International relations, peace and conflict
OTTAWA—Canadian Forces are incurring a disproportionately heavy burden of casualties among coalition forces in Afghanistan, says Canada's Fallen, a report released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The report, written by defence analysts Steven Staples and Bill Robinson, raises serious questions about why Canada is taking such heavy losses, and whether the government expected such a high number of soldiers to be killed.
OTTAWA—Chez les forces de la coalition en Afghanistan, le fardeau des pertes que les Forces canadiennes subissent est disproportionné, selon Canada's Fallen, un rapport diffusé aujourd'hui par le Centre canadien de politiques alternatives.
Ce rapport, rédigé par les analystes de la défense Steven Staples et Bill Robinson, soulève de graves questions sur les raisons pour lesquelles le Canada essuie d’aussi lourdes pertes et se demande si le gouvernement s’attendait à ce qu’un si grand nombre de soldats soient tués.
Few Canadians realize that their taxes have long been used to make this country a major force in the militarization of space. Although our government loudly proclaims its opposition to the weaponization of space, it has quietly mentored the research and development of space-based tracking and targeting systems that are at the cutting edge of land-, sea- and air-based weapons technologies. This Canadian complicity in using the heavens as a safe haven for war technology has been a boon for war-fighters.
The February release of a poll on the war in Afghanistan spread panic among our political and military leaders. The Strategic Counsel poll, taken between Feb. 16 and 19, reported that 62% of Canadians opposed having Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and that 73% wanted a full parliamentary debate on Canada’s role in the war.
At the time the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and later the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were negotiated, Canadians were told that they could enjoy the benefits of free trade with the United States without losing the benefits of sovereignty.
Given the now indisputable U.S. practice of torturing prisoners of war, the “soft” fascism term I applied to the Bush administration a few months ago has become harder. The widespread American use of torture, both in physically and mentally abusing captives, has now been extensively documented. An unimpeachable source has confirmed the validity of these charges. Admiral Stansfield Turner, former CIA director, accused Vice-President Cheney of overseeing policies of torturing terror suspects and, in so doing, damaging the U.S.’s reputation.
How to maintain essential policy freedom, discipline continental integration pressures, and charting a distinct course for Canada at home and in the world, has for generations, preoccupied Canadian policymakers in managing relations with the United States. In recent years, however, their commitment to these goals has been thrown into question.
The Canadian government has claimed credit for the UN's recent endorsement of the "responsibility to protect." But our diplomatic success has come at a substantial price. In the search for international consensus, the content was stripped out of the responsibility to protect, leaving the legal constraints on humanitarian intervention firmly in place.
When the G-8 finance ministers met in London in June, and agreed to write off $40 billion of the debt owed by the world’s poorest nations to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the African Development Bank, the press was lavish in its praise. The BBC announced that “the world’s eight richest countries have reached a landmark debt relief deal to alleviate global poverty.” U.K.