DRC, Libya, and Canadian Foreign Policy Choices…

(proper links soon to come)

In Canada, we are very well off. We have a government that allows us to vote to elect leaders who will work to carry out our wishes, we have rights and freedoms, we have justice, and we can live on a day to day basis without worrying about our safety and the safety of those we love. Our country has its problems, but we are none the less very lucky to be citizens of Canada. However, many people living on other parts of the globe are not as lucky as us. They live in countries where there is poverty, oppression, hunger, war, murder and rape. They live in countries where every day, they fear that it may be their last. Two such countries are the D. R. Congo and Libya. For more than a decade, the DRC has been plagued by a bloody war. Rebels who came from Rwanda after the genocide have been trying to illegally exploit the DRC’s rich resources while the Congolese Army fights them off, also with the goal of controlling the resources. While the two sides collide, the Congolese people have been trapped between them, suffering from brutalities from both sides. Meanwhile, the Libyan people were one of many groups that took part in the series of revolutions that swept through the Middle East. However, unlike the two previous revolutionary groups in Tunisia and Egypt who successfully forced their oppressive leaders to step down after protesting their discontent, the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi chose a different option; to result to violence against his own people. The question now, is what Canada can do. If Canada can only adequately resource one foreign policy choice, which conflict should receive the majority of our foreign policy commitment — the DRC or Libya?  In order to make this decision, we also have to ask the question “Should this foreign policy choice be governed by a realist, constructivist, or liberal perspective?” In answer to these questions, I believe that if Canada can only adequately resource one foreign policy choice, that the DRC should receive the majority of our foreign policy commitment and that this foreign policy choice should be governed by a liberal perspective. In the next few paragraphs, I will outline the origin and nature of the conflict in both the DRC and in Libya, explain the conflicting approaches to Canadian foreign policy, and finally explain why I have made my choice.

“Congo is a disaster – a huge country the size of Europe, with a corrupt government ruling its 70 million people, with genocidal tribal slaughters, rapacious mining companies scooping up everything in sight, and neighbours trying to bite off chunks of territory and population for their own purposes.”

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the DRC, is located in Central Africa. One of the largest countries in Africa, the DRC is as large as Western Europe and is renowned for its copious resources, particularly those acquired through mining. It is however because of its richness in resources that the DRC was exploited by other countries and transformed into the disaster it is today. [1] The current conflict in the DRC began approximately 12 years ago in the aftermath of the Rwanda genocide when waves of Rwandan refugees poured into Eastern Congo. Rebels backed by Rwanda and Uganda took control of the region while militias and tribal gangs fought for mineral wealth under guise of protecting the people. The situation however took a turn for the better when an alliance was formed between the Congolese Government and the National Congress for Defence of the People (CNDP) who were a Rwandan-backed militia of Tutsis. This significantly weakened the rebels who were known as the Democratic Forces of Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and forced them into hiding. This resulted in a war between the Congolese army, supported by the CNDP against the FDLR that was scattered across the country and fuelled by the profits of illegal mines. The DRC’s death toll over the last decade in what is known by some as “Africa’s World War” exceeds 5 million. “Congo’s death toll is greater than that of Afghanistan and Iraq combined”. [2] Hundreds of thousands of women and children have been raped by soldiers on both sides of the war.

“They hardly know who is attacking them. Both sides have guns. There are still weapons everywhere and it’s hard to know who is attacking”.

This is one of the main issues for organizations that want to resolve this war. Though the rebels are clearly the greater evil, it is not a black and white issue. The rebels operate by attacking the innocent and committing atrocities in order to attract attention, but while UN forces hunt them down, Congolese soldiers commit some of the same acts. Many times, Congolese soldiers have been reported looting villages, forcing child labour, and even raping women. Some of these actions can be partly blamed on the government for not properly paying Congolese soldiers. They have nothing, so they are forced to take whatever they can in order to survive. Furthermore, there are former CNDP leaders such as Bosco Ntagan and Lieutenant-Colonel Innocent Zimurinda working for the Congolese army. These men are accused war criminals responsible for massacres of civilians, executions, rapes, recruitment of children, forced labour, forced evictions, illegal taxation and arbitrary arrests. This puts peacekeepers in a difficult, delicate situation as they are supporting the Congolese army but are not allowed to help or associate with war criminals or those under their direction. [3]

