarted by constant vigilance.
As a country, we’ve invested in war absent a commensurate
investment in peace. The present unstable state of the world has come to be,
and the United Nations has been ineffective at stopping it or returning us to a
safe place of existence. We live in the world of supersonic weapons that permit
only ten minutes' warning if launched from China or Russia. The modern
modalities of war offer the promise of terror never witnessed by humanity
before. The hybridization of weaponry and technology means that people can run
but never hide. This is no time for risk-taking; it is a time to invest in
prudent international discourse. Canada should institute a peace mechanism that
actuates the breadth of our diplomatic corps and expands resources related to
peace. The most poignant realization in relation to our present state of being
is that none of it is necessary; apathy has gotten us here, and only attention
can get us out.
No comments:
Post a Comment