Lead by example, Annan tells Canada

[Ditto Much]

Lead by example, Annan tells Canada

OTTAWA - Canada must lead by example in places like Haiti, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan told a joint session of Parliament on Tuesday.

"Only through a long-term commitment to help the country can stability and prosperity be assured," Annan said in a morning address.

"Half-hearted efforts of the past have been insufficient. We cannot afford to fail this time."

The secretary general said international efforts in developing countries represent the best defence against security threats that are born in conditions of poverty and violence.

The commitment by developed countries can succeed if countries like Canada act in concert, he said.

"What we need is a new global consensus," Annan said. "The decisions needed to make our organization more effective will require a high degree of political will among member states – the will to achieve necessary change, but also to make it possible by compromise.

"Here too, Canada, with its long tradition of bridge-building among different international constituencies, can play an important role."

Annan cited commitments by Canada and other countries to the UN's Millennium Development goals, a set of time-specific targets for tackling the world's ills, including pledges to halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015.

He said those pledges had been overshadowed by violence in North America and abroad, and urged all countries to renew their efforts at fighting poverty and HIV/AIDS in the developing world.

In a reference to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he said global security could only be assured in a world where all countries act together.

Prime Minister Paul Martin struck a number of the same notes in an address welcoming Annan to the House of Commons.

"These are not easy times," he said. "The threat of terrorism, the growing gap between the world's rich and the world's poor, the need to protect our global communities against the ravages of pollution and senseless exploitation, the responsibility to protect: These are the challenges we face and they all require nations to shoulder their global responsibility and to work together.

"And at the centre of it all lies the United Nations," Martin said. "If it doesn't work, then more and more people will be left behind."

Written by CBC News Online staff

Kofi Annan's speech in the House of Commons.

 

[OTIS]

You're really hard about the idea of Canada as being a world class peacekeeping force again eh? I agree, we should continue to nurture our image as peacekeepers.. but our military is stretched so thin as it is. Imagine if we agreed to go to Iraq!

What should we do?

 

[Chris]

To lead doesn't necessarily mean troops, although its much easier to back up what you say on the world stage with the promise of troop commitments.

Our reg-force units are understrength, perhaps issues as to why this is need to be addressed before we talk about expanding the role of the military, ie size. Issues like pay, training, equipment, etc.

 

[OTIS]

Originally posted by ChrisD
To lead doesn't necessarily mean troops, although its much easier to back up what you say on the world stage with the promise of troop commitments.

Our reg-force units are understrength, perhaps issues as to why this is need to be addressed before we talk about expanding the role of the military, ie size. Issues like pay, training, equipment, etc.

For domestic issues, we are right on track with our expenditures on military. Comparing us to the US which has 500 military bases around the world, we spend 1/3rd the GDP percent they do to fund our military. It's more than enough. If we are going to become a world peacekeeping force however, that's obviously a different story, and would require an increase in our military spending. But it's never been an official part of our military mandate to fund a military to be globally impacting. It would take an official change in the way we see the role of our military.

Personally I like the idea of peacekeeping in the world, but I don't like the idea of being the US's pooper scooper, and damage control unit.

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by OTIS
For domestic issues, we are right on track with our expenditures on military. Comparing us to the US which has 500 military bases around the world, we spend 1/3rd the GDP percent they do to fund our military. It's more than enough. If we are going to become a world peacekeeping force however, that's obviously a different story, and would require an increase in our military spending. But it's never been an official part of our military mandate to fund a military to be globally impacting. It would take an official change in the way we see the role of our military.

Personally I like the idea of peacekeeping in the world, but I don't like the idea of being the US's pooper scooper, and damage control unit.

I agree with your view on this one %100.

Only I don't think we can ignore the US shit anymore. There shit is just as bad as many others shit, and damned if there isn't a very deep need for some stability.

 

[OTIS]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
I agree with your view on this one %100.

Only I don't think we can ignore the US shit anymore. There shit is just as bad as many others shit, and damned if there isn't a very deep need for some stability.

But, at what point does our role become one where we’re needed for stability to one where the US automatically considers us part of the ‘nation building’ package of how they conduct their military invasion, thus giving them that much more momentum to conduct them.

They wanted us to go to Iraq and we have to ask why… not because they wanted our limited forces, but it was politically motivated in the sense that we would have given the invasion more credibility. We can’t rule out that we’ll be exploited & forgotten that way. I mean, we’re still in Bosnia, and in Afghanistan losing troops, and here we have the US claiming that a road to democracy has been successfully established in a country where the Taliban viciously controls a third of it still.

We want to reduce harm, but I believe as much, if not more effort from our government should be directed towards stopping the problem at it's source, and not just be a band aid for it.