To help the DRC, the United Nations has installed its largest active peacekeeping force in the country. As well as deploying 20,000 soldiers from many different countries, the United Nations has an annual budget of $1.3 billion towards fixing the situation in the DRC, out of which Canada has contributed $237 million over the last decade. [4] Through Operation Crocodile, the twelve member Canadian contingent with MONUC, the main goal of Canadians peacekeeping in the DRC is to protect the population. However with small numbers and a huge expanse of terrain to cover, this is often very difficult. Another goal of these forces is to get the rebel groups to surrender, and to provide them with an exit route. To do this, demobilization teams contact rebels and offer them a way to return to Rwanda in exchange for giving up their weapons. They advertise this alternative to rebels over the radio and by scattering informative leaflets across the country as well as paying soldiers to give up their guns. It is difficult and slow work, but it does make a difference. This difference however may be short-lived, as the current UN mandate in Congo will expire at the end of May and the government in Kinshasa insists that peacekeepers must be gone by the end of 2011.

As well as removing all foreign aid, the Congolese government also wishes to close its many refugee camps which would leave 1.4 million people homeless. [5] This would be a catastrophe as it is not safe for people to do so because of the ongoing warfare between the Congolese army and the FDLR. The UN leaving could have drastic consequences for the people of the DRC and only time will tell what will happen to them.

The current conflict in Libya is the result of the series of rebellions that have been sweeping across the Middle East over the past four months. The citizens of these countries rebelled against their leaders because they felt that their rights were not being met. This series of rebellions began on December 19^th, 2011 in Tunisia when Mohamed Bouazizi set fire to himself in protest over police seizing his cart of vegetables. [6] Tunisian citizens had already been upset with the deteriorating unemployment and "[frustrated] at the lack of freedom of expression and the possibilities to participate politically." [7] When Bouazizi set himself of fire, it was the breaking point for the Tunisian people. Riots broke out across the country, demanding that Tunisia’s president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali step down, which he did on January 14^th, 2011. [8] Inspired by the victory of the Tunisian people, the citizens of other Middle Eastern nations began to protest as well. The next big protest occurred in Egypt. This began on January 25^th, 2011 when thousands of Egyptians took to the streets demanding that their president, Hosni Mubarak, step down. After four weeks of protests, the people of Egypt got their way and Hosni Mubarak stepped down, handing the power over to the Egyptian military. Like the people of Tunisia, the Egyptian people were able to create change. The Libyan people now wanted the same freedom achieved by the Egyptians and the Tunisians, but unfortunately, their protests did not lead to the same results as the previous nations.

Protests in Libya began in a similar way to those in Egypt. Libyan civilians were peacefully protesting in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, when Gaddafi loyalists began attacking protesters on February 16^th, 2011. [9] Unlike the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia, Gaddafi refused to step down from his post as president.

"I am not going to leave this land," Gaddafi vowed in a live broadcast on state TV. "I will die as a martyr at the end … I shall remain, defiant. Muammar is leader of the revolution until the end of time."

Not only that, but Gaddafi threatened to purge Libya “house by house” and “inch by inch”, killing all that dare to oppose him and his regime. [10] Not heeding Gaddafi’s warning, protesters continue rioting, quickly spreading the protests around the country. Activists shut down oil exports and managed to confine Gaddafi’s influence to Tripoli and some of its surrounding areas. [11] Throughout this time, many protesters were killed.

“The protests have left more than 1,000 people dead and many more injured, according to the United Nations. Libya's ambassador to the United States has estimated that the death toll was about 2,000.”

