Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Edge and muscle

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:48am - 40 Comments

Bob Rae considers the events in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Iran.

We need to develop a more effective strategy to deal with this brutality and repression.  The promotion of human rights and democracy needs some edge and some muscle.  More help to those willing to fight the fight, more consequences for regimes unwilling to change.  It is not easy to craft such a strategy, because democracy can never be seen as a foreign import, but the reality of real engagement by a courageous people can’t be met with only goodwill, let alone indifference.

Bookmark and Share
  • bennji1977

    While I agree with what Mr. Rae is trying to say, I think that he is being a tad dishonest when he calls for the need to have "more consequences for regimes unwilling to change".

    If we look at the cases of both Libya and Egypt, Western countries turned a blind eye to the authorities perpetuated by the autocrats for decades now. By and large, we were fine with the horrendous treatment of citizens provided that there was benefits to our Western economies. As an example, look to the amount of oil that the EU receives from Libya, and how much crude reaches us on tankers through the Suez canal.

    So, moving forward, I think that it is important that we as western societies adopt a philosophy of democracy over stability and work to introduce SOME consequences for regimes unwilling to change.

    • Stewart_Smith

      I don't think he is being dishonest. You seem to be calling on initiating regime change or at least destabilizing authoritarian rulers. This has a dubious record of success, and I don't think it would be hard to find a Rae quote against that type of activism.

      I think he is instead referring to being opportunistic and proactive when events present themselves as they have in recent weeks. He is correct that Western governments appear to be paralyzed by the rapid evolution of events, their collective lack on information and the (justified) fear of screwing things up if they engaged more actively.

      • bennji1977

        I hear what you are saying, I guess I had a challenge with the use of the term "more". I would like to see "some" consequences for the behaviors of these regimes. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the principles of profit have always trumped the principles of democracy and human rights.

        When it comes to "regime change", I will take what occurred in Egypt long before the approach that was taken in Iraq.

        • Gary

          "When it comes to "regime change", I will take what occurred in Egypt long before the approach that was taken in Iraq."

          Agreed, but could the former have happened without the later? All this "democracy" has unfolded as GW and freinds predicted………………………to a tee!

          • OriginalEmily1

            No, 'GW and friends' planned to take them all out, but they tripped over Iraq and got stopped.

            What is happening in the ME now, has nothing to do with Dubya.

          • bennji1977

            No, not really.

            The notion of bringing "democracy" to the middle east was only introduced by GW and the White House after it was apparent that there were no weapons of mass distraction to be found. Which, was the initial justification presented to invade Iraq.

            It was only when this proved to be a lie that they embarked on the noble journey of bringing democracy to the region.

            Same thing with the current conflict in Afghanistan……it began with a call to defeat the Taliban, capture Bin Laden and bring him to justice for what he perpetuated on 911. Now it is all about ensuring that young afghan girls have the right to an education (nothing wrong with this…..but not the reason that we went there in the first place)

          • TimesArrow

            What evidence do you have for that assertion? What evidence exists to show that Iraq was part of a long tern plan to kick start democracy in the ME? The Iraq fiasco will go down as one of the most bungled, myopic, duplicitous pieces of neo-con idealism in US history. Saved only to the extent it has been by the reallocation of military strategy away from the hands of the neo-con theorists and back into the hands of the pros.

            Is W a proponent of chaos theory?

    • Kathleen O'Hara

      Harper seems to like authoritarian regimes. He has signed free trade agreements with Colombia – a militarized, right-wing country with government death squads – Jordan – which experienced similar protests to those in Egypt – and Panama – also a human rights abuser. As well, it is negotiating with the regime in Honduras, which came to power in June, 2009, after a violent military coup – and is not recognized by most Latin American countries.

  • WDM

    Started reading 'Exporting Democracy' over the weekend. Brilliant stuff. Regardless of what one thinks of his politics, or his time as Premier, when Bob Rae weighs in on issue like this, people should stop and listen.

    • Mike T.

      I say this once a thread when Bob Rae's credentials come up, so here it goes again: If he had been premier of Ontario under the Liberal Party, he'd be Prime Minister right now.

