International relations, peace and conflict

Subscribe to International relations, peace and conflict
Beyond the obligatory niceties, next week's visit by George W. Bush will reveal little about the actual direction of Canada-U.S. relations. But it does provide an occasion to reflect on where we are going and what are our choices. In my view, the most important question facing Canada over the next 10 years is: Can we continue to manoeuvre in the intricate dance with our superpower neighbour so as to preserve sufficient policy independence, or are we bound to follow a path of "deep integration," surrendering ever more policy autonomy in a slow-motion slide into American orbit?
“America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones...We must defeat these threats to our nation, allies, and friends.”- United States National Security Strategy, September 2002 “By the sheer immensity of its weight on the planet, the United States may have become imperial, but I do not see an imperialist intention.”- Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, March 2003
John Hamm has asked us to welcome George Bush in a Nova Scotian manner.  But being polite is frankly going to be difficult and it is not in our best interests.
Economic intimidation is one of the main obstacles to the self-empowerment of Third World countries. Such intimidation, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. It is not necessary for a superpower like the United States to do anything of an aggressive nature, or to launch an economic attack, or to withhold its immense purchasing power in order to cast a threatening shadow over a developing nation. The mere hint that it might do so can be cause for alarm. (Of course, the U.S.
[At the most recent (53rd) Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs in Halifax, Sir Joseph Rotblat, aged 94, the organization’s President Emeritus, delivered a speech on “The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash and the Bush Policies.” His incisive analysis drew a standing ovation. While Sir Joseph was serving as President of the Pugwash Conference, in 1995, he and the organization were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. A summarized version of his speech follows.] * * *
During the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last January, Prime Minister Paul Martin announced that Canada would write off “the vast majority” of the C$750 million Iraq owes to federal agencies. Media reports implied that this debt reduction would occur right away. In fact, the Prime Minister’s announcement put Canada squarely behind a U.S. plan to delay Iraqi debt rescheduling until it could be tied to the acceptance of economic policies approved by the International Monetary Fund.
U.S. President George W. Bush and the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, were “disappointed” that Canada didn’t join in the American-led invasion of Iraq. Their predecessors in the 1960s and ‘70s were also disappointed that we didn’t join them in their catastrophic Vietnam quagmire. Too bad. Back then, we were right and they were dead wrong. Today we are right again, and they are dead wrong again.
Some five years prior to Ronald Reagan becoming President of the United States, the first wave of neo-conservatives formed the infamous Committee on the Present Danger (CPD). Of its 61 original directors, 29 eventually found positions in the Reagan administration.