By this time, the number of deaths and the threat of even more carnage had attracted foreign attention. On Friday March 18^th, 2011, the UN Security Council voted in favour of implementing a no-fly zone over Libya and to launch air strikes against Gaddafi’s military forces massacring the rebels. [12]

When considering different foreign policy options, there are three general approaches that Canada can take; a realist approach, a liberalist approach, or a constructivist approach. In order to decide, we must outline how each of these approaches would reflect in Canada’s foreign policy. To begin, at the core of realism, is the belief that “nations and politicians should only pursue power or self-interest”. [13] Though realists do not ignore the fact that human rights are important to many members of society, they believe that “human rights are very low on the list of national policy goals”. It is their thinking that “unless the promotion of human rights is in the national interest why would it be rational for states to pursue such goals?” Ultimately, this would mean that in the world, Canada would only be looking out for itself, and any foreign involvement would be implemented only for the benefit of Canadians. Another potential approach to Canadian foreign policy is liberalism; “the main challenger to realism in international relations”. Contrary to the beliefs of realists, liberals are strong supporters of human rights. The central idea of liberal thinking is that “individuals have basic rights to free speech, fair treatment in terms of judicial process, and political equality enshrined in a political constitution,” and that “all individuals have equal moral worth, and in which an abuse of rights in one part of the world is ‘felt everywhere’”. If Canadian foreign policy were to take a liberal approach, it would mean that Canada would promote rights and freedoms across the world and would do everything it could to ensure that these rights and freedoms were not being abused. One final approach to Canadian foreign policy is constructivism. “Unlike realists and liberals, constructivists argue that there is no necessary tension between the interests of sovereign states and the moral principles associated with the promotion of human rights.” Constructivists believe that in foreign policy, a nation must act only in its best interest, but unlike realists, constructivists think that human rights must also be brought into consideration. Constructivists would use human rights as a way to carry out the interests of Canada when it comes to foreign policy. Any one of these three approaches would majorly influence Canada’s choices in regarding how to react to the current situations in the DRC and Libya.

I believe that if Canada can only adequately resource one foreign policy choice, that the DRC should receive the majority of our foreign policy commitment and that this foreign policy choice should be governed by a liberal perspective. Many countries in the world are in a very sad state and I believe that only through a liberal perspective, will we as Canadians be able to assist those in need to the fullest of our extent. In Canada, we are very privileged, and it is hard to imagine a reality similar to those currently living in the DRC. Based on my previous description of the conflict in the DRC, it is evident that human rights are being violated to a horrendous degree. The DRC “is possibly the worst place in the world for women, and one of the worst conflict areas on the planet.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/part-6-canada-and-the-call-of-the-congo/article1777444/page2/  Though the conflict in Libya is also pressing, the conflict in the DRC is far worse. With the death toll in the last decade exceeding 5 million, it is evident that further intervention is needed in order to help the Congolese. Furthermore, the Canadian forces are a perfect fit for what the DRC needs in order to start healing.

“The Canadian Armed Forces, battle hardened and highly mobile after years of combat in Afghanistan, possess precisely the advanced technology and logistical skills that could help protect Congo's war-weary civilians. The needs of the UN mission here - light and mobile forces, helicopter capabilities, telecommunications, intelligence gathering, language skills - are exactly the strengths that Canada has developed in Afghanistan and around the world.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/part-6-canada-and-the-call-of-the-congo/article1777444/page1/

To help Libya, armed forces that are able to combat Gaddafi are necessary while in the DRC, it is peacekeepers that are needed. In the past, Canada was revered for its successes in this field. However since it began in its mission in Afghanistan, Canada has virtually broken off from the UN’s peacekeeping initiatives. The DRC presents an excellent opportunity for Canada to pick up its peacekeeping past and help those in dire need.

Though the peacekeeping efforts up until today in the DRC are often seen as a UN failure, the DRC is not a lost cause.