  • OriginalEmily1

    'The promotion of human rights and democracy needs some edge and some muscle.?'

    No, that's what we've been doing all along, and it's produced quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan

    'democracy can never be seen as a foreign import?'

    No, it can't. People have to choose democracy, it can't be forced on them or they'll reject it.

    The only thing we can do is provide an example…and we've done very badly in that regard….offer to help a democracy wherever it emerges….and accept we might not like what they choose….and keep the RTP available if it's needed. Preferably one by neighbouring countries.

    • Trass

      Don't forget those quagmires like France, West Germany, and South Korea.

      • OriginalEmily1

        A war in self-defence over 60 years ago is hardly the same as invading unarmed small countries at random to force our ideas on them.

        As to Korea…there is more than one now thanks to us…so we did a half-as*ed job by invading.

        Leaving Vietnam however, allowed the country to reunite and move forward together. Now they're even a hot tourist spot.

      • Amateur Hour

        And Japan.

      • dave

        The current state of Korea is entirely the fault of imperial politics; specifically the agreement between the US and Russia to subdivide the region at the 38th parallel post WWII in the same way we subdivided Germany.

        To claim it as a "victory" for Democracy seems rather silly considering the current situation is entirely of our own making and caused by a failure of Democracy; specifically the vote on reunification of the nation that was never held and a patriarchal refusal to simply let the Koreans decide (at the time) what the future of their own nation should be.

  • John D

    Can someone who knows about such things explain to me why the US invaded Iraq but allowed Libya to sit around? They were both thuggish regimes with oil, but Libya is actually a terrorist state. What's the difference?

    • bennji1977

      Because Saddam had amassed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

      • Norma

        "not"
        /

    • OriginalEmily1

      Saddam was threatening to sell his oil elsewhere.

      • EmiLie

        Iraq was never a major supplier of oil to the US. http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a…

        • OriginalEmily1

          Um…changing that was the idea.

          'What is our oil doing under their sand?'

          Plus Saddam wasn't going to use the USD anymore.

          • EmiLie

            At no point since the invasion has oil imports from Iraq reached more than half of Nigeria or Venezuala or a quarter of Canada, which is in keeping with the pattern before the invasion. The cheaper shipping costs from more abundent sources means Iraqi oil was never a factor in the decision to go to war.

            Changing the currency you trade a commodity in has no impact on the currency's reserve value. Any other de-bunked tinfoil hat conspiracies you'd like to spout?

          • OriginalEmily1

            Bush said he was going to pay for the war with Iraqi oil. And the war was going to be a cakewalk.

            Famous last words.

            The USD is the world's reserve currency….and they wanted to keep it that way. Saddam was the first hole in the wall of American economic domination, so he had to be punished and fast so nobody else would get any ideas.

            Saddam won in the end though. While the US was 'otherwise occupied' with their 'cakewalk' for 8 long years….the USD as reserve currency is irrelevant and passing into history.

            .

          • Curt

            Iran wanted the oil currency changed from USD to another. (Euro?)

      • John D

        So I see 3 thumbs down to Emily, but no refutations?

    • Thwim

      A number of reasons actually.

      First, as Emily points out below, the threat to no longer take the US$ for oil.

      Second, Iraq had no friends. None. Saddam Hussein had managed to piss off basically everybody over the past few years prior to the invasion — or at least, everybody who mattered in terms of resource control or military might. Thus, he made a nice low-hanging target, with little extraneous consequences. (Also a good place to work as the proving ground for the neo-con concepts of the day.)

      Finally and probably more importantly, daddy issues. By taking out Saddam Hussein, GWB both manages to take out the guy who tried to have his father assassinated, and at the same time would manage to "succeed" where daddy failed, in liberating the country. Hell, GWB was interviewed in Time Magazine before he became president even and swore at that point that he'd be taking out Saddam. 9/11 just gave him the excuse to follow through.