 

[Ditto Much]

Haiti is about as bad as it gets. They don't have an economic resource that has any real value. almost seven million people in abstract poverty on a fairly small peace of land.

How do you turn it around. Damn I almost of the belief that it isn't possible. So I'm going to ask if its reasonable to simply make it possible for them to survive.

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Haiti is about as bad as it gets. They don't have an economic resource that has any real value. almost seven million people in abstract poverty on a fairly small peace of land.

How do you turn it around. Damn I almost of the belief that it isn't possible. So I'm going to ask if its reasonable to simply make it possible for them to survive.

Yah, maybe the United States should help them for once.

 

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by ~atp~
Yah, maybe the United States should help them for once.

I think your very right. However I don't believe we should consider there actions to be helpful at the current time. Thus maybe we are forced to find other nations of similar belief and begin a new approach with a lesser role for the USA.

If we want to give the United Nations credibility and we want to give it legitimacy is it reasonable to give it a standing military. If Canada in union with four or five other nations were to simply fund another full military on loan to the UN.

Every time the UN needs forces it has to go around begging. This makes its deployment unreasonably slow and also reduces our ability to work in a multinational sense. If the UN were capable of deploying before the US and Canada through its own means it would keep the US out and from doing furthur damage.

Allow the UN to manage and man the military and to train the military. Allow it to set its own needs and purchase and train accordingly. Hell lets give them the military bases for the training and a central airport and hanger facility.

Instead of changing the Canadian military lets instead work with other peaceful nations to create a more appropriate dedicated resource. Lets work with 10 nations and create a new portion of the United Nations.

In essence the UN Peace Keeping began with Lester Pearson deployments in Egypt. Maybe its time to expand the temporary system we still use today.

 

[Aeryanna]

Originally posted by OTIS
We want to reduce harm, but I believe as much, if not more effort from our government should be directed towards stopping the problem at it's source, and not just be a band aid for it.

When you say "stopping the problem at its source" you're entering very murky waters because effectively you start poking your nose into someone else's business (whether you meant well or not). When you enter a situation with two feuding parties, either with diplomatic or even military intervention you may be entering a terrority where you aren't welcome or where your presence only serves to give an advantage to one party. Wanting to reduce harm is an admirable goal but as an independant bystander sometimes the best course of action may be to refrain from becoming deeply involved in every dispute least you end up doing more harm than good.

 

[Ditto Much]

A more radical notion.... (idea of the moment)


Many countries have a maditory military service of 18 months. Not just crazy nations but places like the Netherlands.

What if we were to have an optional service. At 18 you can choose to join the Canadian Foriegn Services, where you are trained in aid and relief tasks. If you do your future university education is free (or some similar incentive).

If a program like this was availible when I finished high school I probably would have done it. I wasn't into the military but a similar concept of training for doing food relief and for doing disaster assistance would have been perfect for me.

Can we do more without a "military" and instead use civilians for civilian purposes. Again if a dozen nations in the UN did this I think you would have enough people and labour potential to make serious positive effect and without needing big corporate donours.

 

[HiShyGuy]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
A more radical notion.... (idea of the moment)


Many countries have a maditory military service of 18 months. Not just crazy nations but places like the Netherlands.

What if we were to have an optional service. At 18 you can choose to join the Canadian Foriegn Services, where you are trained in aid and relief tasks. If you do your future university education is free (or some similar incentive).

If a program like this was availible when I finished high school I probably would have done it. I wasn't into the military but a similar concept of training for doing food relief and for doing disaster assistance would have been perfect for me.

Can we do more without a "military" and instead use civilians for civilian purposes. Again if a dozen nations in the UN did this I think you would have enough people and labour potential to make serious positive effect and without needing big corporate donours.

you're not alone on that, martin is already proposing something similiar to the peace corp, but for canadians that would be of a similiar nature. i think its an xxelent idea ... see the world, get a free education and learn just how good we have it in Canada compared to the rest of the world.

:j

 

[judge wopner]

its a good idea,
they just ended mandatory conscription in italy, but most of my family that did it seem prettty happy they did.

i think we have to look at what a military is and say to ourselves,

canada is not a big military complex like the states. we dont send 10,000 marines storming onto beachs in africa when they start calling for help.
we do send very specialized forces when the call comes to perform specific tasks.
ie the JTF and paratrooper-esque forces in haiti and afganistan.

why not focus on a small, mobie, highly trained special force serviced by a reduced reg force to provide fodder for the specialized forces.

that way we can maintain a rapid repsonse force that every modern army must have, while still having a reg force in the event of serious incident, which under todays standards would render us helpless considering the decaying state of much of our CF.

we already have well respected special forces like the JTF, why not expand on that.