“The UN's failure in Congo is largely due to its chronic shortage of troops and equipment, which are far from sufficient for a vast lawless country. Most of its troops are from poorer countries such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. "An undersized force, comprised almost entirely of under-equipped soldiers from developing countries, can't do everything," writes Laura Seay, a political scientist and Africa specialist at Morehouse College in Atlanta. "The UN in Congo is burdened with an almost impossible task."” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/part-6-canada-and-the-call-of-the-congo/article1777444/page1/

As a well developed country with an expeditionary military capacity, Canada would be able to present the elements that the UN is currently missing in the DRC. This extra help could be the difference between failure and success in this mission. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/part-6-canada-and-the-call-of-the-congo/article1777444/page1/ 

This is an opportunity for Canada to save the lives of millions and to help the Congolese people to protect their human rights. With its history in peacekeeping, experience in Afghanistan, and substantial military force, Canada is the perfect contender to begin fixing the current conflict in the DRC, which is why I believe that Canada should give the DRC the majority of its foreign policy commitment.

Michael Ignatieff's Beliefs

Michael Ignatieff is “a liberal interventionist, a member of that small group of thinkers who support military action on the basis of left-leaning ideals, particularly the global defence of democracy and human rights.” (Michael Ignatieff, p971) His worldview can be summarized by “his belief in the principles of cosmopolitanism, the universality of democracy and human rights, pragmatism, and a willingness to use force in the defence of these ideals.”(p 972) I agree with many of Ignatieff’s beliefs because they present a logical morally sound way to carry out Canadian foreign policy.

                To begin, Michael Ignatieff believes in cosmopolitanism. This way of thinking about ethics and responsibilities means that “when a group of people is in dire need anywhere, we cannot ignore our obligation to help them: we must act.” (972) Not only does this doctrine allow us to help those in need, but it “is doubly attractive because it reinforces our own claims to dignity and human rights”. (974) Ignatieff also believes in the universality and human rights which gives direction to his cosmopolitanism. With his ultimate goal of spreading democracy and human rights, Ignatieff is again hitting two birds with one stone as he helps countries that are suffering under dictatorship and keeping the world safer for the people of Canada; “it reduces the likelihood of war both within and among states…democracy disciplines and constrains radical political parties, forcing them to moderate their views in order to win votes.” (975) I agree with Ignatieff’s philosophy on spreading democracy, but I do not completely agree with his thoughts on human rights. I believe that human rights are naturally derived and a necessary part of human nature that should not be ignored, while Ignatieff believes that they are “imperfect abstractions” that “do not dictate how to live, but rather give individuals the opportunity to live a decent life”. Though our thoughts on human rights differ, we do find that they are necessary and wish to use them to achieve the same purpose of “articulating the fundamental duties that every government has to its citizens” (975) which allows me to respect Ignatieff’s beliefs. One of the final points that make up worldview of Michael Ignatieff is his pragmatism. In our world, there are never easy completely moral options available to solve complicated issues. This is where Ignatieff’s “lesser evil reasoning” comes in. This means that “when no option is absolutely moral, one can only choose that which is likeliest to minimize harm. There is only a limited range of options for defending human rights and democracy internationally, and diplomacy has its limits.” (978) I think this is a good option for Canadians, as there are many problems in the world today that need addressing, and through this policy, we will be able to focus in on those that most need our help. By choosing the lesser evil option, we will be able to do something helpful rather than choosing the third option to do nothing and let suffering and injustice ensue. In order for all of Ignatieff’s ideals to work to their full potential, it is necessary for his final belief to come into play; a willingness to use force in the defence of all of his previous ideals. “It is meaningless to proclaim the importance of human rights unless one is willing to fight when they are threatened, and a sincere commitment to preventing genocide demands nothing less.” (979) Another good point made by Ignatieff is that “unless states try to resolve the conflict peacefully at first, they cannot ethically try to stop it by force.” (980) I agree fully with Ignatieff on these points. After it is attempted to peacefully aid countries where injustice is occurring, the use of force is necessary. At this point, it is a decision between helping and leaving people to their fate and I believe that we must help them, and if force is the way to make that happen, then it is what should be done, particularly in instances where it could prevent genocide.

