Category Archives: canadian foreign policy

Canada’s World seeks bloggers

Canada’s World, a citizen-led initiative inspiring conversations on Canada’s role in the world, is looking for some politically savvy, wonderfully geeky yet hip types who understand blogging culture and are eager to write about different aspects of Canada’s role in the world. As a member of our group blog, you’ll receive the following:

  1. Money – We’ll be paying our bloggers $20 per post under 200 words, $30 per post over 200 words, to a maximum of $60 per month. It’s not a huge sum, but it might cover your phone bill.
  2. Exposure – The blog itself will be a great way to get your perspective or your research out to a popular audience. In addition, Canada’s World has ties to many more traditional media outlets. For example, we partnered with the Globe and Mail last month for an online feature (still visible here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wqacanadaworld16/BNStory/Front) When we’re asked to recommend commentators on particular issues to the media outlets we partner with, our bloggers will obviously be top of mind.
  3. Good Karma – If you’re at all familiar with the blogging culture in Canada, you’ll know that the vast majority of blogging on politics here is deeply partisan. We’re going to contribute something that transcends those divides — that is fresh, clear-minded and engaging — to the online environment in Canada. You’ll be part of a movement to get people thinking about Canada’s role in the world in a new, more active and more constructive way.


In exchange, we’ll need you to do the following things for us:

  1. Write in an accessible (read: not academic) way – We want to engage the public – not by dumbing anything down, but by considering the ways that we can communicate what we know and believe to people from very diverse backgrounds. This means we can discuss things like “the diaspora” and “transnationalism” but first we need to explain what those things are. Part of our mission is to open up conversations about Canada’s role in the world to a broader audience, and the blog is motivated by that same concern.
  2. Post once a month – That’s the minimum.
  3. Write about Canada’s role in the world – Posts about any international issue are welcome – but only if they are examined through the lens of Canada’s role in the world. That means always paying some attention to Canada’s position on/contribution to the issue up for discussion.
  4. Be reasonable and interesting. As stated above, we’re looking for work that is clear-minded and above the fray of political debates. Our Online Community Facilitator Reilly will be vetting posts, and will let bloggers know if anything they’ve said seems to advance a partisan agenda or be generally unconstructive.
  5. Submit a sample post by April 30th 2008. The sample post should be 200-400 words long and should touch on one of our nine theme areas (http://www.igloo.org/canadasworld/learnmor/ninenewr) broadly interpreted. Send sample posts to reilly@canadasworld.ca with the subject line Sample blog post. We’ll be getting back to potential bloggers to let them know if they’re been selected by the end of May at the latest.

Questions? Email Reilly Yeo, Canada’s World Online Community Facilitator

Selling of RADARSAT

The sale of RADARSAT-2 is one that has been bubbling below the surface and is finally starting to get some media attention. There is a real and valid concern that the sale of B.C.-based MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates (MDA) to Alliant Techsystems of Minnesota will result in the loss of domestic capacity to monitor ice and traffic in the North – capacity that Canadian taxpayers paid to develop and deploy.

For those who are also concerned about this issue – or who simply want to learn more – the Liu Institute and the Rideau Institute will be holding a joint event this Wednesday, April 7th 16th at the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre in Vancouver.

RADARSAT-2: ARE WE SELLING OUR EYES?

A Public Forum on the Proposed Sale of MacDonald Dettwiler’s space division

Wednesday, April 16, 7:00 PM

H.R. MacMillan Space Centre, Vanier Park, Vancouver

Speakers include:

Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, UBC
Paul Cottle, former employee, MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates
Wade Huntley, Director, Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research, UBC
Steve Staples, President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs

Sponsored by the Liu Institute for Global Issues, UBC & Rideau Institute on International Affairs

ALL WELCOME

Afghanistan: Tears are not enough, but neither are troops

Taylor Owen and Patrick Travers had a nice op-ed published in Saturday’s Toronto Star. Entitled, “2011 is a date, not a goal” it drives to the heart of the debate we aren’t having on Afghanistan.

It increasingly feels that in referencing the “Afghan Mission” the “mission” part has been lost somewhere. It is as though simply being in Afghanistan has become an end in of itself. This should not the case. We have a mission there, one that it would be nice if the government articulated from time to time and that it would talk to the public about whether or not we were getting closer or further away from achieving it.

myforeignpolicy.ca

So in February, during the online discussion with Granatstein and Axworthy, when I picked up on the Canada25 Middle to Model Power thread and argued that:

“As a country we may appear adrift, but, as individuals, Canadians are more effectively and successfully engaged than ever. Quietly, we’ve transitioned from a middle power — a plucky country whose government prevented conflicts and ensured stability — to a model power — a country whose plucky citizens innovate solutions to new global challenges.”

and that

“In an era where technology enables individuals to self-organize, deploy resources, or simply get involved, Canadians have jumped at the opportunity.”

