The Limits of the Human Security Agenda: The Case of Canada's Response to the Timor Crisis - T.S Hataley and Kim Richard Nossal

“Human security insists that we focus on the safety of ordinary people rather than on the security of states.” The Canadian government in the 1990’s was an exuberant advocate for the human security paradigm. The Canadian government along with like-minded governments worked hard to endeavour the human security agenda. Meetings were organized that pushed the idea of a people-centered foreign policy, and many other measures were taken.
Canada’s foreign minister from 1996 to 2000, Lloyd Axworthy, strived to adjust the idea of security. He wanted to put more focus on the idea of the safety of the people rather than the security of states. He embraced human security as a primary goal of Canadian foreign policy. With the aid of the Norwegian foreign minister, Knut Vollebaek, Axworthy was able to negotiate the Lysoen Declaration.
Knowing that the Canadian government had such a strong grasp on the human security paradigm it is difficult to understand Ottawa’s response to the violence in East Timor in September of 1999. The Canadian government eventually did respond by contributing troops to the international force. However, it was “slow, cautious, and minimalist.”
It is understood that the Canadian government had access to the same information that other western countries did regarding the readiness of the TNI-backed militias to use force in East Timor. However, the Canadian government lacked what was outlined by the human security agenda. And did not follow the Australian government’s action into East Timor.
On September 7, 1999, the Canadian government was abrupt to renounce reports that they would join the “coalition of the willing”. Prime minister, Chretien, stated that “Canada is always considering any difficult situation, but we are not there yet.” Chretien wanted the Indonesian governments consent before deploying foreign troops to East Timor.
The Canadian government did however, consent that if it was absolutely necessary to send peacekeepers to East Timor, Canada would do that under certain conditions:-The contribution would be small. (Canada had commitments elsewhere)-There would not be a contribution made apart from the multilateral arrangement.
However, On September 12, 1999, Chretien publicly announced that Canada would be taking part in the East Timor intervention force. He promised 600 troops. Cretien left the impression that Canada would be promising 600 infantry troops to the mission. When he was really promising 250 naval personnel, 100 aircrew, 50 logistical and medical support, and 200 infantry. I believe that Chretiens misconception was planned in order to deceive the international community. As Chretiens misconception sounds more helpful than his true intentions. Realpolitk? I think so.
By September 15th the Canadian government began to finalize their contribution. However, the Canadian troops did not deploy until the end of October. I believe that this happened due to the fact that the Canadian government did not want to put their own people at risk. Again Realpolitik.
Canada gave the impression that they had the motive, and the resources to help East Timor. So, the ongoing question is, why didn’t the Canadian government take a more active role in the situation in East Timor?
One argument is that Canada’s caution was due to their economic interests and their relationship with Indonesia. Others are that Canada had little interest in East Timor’s independence. However, they were pushed to help as a direct result of public opinion, media attention, and the NGO community. Another explanation for Canada’s “slow, cautious, and minimalist” role was that the Canadian government did not buy into Lloyd Axworthy’s human security agenda.
The Canadian government has even admitted that the country’s contribution to East Timor was put into action in order to boost the country’s international image. Not to aid the humanitarian issue. Chretien stated that “And we are happy and Canadians love it. They think it is a nice way for Canadians to be present around the world.”
The crisis in East Timor conveys the limits of the human security agenda, and how it is easier for governments to “embrace the rhetoric of human security than it is to transform the human security agenda into concrete policy initiatives.” It is obvious that the Canadian government could have contributed more to the crisis in East Timor. However, I believe that the country’s greater interest was their own personal accomplishment. The Canadian government’s contributions to the crisis in East Timor strongly conveys Niccolo Machiavelli’s beliefs, as they were selfish.

Crisis in the Congo

The current situation in the Congo was started twelve years ago following the genocide of Rwanda. Many genocidaires fled to the eastern Congo. Rebel groups seized control of the region, and militia groups and tribal groups took advantage of the regions mineral wealth.

Congo’s death toll has surpassed that of Afghanistan and Iraq combined. It is estimated that approximately five million people have died from illness and hunger that this issue has caused. Hundreds of thousands of women, in addition have been raped.

The United Nations has provided 20,000 soldiers from many countries. However, their efforts have failed. Some even believe that “peacekeepers sometimes make things worse. The current situation in the Congo is awful:

-Last year, President Joseph Kabila signed an agreement with a rebel group.

-It is also known that some of the worst crimes have been committed by Congo’s own corrupt army. This is happening as a result of the soldiers not being paid for months. Their military also consists of commanders have been associated with acts of terror that includes massacres, executions, rapes, recruitment of children, forced labour, forced evictions, illegal taxation and arbitrary arrests.

