So on one hand you have the Prime Minister of Canada accusing his people of being cowardly, and on the other a Conservative party pundit saying the people are ignorant and don't know how to make decisions. Is this some new strategy they have developed for wooing voters? Some sort of reverse psychology trick where they heap abuse on the people whose support they want for their policies? I can see why they don't want to take the issue before Parliament. With an attitude like that they could alienate the opposition parties and be out on their ear after the first vote.
Canadian troops have been in Afghanistan for a long time now, and the public has had a lot of information about the situation there, and the role our troops are being asked to play. Canadians do not, as rule, feel comfortable with our troops in an aggressive role in a conflict. As the poll suggests, we are much happier when our troops are serving in the peacekeeping role that has earned them the respect of nations around the world.
It took us years to reclaim that respect after we agreed to be participants in the first Gulf War back in 1990. It was not until we made the choice not to join the Coalition in Iraq that people remembered we were more than just an extension of American foreign policy. No offence to any of my American friends reading this, but no country wants to be seen as someone who just apes their neighbour. (Anyway, the only way we could have participated in Iraq was by withdrawing our commitment from somewhere else in the world. We simply didn't have the resources available; never mind that the majority of our population was against involvement.)
If you're interested in a good source for information on Canada's role in Afghanistan, including a military assessment from our Chief of Staff General Rick Hillier, The Globe and Mail newspaper has put together their version of a master post that provides links to almost everything that has been written in the last month, in their paper, on the subject.
The second major foreign policy decision that the Conservative government made without consulting Parliament was to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority. This makes Canada the first country after Israel to cut aid to the new Hamas led government.
Article comments
1 - Steve
Although it's been ASSUMED that Harper is restricting media access to his ministers because of their social conservative views, I think it's far more likely that he is simply trying to give his MP's time to master their portfolios, after all the Cons. have been out of power for 13 years, and only one or two of the caucus have any federal cabinet experience at all. As those who've been around a long time will tell you, Harper's approach can only last a few months even if he wanted it to last longer. MP's love the limelight too much.
Re. Afghanistan, one could argue there should have been a debate before the troops were sent, but as the decision was made during an election by the former outgoing govt., I don't know how one can blame the Tories for that. The Liberals have been treating military missions in a non-parliamentary fashion for years. I don't see what the purpose is of debating the issue after the troops have already been sent and are in a year long mandate there. Harper will bring the issue to debate when Parliament resumes in the Fall, before the military's current mandate in Afghanistan is up at the end of the year. Not a big deal.
Re. Mayes, he is a backbench MP, hardly unusual for them to put their foots in their mouths from any party.
2 - Kurt
I'm extremely proud of Canada's role as a peacemaker and to see it start to slide into a more aggressive role,is disheartening.
MP's take over new portfolios all the time, and within days they're able to make some kind of comment. Surely it's not rocketscience.
Harper did say, he would personally field any substantive questions from the media, so maybe everthings okay.
3 - Janet
Thanks Steve for the voice of reason. Although the offer was made to Hamas to reconsider their position regarding the destruction of Israel and to denounce violence as a party platform, they chose to reject this. It is the position of Nato (not just Canada or the U.S.) that a government (in this case also a recognized terrorist group) cannot and should not be recognized. Although diplomatic relations with any government would always be a first choice to sort out differences it has NEVER been a successful strategy to negotiate with terrorists because their mandate does not include compromise. Canada is the last one the list of terrorist targets (per 2002 info). I don't believe we've been removed from the list. Let's not be naive enough to believe that terrorists are our FRIENDS!!or ever will be. I am glad that our government is astute enough to continue providing aid to the Palestinian people through outlets that can effectively get help to the people, rather than irresponsibly send money to a government who will look after their own interests first, including the purchase of arms to continue their
vendetta on Israel. I am proud that Canada has sent this clear message and without doubt, other countries (and there are many in Europe) will follow. "You can't have it both ways."
4 - Steve
yw, and thank you for your contribution also, Janet.
5 - freda cull
this is clearly a problem government for those unable to post since 2006 and including myself. rumour is that people are missing and unable to comment not because of disgust but becasue they failed ot communicate they weren't perfect at solving our diplomacy, communication, community problems