I can conclude that the beliefs of Michael Ignatieff would be beneficial to our society and present a logical morally sound way to carry out Canadian foreign policy, earning Canada the respect of the rest of the world, and rendering it helpful to nations in dire need.

Prince Obama

After reading Barack Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, I have observed that much of the address follows the advice given by Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince. Obama demonstrates that he is a Machiavellian prince by keeping his people ready to fight and by trying to satisfy the majorities, all the while projecting an image of dignity, strength and resoluteness.

In The Prince, Machiavelli wrote that a prince “must not have any other object nor thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war.” (49) This essentially means that as a Machiavellian prince, you must never let your guard down. When Obama addresses the problem of unemployment and the difficulty of finding jobs in this age, he says “At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else.” He goes on to say that

“Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science.  They’re investing in research and new technologies.  Just recently, China became the home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.”

            To compete with other nations, Obama says

“We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology, an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.”

            Like a true Machiavellian prince, Obama by promising to keep his people up to par with the technological advances, levels of education, and employment standards of the rest of the world, he is making sure that his people will not be caught with their guards down. “For between an armed and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever, and it is not reasonable for an armed man to obey and unarmed man willingly” (50). By keeping his people at the same level as the rest of the world, Obama is assuring that the United States of America will be able to hold onto its power, an attribute which Machiavelli believes is of the utmost importance.

            Another Machiavellian concept demonstrated by Obama is that you must try to satisfy the majorities. Machiavelli writes that “whether it be the common people, the soldiers, or the nobles, it is to your advantage to follow their inclinations in order to satisfy them” (65). In Obama’s speech, he appeals to these majorities by “asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies”. He then cracks a joke about oil companies not needing the money because they are doing just fine on their own. Many people in the United States think that far too much of their tax money is going to oil companies. By taking away money from these companies, Obama’s statement is appealing to these many people, which makes him look good in their eyes, and gives him more power.

            One of the key components to being a good Machiavellian prince is to always appear dignified, strong, and resolute before your people. “He must strive to make everyone recognize in his actions greatness, spirit, dignity, and strength… That prince who projects such an opinion of himself is greatly esteemed; and it is difficult to conspire against a man with such a reputation” (61) Obama constructs such an image of himself through his words throughout the speech. His statements are all very clear. Instead of using neutral words that leave room for wavering such as “we might”, or “we could”, he uses strong diction with phrases like “I believe we can. And I believe we must.”, “we must defeat determined enemies” and “We will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you”. By declaring himself on one side of any argument, Obama has rendered himself resolute before his people, which in turn renders him powerful.

Why We Should Help Egypt

When we think of Canada, we think of a nation that advocates rights, peace, and democracy. If this is truly who we are as a nation, the official response of the Government of Canada towards current affairs in Egypt is obvious and should reflect our Canadian values. Given the loss of life, the loss of individual freedoms, and the use of force currently being employed in Egypt by the Egyptian government, Canada should be helping the Egyptian people by any means possible.

As a democratic nation, our values consist of rights, freedom and equality for all. If this is what we truly believe is right, then these values are as important to us as ever when dealing with international diplomacy. We uphold these values for our people, and as a part in a global community, we should ensure that these values are upheld in the rest of world as well.

           

If we wish to continue upholding these values, it is only right, that they should guide Canadian foreign policy actions for the situation in Egypt. We believe that “individual persons have basic rights to free speech, fair treatment in terms of judicial process, and political equality enshrined in a political constitution”. (Human Rights International Relations p61) Under the Mubarak regime, the Egyptians are not receiving these basic rights. This is why they are rebelling against this regime, and why we, in the defence of democratic principles, must help them. “Kant’s pamphlet, ‘Perpetual Peace’ (Kant, 1991) builds a theory of international liberalism in which all individuals have equal moral worth, and in which an abuse of rights in one part of the world is ‘felt everywhere’.” (Human Rights International Relations p61) This is the case right now in Egypt, and as a democratic nation, it is our duty to stand up for the people of other nations when their rights are being taken away.