-The government is also trying to close the refugee camps that provide shelter for more than 1.4 million people. Many displaced people refuse to leave. Kauta Muhima, president of a committee of leaders at Kitchanga camp says that “people don’t want to go back home because the fighting is still going on. Some of us tried to go home, but there was fighting at night and they were slaughtered.” Stefano Argenziano, who works with doctors without borders, believes that the fighting is more dangerous than it was years ago.

Over the past year there have been occurrences that have cause encouragement. Last year, an alliance between the government and the National Congress for the Defence of the People was formed. The peace agreement has crippled a guerrilla group. However, these advancements are still not powerful enough to put a stop to all the violence in the Congo.

Although Canada’s contribution over the years has been small it has been important. Canada has contributed 440 military personnel. and contributes an annual budget of about 33 million dollars. These funds support the peacekeeping force, and their UN dues. I believe that the Canadian government is doing as much as they can in order to try and put an end to the horrible things that are happening in the Congo. The Canadian government is providing as much as they possibly can. Their contributions are not for the sake of Canada. They are for the sake of the people of the Congo.

Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli recognizes two types of states that hold power over men, republics and principalities. Principalities can be hereditary, new, or mixed. Machiavelli believes that the hereditary principality can be easily maintained as long as the hereditary prince continues to rule as before. Machiavelli states that new principalities are created through military or civil achievement. Machiavelli believes that there are two types of mixed principalities. He states that if the new territory has the same customs and language as the old one, the prince must rule as before. However, if the new territory does not have the same customs and language, the prince should either live in it or create his own colonies with his own citizens or soldiers. No matter what the consequences the prince must protect his weaker neighbours, weaken his powerful neighbours, and to not allow powerful forces to enter his territory.
Machiavelli states that there are four ways for a new prince to acquire a principality: - By his own arms (most secure)-By the arms of others (needs a prince with fortune and integrity)-By evil means (gains power but not dignity)-By civil means (must remember to win the support of the people)
Machiavelli identifies three types of armies:-Mercenary (unreliable in the face of battle)-Auxiliary (dangerous if they are successful)-Native (strongly recommended by Machiavelli)
Machiavelli believes that in a peaceful world, a prince being civil causes great success. However in reality, a prince that distances them self from moral burdens and that do what is right for their territories experience the most success. Machiavelli believes that it is better for a prince to be greedy rather than generous, nasty rather than likable, dishonest rather than honest. Machiavelli’s main rule is to be willing to do anything necessary in order to maintain a good state. Machiavelli believes that fortresses are useless if the prince does not have the support of his people.
Some of Machiavelli’s main points are: -A prince gains his respect through his courage.-A prince must display his abilities.-A prince must never be neutral.-A prince must be wise.In my opinion, Machiavelli is ignorant, selfish, and unrealistic. His beliefs should not be taken seriously, as they are a cynical approach to power.

Stephen Harper and the G8

In my opinion, Stephen Harper has gone to Switzerland to meet with the leaders of the eight wealthiest democracies in the world in order to provide aid to the worlds most vulnerable. Not for the sake of Canada and/ or himself.
Although some political theories have proven that “states are unitary and rational actors, concerned primarily with their own survival in an anarchic world” I believe that Harper truly wants to help those in need.
Normally the G8 discusses the economy. However, Harper has decided to discuss humanitarian aid including the protection of mothers and children.
Some argue that based on Canada’s economy we should not even be a part of the G8. However, they are not taking into account that Canada has many other recourses other than economy; Canada is a nation with one of the largest reserves, one of the largest nuclear energy productions, and is one of the largest donors to the UN budget for 2009. Also, economy is obviously not the only factor in determining the nations of the G8. China and India have the second and fourth largest economies and they are not included in the G8, and Italy has the tenth largest economy, yet they are included in the G8. France and the United Kingdom have even expressed their desire of expanding the group to include five developing nations. (I am sure that they do not have the highest economies) So, why should Canada be penalized for not having one of the largest economies? When we have many other valuable resources, and other nations are in the same situation as us.
Thomas Hobbes has stated that no one does anything for anyone unless they get something out of it. And Machiavelli believes that it is better to be greedy rather than generous, nasty rather than likable, and dishonest rather than honest. However, in my opinion just because these philosophers have a poor outlook on the characteristics of individuals and obviously in life too doesn’t mean that every politician does too.
I am sure that Harper will be praised, will do well in previous elections, and will even gain allies from his goodness. However, these added bonuses are not his main motive for helping those in need. If the Canadian people have the resources, motive, and ability to help those in need then why wouldn’t they? And why wouldn’t Harper try to organize that help?