These women – profiled by the Globe & Mail – pretty much refer exactly to what I was talking about.

They are making their own foreign policy – and power to them.

Gordon Foundation Global Youth Fellowship

An annual tradition I’ve come to enjoy is putting up this post. The people at the Gordon foundation are wonderful and those I’ve talked to about this program have had very positive things to say. While our government may be running a shoddy foreign policy there are no shortage of interesting discussions or opportunities for Canadians. The new CIC fellowships, the dialogue over at Canada’s World,  are but two of the numerous new ways to write, think, talk or act on international issues…

Anyway, back to the Gordon Foundation:

The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation has put out its call for applications for the 2008 Global Youth Fellowship program. The Fellowships are targeted towards emerging Canadian leaders who demonstrate potential to enhance Canada’s role on the world stage. The Fellowships will provide successful candidates with a cash award of $20,000 as well as other forms of support.

To be eligible for consideration, applicants must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents between 24 – 35 years of age with previous international experience – paid or volunteer. They also need to demonstrate a sustained commitment to international issues through studies, career choices and volunteer activities.

Application Deadline: Thursday, April 10, 2008 by 5:00 p.m. EST

More information about the Fellowship programme, including application forms, guidelines and information on current and past Fellows, can be found on their website.

Post a question on Canada's role in the world for Axworthy, Granatstein and myself to discuss

This Tuesday, February 19th, the Globe and Mail will be hosting an online discussion/Q&A with myself, Lloyd Axworthy and Jack Granatstein. In the lead up to this event each of us was asked to write an opinion piece outlining what our vision for Canada’s role in the world.

This discussion will not be like the Globe’s regular one-hour live discussions. Rather, it’s a question-and-answer session. If you are interested in submitting a question, please submit it before 5 p.m. EST today. Answers will be posted no later than 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday. You can submit questions on Tuesday, or in advance, here.

Axworthy’s opinion piece was published on Saturday and can be read here. Granatstein’s was published today and can be read here. My own piece can be read here.

This event was organized by the Globe and Mail and Canada’s World – a national citizens’ dialogue on international policy. You may also be interested in checking out this poll, conducted by the Environics institute.

Why we are having the wrong debate on Afghanistan

Why is it that we continue to see the Afghanistan mission through the lens of peacekeeping, as opposed to peacebuilding? This fact seems to underlie and shape the entire debate – forcing us to ask the wrong questions and driving all our political parties to poorly thought out solutions.

Take, for example, the new Liberal position that insists on a non-combat role. As Rosie Dimanno points out in a recent Toronto Star article the number of Canadian troops killed in combat in Afghanistan last year was 0. 12 were killed by improvised explosive and 11 by roadside bombs and land mines. In addition there have been deaths from accidents. But there has not been a single combat death since Sept 3. 2006. One is forced to ask… why insist on a non-combat role? It is because this is what we’d like the mission to entail? Or because this is what the mission does entail. Although we may wish it, we are not peacekeeping. Our troops are not positioning themselves between enemy combatants in an effort to prevent them from fighting. This is peacebuilding – we are one of the combatants and we should not pretend otherwise.

The risks of pretending we are peacekeeping however, are significant. As she points out:

If Liberals are trying to spare Canadian lives – by venturing passively, ducking into calmer territory and promoting reconstruction in the absence of a secure environment – an anti-combat insistence is utterly without merit.

But it might get Canadian troops killed. An enemy that knows troops won’t fight back, can’t fight back because of political handcuffs slapped on half a world away, is an enemy given a blood-embossed invitation to attack at will.

Her article may be alarmist, but its central argument is correct. As General Lewis Mackenzie confirms, denying our troops the capacity to take advanced actions to protect themselves – or the NGO’s and aid workers attempting to rebuild Afghanistan – is sheer folly. Our polticians owe it to both the public and our military to be honest about what this mission requires of us.