    • EmiLie

      Here is a good article that avoids the paranoid imaginings of blog posters
      http://www.contemporarysecuritypolicy.org/assets/…

  • http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/ MarkOttawa

    As for Canada's middle east influence, a historian takes on former ambassador‏ at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog":

    "B.J. Davis – Historian Gets it Wrong" http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=113

    "J.L. Granatstein – Response to B.J. Davis – Historian Gets it Wrong" http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=114

    Mark
    Ottawa

    • wsam

      B. J. DAVIS is 100% correct.

      Granastein complains his short note fails to give historical examples but then claims our new-found influence in Jerusalem outweighs the loss of of influence in the wider Middle East.

      Since he is such a nitpicker maybe professor Granastien could explain what that influence is and how it benefits Canada.

      • TimesArrow

        Granatstein's quite the pessimist on Egypt. But he would have a point that we might have some influence in Jerusalem if we could be sure the Harper govt is in fact interested in speaking truth to power. Our influence amongst the Palestinians would of course be by the same measure diminished. So, the question is: do we have more influence being Israels steadfast ally, or is the balanced even handed approach more productive?
        Judging by how influential we have previously been in Washington when we were uncritical allies, i'd say better go your own way, be perhaps less influential but at least keep your self respect.

        • wsam

          Hurumph!!

  • bennji1977

    I know …….. I really wish they would come up with a sarcasm emoticon :)

    I did not however realize the extent of Libya program…..so thanks for that info.

    • Amateur Hour

      "I really wish they would come up with a sarcasm emoticon."

      Ah, gotcha.

      Perhaps they could come up with an alternate to "snark winky"?

      ;P

      It really doesn't convey sarcasm, though, does it?

  • wsam

    Last point: No. 100% wrong. Libya has never had the industrial/ scientific infrastructure necessary for a bona-fide nuclear, or advanced chem/ bio program. What Libya had was a warehouse full of spare parts they had managed to buy and some plans.

    Quadaffi pretended he had an active program to mend fences with the US and the West. The Bush Administration pretended he had an active program for political reasons. In short: it was all pretend.

    • Amateur Hour

      I specified "nascent radiological" for a reason. Their plans were of the unsophisticated dirty variety.
      Having worked directly on the topic, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of their chem/bio capabilities and programming.
      Also, most of Libya's fence-mending was directed towards the UK, and cynics would add, BP.

  • pdpd

    I want Rae to be "right" on this, but given that distrust of foreign interference is the only effective talking point left for the tyrants, isn't this a bit dangerous?

  • TimesArrow

    . "It is not easy to craft such a strategy, because democracy can never be seen as a foreign import, but the reality of real engagement by a courageous people can’t be met with only goodwill, let alone indifference".

    Rae is making an important point here; one that hose who prefer this form of democratization for the ME over the neo-cons pie eyed idealism should parse carefully.
    The fruits of democracy wont magically appear on the trees like figs in there time for the plucking.[ remember Rumsfields loony assertion that they'll line the streets with flowers for us?] Don't make the same mistake. Someone has to make it happen Agreed it should be an organic Egyptian impluse. But the west does have tools to help it along the way[ NDI??] We used to have some too…i beieve it was known as Rights and Democracy in the days of its former glory.

  • madeyoulook

    Bob Rae: The promotion of human rights and democracy needs some edge and some muscle. More help to those willing to fight the fight, more consequences for regimes unwilling to change.

    Uh, ok, Mr. Rae, but I will rather spread around the writings of Gene Sharp than strut and preen as some sort of (oxymoronic) forceful non-interventionist but edgy and muscular foreigner:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeas…

  • alice mcgregor

    I'm afraid tht the "muscle" part has been the problem – it needs arming and weapons etc – and if we keep creating those then war has to continue – the arms manufacturers see to that!! It would be nice to see a lot more assistance to struggling countries in the form of education, good governance techniques, economic development and the like. Canada is good at that and could really help if we are asked to do so. Unfortunately Mr. H. seems to be cutting funding to agencies involved in these activities – Kairos, CESO and likely a whole lot of others. Not sure that purchasing jets from the American war machine is helpful to places where poverty is rampant.

  • Ed_Sweeney

    Bob Rae: "May no vapid platitude be left unturned".

From Macleans