My thoughts on Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the challenge of the "lesser evil"

Michael Ignatieff is a liberal interventionist; he supports military action and defends democracy and human rights. Ignatieff also believes strongly in cosmopolitanism. He believes that humans have obligations to each other, and as a result, does not view fellow citizens different than total strangers.
In my opinion, Ignatieff’s beliefs are commendable, moral, and practical; and I strongly agree with his opinions. This is because Ignatieff’s ultimate goal is the defence of democracy and human rights. He has insisted that they promote peace and allow individuals to flourish. Igatieff believes that democracy reduces the chance of war and it limits radical political parties. He believes that human rights allow individuals to live a respectable life. Ignatieff believes that democracy and human rights are “the fundamental duties that every government has to its citizens”
Michael Ignatieff has insisted that western governments will have to accept and apply the “lesser evil” reasoning in order to stabilize and democratize a country in dire need. The “lesser evil” reasoning can be defined as “When no option is absolutely moral, one can only choose that which is likeliest to minimize harm.” This reasoning may not be the perfect way to govern a country. However, it is realistic. This is because “there may be times when decision-makers face no good choices”
Ignatieff believes that “the messiness of the world makes it impossible to operate by strict and unyielding codes of conduct. The gap between ideals and reality sometimes yawns too wide, and no policy will be perfectly enacted. Human nature and the complexity of international affairs prevent things from working out according to our highest ideals, but this is all the more reason to stick to them... it means that one must try to achieve one’s ideals despite the knowledge that perfection is impossible.”
Ignatieff recognizes that war might achieve some valuable results and have a huge humanitarian impact. Ignatieff has stated that “if good results had to wait for good intensions, we would have to wait forever.” I believe this statement to be absolutely correct, the government most utilise what they have in order to achieve their goals.
Ignatieff believes that governments and NGOs need to understand that there are some cases “when war is the only real remedy” He believes that it useless to advertise the significance of human rights unless you are willing to go to battle when they are abused. In my opinion, this is absolutely correct. Governments need to fight for what they believe in. However, once a government interferes they must be determined and committed to their main objectives.
Although Ignatieff supports military action he believes that decision-makers must be aware of the costs of military interference. He believes that is important to interfere only when it is essential. Ignatieff believes that “force has to be a last resort, and there must be a good chance that it will succeed.” These are important beliefs to govern a country by; this is because they will eliminate unnecessary conflict.
Overall I have found Michael Ignatieff’s beliefs enlightening and different. I believe that he is “a creative thinker who has the big ideas necessary to revitalize federal politics and the country’s international standing.”

Embassies closed in Yemen

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fgw-yemen-embassy4-2009jan04,0,1270665.story

The United States counter terror official, John Brennan says that they "won't take any chances with the lives of American diplomats and others at the embassy". After the recent threats from Al Qaeda that were responsible for the recent Christmas day airline bombing attempt, the United States and the United Kingdom have withdrawn their diplomatic outposts in Yemen. John Brennan has said that "there will be an ongoing threat until Yemen's government gets a better handle on terrorism." He also said that "the United States isn't opening a new front in Yemen against terrorism." His estimate is that there are seven hundred members of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Last week the United States General, David Petraeus visited Yemen to pledge to give their government advanced support in the defeat against Al Qaeda. However, Yemen officials seemed to bypass the help.

In my opinion, closing the embassies and announcing the decision to the world is the most brainless thing that could be done. The United States is at war with Al Qaeda and those announcements and actions are being sought out by terrorists. The United States should not be so upfront in regard to their enemies.

Should Politicians Use Social Networking Sites?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/newdelhi/Tharoor-ticked-off-for-visa-tweet/Article1-491604.aspx

The Indian External Affairs Junior Minister, Shashi Tharoor was harshly criticized for publicizing his concerns of the Indian government policy over twitter. The External Affairs Minister, S.M Krishna said "The government will go by the home ministry's guidelines and stressed differences over issues should not be discussed in public". Mr. Tharoor's tweets are directly referred to an edict of the Home Ministry. The Edict is that "foreign nationals with long-term multi-entry tourist visa must have mandatory two-month gap between two visits." The law was brought about following allegations that David Headley, accused of involvement with terrorism traveled to India on a tourist visa. Mr. Tharoor tweets clearly indicated his differences on government policy. He enquired whether the new policy would aid the security of the country. He pointed out that the "26/11 killers had no visas."

Here are some opinions:

"Goes on to show how ridiculous our politicians are. God forbid somebody shows up their incompetence in public forum. Everything needs to be sorted out in private where nobody sees how f**** incompetent these guys are to run a country." - Sagar

"Mr Tharoor is guilty for having a so called disagreement with the chance in the visa norms. As he is the most followed "twitter" politician, he should be aware of the possible reactions of his tweets. Even though he may be correct, he should find a better platform to discuss his concerns. Dear Mr Tharoor, request you to please keep it-weet to yourself." - Kartik Upadhyaya

So should politicians refrain from expressing their opinions and concerns in the public eye?