Which brings us to a second distortion. In a peacekeeping mission one would want to know other countries are participating. A broader coalition means more countries are fostering international pressure to end the conflict and bring their peacekeepers home. Again, however, we are not in a peacekeeping mission. Either we believe an unstable Afghanistan is a threat to our national interest or we don’t. If it is a threat, why does it matter what our NATO allies think? Did we, prior to the second world war, wait to see who else signed up before committing to action? Of course not. The cause was important enough for us to commit ourselves. Nor, after 1943, did we say “we’ve done our part, time for someone else to step up.”And yet this is precisely how we are presently framing the issue.

As a result our national debate over Afghanistan actually undermines our efforts to solicit support. Our politicians end up treating Afghanistan as a duty – something, like peacekeeping, we do to maintain for humanitarian reasons, or to buttress our reputation within NATO or the United States. Not once in the last few months has Afghanistan been described as an imperative. But few, if any countries, are willing to put their soldiers in harms way out of a vague sense of obligation to an international body. Countries – and Canada should be among this list – should put their soldiers in harms way with enourmous trepidation, and usually only when they believe vital national interests are at stake. By telling our allies “it’s someone else’s turn” we risk conveying that we really don’t believe this mission is vital. If it were, we’d be asking them to work along side us, not replace us.

At present, it appears the majority of our allies don’t believe a stable Afghanistan is essential to global peace and security. This is either because it isn’t, or because we’ve failed to convince them. This is a difficult assessment to make and I’d be foolish to claim that I know the answer with complete certainty. That said, I suspect – as Paul Wells points out – our diplomat efforts to make the case have been weak at best.

Canada must decide for itself if we think a stable Afghanistan is critical to the stability of the international system and thus, in turn, our national interest. Sadly, I’ve heard little of this in the discussion among the political parties. And yet addressing this underlying question would not only be the more honest approach, it might cause the “are we in” or “are we out” debate to simply disappear.

The Problem with the Manley Panel on Afghanistan

Last Friday Michael Byers wrote this opinion piece entitled “Why I Said No to the Manley.”

As some of you know, I believe – with numerous reservations – that the Afghan mission is important. Moreover, I don’t always agree with Michael Byers. Although I think Canada’s work in Afghanistan should continue (under the right circumstances) I hope Byers op-ed is widely read. It is the most damaging critique of the Manley inquiry I’ve seen to date. In short, it is extremely well written and brings together all the criticisms in one place and delivers them with tremendous force.

The most stinging critique for me was about the panel’s independence. As Byers notes:

The Institute for Peace (which coordinated the Iraq Study Group in the United States) set up four working groups composed of non-governmental experts from across the political spectrum. It established a “military senior adviser panel” composed of retired rather than serving officers.

The Manley panel is inordinately dependent on the government. Its six-person secretariat is made up of some of the same officials who have been overseeing the Afghanistan mission. Prominent among these are David Mulroney, the current director of the government’s Afghanistan Task Force, Sanjeev Chowdhury, the former director of the Afghanistan Task Force, and Col. Mike Cessford, the former deputy commander of the Canadian mission.

Byers is bang on. There is something deeply problematic about having the same people who worked on Afghanistan and helped shape the strategy and plan, reviewing themselves to determine if they’ve taken the right course of action and if the country should continue along the same course. This is akin to allowing students to grade their own work and determine if they should continue on to the next level. While it is possibly they will conduct an objective review, the incentives, temptations and interests (for example, one’s public service career could be on the line) create powerful doubts about there ability to do so.

This is neither in the public’s interest, the Afghan mission’s interests, or our soldiers interest.

the CIC Fellowships

The CIC has announced the conditions for its fellowships. The great news is that they
have a category for emerging talent and established individuals. Better still, in both categories the fellowship isn’t limited to academics. Indeed, a truly fantastic candidate doesn’t need to meet any of the criteria. I’d hoped it would be this way. Now it is.

Junior Fellowships:

  • Academic applicants for a Junior CIC Fellowship must have completed their doctorate prior to taking up the fellowship.
  • For other applicants, an equivalent level of professional achievement is expected. A minimum of 5 years of work experience is required.
  • Applicants are not permitted to hold two fellowship positions concurrently.

Senior Fellowships:

  • Academic applicants must hold a completed PhD degree.
  • For other applicants, an equivalent level of professional achievement is expected. A minimum of 10 years of work experience is required.
  • Applicants are not permitted to hold two fellowship positions concurrently.

The CIC reserves the right to appoint exceptional individuals to become a CIC Fellow outside of the application process.

Next up, I’ve got to start persuading the people I mentioned in my previous post on the subject to apply (at least eventually) and make a contribution.

This is a great first step for the CIC… let’s hope it continues.

Afghanistan and Vancouver's Downtown Eastside

Taylor and I published this op-ed in today’s Toronto Star. It is not often that one can show a direct link between our soldiers in Afghanistan and Canadians in downtown Vancouver.

We originally entitled the piece: From Kandahar to Carnegie – dealing with the opium trade at home and abroad a title I think sounds better. I suspect however that the Star justly felt the reference to the Carnegie Centre – the community centre that serves Vancouver’s downtown eastside – may have been to obscure, especially for Toronto readers.

Failed strategy connects Afghan fields, city streets

Dec 07, 2007 04:30 AM

David Eaves
Taylor Owen

In the coming months, under the leadership of the former U.S. ambassador to Colombia, U.S. private contractors will likely attempt to fumigate poppies in Afghanistan. Around the same time, the Canadian government will decide whether to shut down the Insite supervised injection site in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

The two policies are inextricably linked and unambiguously bad.

In April, the United States appointed William Wood, nicknamed “Chemical Bill,” its new ambassador to Afghanistan. In his previous post, Wood championed and oversaw the fumigation of large swaths of the Colombian countryside. The result? For every 67 acres sprayed, only one acre of coca was eradicated. Moreover, production increased by 36 per cent. In addition, the spraying negatively impacted legitimate crops, contaminated water supplies and increased respiratory infections among the exposed populations.

Wood is in Kabul for a single reason – to execute a similar plan in Afghanistan. Poppy production, once held in check by the Taliban government, is exploding – up 60 per cent in 2006. Poppies yield 10 times the value of wheat, so it is unsurprising that about 10 per cent of an otherwise impoverished Afghan population partakes in the illicit poppy harvest. It earns them upwards of $3 billion (U.S.) a year, or roughly 65 per cent of Afghan GDP.

The short-term economic costs and long-term development and health impacts of fumigation will be borne by those whose livelihoods are both directly and indirectly connected to poppy cultivation. Spraying could easily cause public opinion to turn against the Karzai administration and NATO forces, further compromising the mission and increasing the danger to Canadian soldiers.

Given the increased risks this policy poses to both our soldiers and the overall mission, the government’s silence is unconscionable. Others have not been so quiet. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently observed that there is little international support for fumigation. He announced an alternative policy to wean farmers off of opium, one that includes an ambitious plan to top up payments for legal crops, such as wheat.

Such policies, however, are only part of a long-term project. Success will require a holistic view, one that understands the connections between the consumption of illicit drugs in places like Vancouver and their cultivation in Afghanistan. Specifically, this means tackling the demand for opiates. Although 90 per cent of world heroin comes from Afghanistan, the vast majority is consumed in western countries. Blaming Afghan farmers for the problem is as hypocritical as it is ineffective.

Reducing the cultivation of poppies in Afghanistan begins not on the streets of Kandahar, but on the streets of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

Fortunately, such policies exist. Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site, offers a real first step toward reducing poppy cultivation. This small storefront provides drug users with a sanitary and safe place to inject in the presence of registered nurses. The result: 21 peer-reviewed studies document how Insite diminishes public drug use, reduces the spread of HIV and increases the number of users who enter detox programs.

But Insite does more than get drug use off the street. It is a portal into the health-care system for addicts who are too often shut out. Drug users who visit Insite are an astounding 33 per cent more likely to enlist in a detoxification program. Indeed, Insite has added a second facility, called Onsite, that capitalizes on this success by allowing drug users to immediately access detox and drug treatment services on demand.

Sadly, the Harper government remains ideologically opposed to Insite. It is unclear if the federal government possesses the legal authority to close the site but there is significant concern it will attempt to do so within six months.

The Conservatives should be looking to scale Insite nationally, not contemplating its closing. A national network of injection sites could dramatically reduce heroin use in Canada by channelling more drug users into drug treatment programs. Diminishing the demand for heroin would in turn devalue the poppies from which it is derived. Changing this economic equation is both safer and more effective than fumigation if the goal is shifting Afghan production from poppies to legal crops. Admittedly, Canada’s share of the global consumption of heroin is relatively small, but our success could provide a powerful and effective example to the international community.

To many Canadians, Afghanistan is a world away. But the lives of drug users outside Vancouver’s Carnegie Centre and those of our soldiers in Kandahar are bound together – linked by the international opium trade. What we do in Afghanistan shapes events in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, and vice versa. Canada’s soldiers, drug users and ordinary citizens deserve a government that recognizes this reality.


David Eaves is a frequent commentator on public policy. Taylor Owen is a doctoral student and Trudeau Scholar at the University of Oxford.