Decide Foriegn Policy

[teltech]

Hello everyone...

As mentioned in numerous postings, a lot of talk about procuring "this" and establishing "that" for the CF results in a "as determined by defence policy, which is determined by foreign policy" reply. So I was wondering... :warstory:

If it were up to you, and you alone, what would Canada's foreign policy be?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would like to add some background to discussions of future force structure, etc.

It seems to me that Gen. Hillier's plans are all very, very airy fairy until we get a new foreign policy.   Mr. Dithers has, we are told, rejected the policy proposals of his bureaucrats because they lack pizzazz.   Prof. Jennifer Welsh, so we hear, has been engaged to add that vital component.

I suspect that Prof. Welsh and I might, and the bureaucrats in DFAIT and I certainly will disagree on directions in foreign policy.   I expect Prof. Welsh to trot out her model citizen model for the 21st century nation-state and I expect the bureaucracy to tailor their policy proposals to the latest mumblings from the Québec intelligentsia and the Liberal Party of Canada's Women's Commission.

Despite those concerns I offer up a very brief, incomplete policy framework.   It does provide a platform upon which diplomacy, development, defence, trade and human security issues can be addressed.   It is not a framework which will be especially popular â “ especially not with the aforementioned groups in whose thrall we find the DFAIT bureaucracy.   It will be equally unpopular with the Neanderthal wing which opposes diplomats and foreign aid.   If it manages to offend both the loony left and the self-righteous right then I think it is a fairly sound policy.

This is, I believe, a sensible, practical, in other words realistic, policy statement which tells Canadians and the world at large what we are prepared to do: with whom, for whom and even to whom and why.

Two cautions:

As I have mentioned elsewhere within army.ca our defence policy does not rest exclusively on our foreign policy.   There are important, indeed crucial domestic issues, including internal security, which call up a requirement for armed forces of some sort.   We need a clear, coherent foreign policy, however, to develop plans for e.g. expeditionary forces.   The foreign policy has to use worlds and phrases like â Å“combat ready,â ? â Å“globalâ ? and â Å“full spectrum of operationsâ ? â “ it doesn't have to belabour the points: making them once is sufficient.

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to see the attachment.

 

[paracowboy]

before I could make any changes to Foreign Policy, I'd need to make a lot of changes to Internal Policy. I'd have 30 years of Socialist Cultural & Social Engineering to combat.

Then, I'd need to buy a pair of dueling pistols, and a slappin' glove...

 

[Glorified Ape]

not[/u] rest exclusively on our foreign policy.   There are important, indeed crucial domestic issues, including internal security, which call up a requirement for armed forces of some sort.   We need a clear, coherent foreign policy, however, to develop plans for e.g. expeditionary forces.   The foreign policy has to use worlds and phrases like â Å“combat ready,â ? â Å“globalâ ? and â Å“full spectrum of operationsâ ? â “ it doesn't have to belabour the points: making them once is sufficient.

Given the limited involvement of the CF in domestic security/defence concerns, I think defence policy (vis a vis the CF) and foreign policy may be inextricably linked. In other words, I think that these days, foreign policy really does dictate CF policy given the fact that the CF really isn't involved in the active domestic defence policies.

before I could make any changes to Foreign Policy, I'd need to make a lot of changes to Internal Policy. I'd have 30 years of Socialist Cultural & Social Engineering to combat.

Then, I'd need to buy a pair of dueling pistols, and a slappin' glove...

What specifically do you want to combat regarding socialism? Universal healthcare? Social support programs like welfare, etc?

 

[Edward Campbell]

... given the fact that the CF really isn't involved in the active domestic defence policies.

Is 'Oka' too big a word for you?

Operations in aid of the civil power are absolutely central to the CF and to its relationship with the rest of the nation-state.   That is domestic defence in policy and practice - defence against all threats, foreign and domestic.

We might get a new Trudeau with a totally supine foreign policy which would need no military forces at all; there would still be a requirement for forces for internal security.

 

[paracowboy]

What specifically do you want to combat regarding socialism? Universal healthcare? Social support programs like welfare, etc?

They're a start, anyway. They both need massive overhauls. I'd begin programs teaching silly concepts like Individual and Civic Responsibility, as opposed to suckling at the rapidly depleting teat of Government, and waiting to be told what to do, and receiving my handout. Bread and circuses are not the answer,

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Nicely crafted piece Edward.  Why the emphasis on Singapore?

Dave

 

[trajectomologist]

The CF should be organized to FIRSTLY address the needs of Canada, namely our safety and security (in terms of both war and civil needs), and SECONDLY the needs of others (ie foreign policy). Last I checked the reason a nation had an army was to protect itself.

We're all here to serve and support our country, to bad they don't support us.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

We're all here to serve and support our country, to bad they don't support us.

Hmmm.  Perhaps the right way to say that is that they don't support us as much as they should, or as we would like.  We do have the suport of the public - it just isn't very deep, is relatively uneducated support, and supports us doing things that we would rather not do.

Dave

 

[Edward Campbell]

Nicely crafted piece Edward.   Why the emphasis on Singapore?

Dave

I think we need to shift our national emphasis towards Asia, which has displaced Europe in importance, to us, and which could challenge America in terms of economic importance if we seize the opportunities.   Singapore is our best entrée into Asia â “ not the only one, just the best.   Focusing on Singapore will, I hope, get people to consider the range and depth of Asia which, arguably, stretches from New Zealand through to Uzbekistan.

We should not focus exclusively on Singapore; we must be sure, for example, to maintain good, friendly relationships with Malaysia which is a keystone in the struggle with Arab extremist/Islamic fundamentalist movements which are, loosely, united in propagating one brand of Islam and trying to demonize the liberal-democratic, secular West.

Singapore has influence in China â “ considerable influence; many Chinese officials and leaders look to Singapore as a model of some sort of Confucian democracy.

Further, not directly related to Singapore, but rather to Asia in general: one of the best ways to engage and contain China (not in Kennan's sense) is to increase our trade and political support for India while we do the saame with China - including negotiating a free trade agreement.

Singapore is a gateway, not an end in itself.

Regards

Edward

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I think we need to shift our national emphasis towards Asia, which has displaced Europe in importance, to us, and which could challenge America in terms of economic importance if we seize the opportunities.   Singapore is our best entrée into Asia â “ not the only one, just the best.   Focusing on Singapore will, I hope, get people to consider the range and depth of Asia which, arguably, stretches from New Zealand through to Uzbekistan.

Got it.  IIRC, we tried an emphasis on the Pacific Rim in the 90s (didn't we join ASEAN or somesuch?), but the initiative quickly fizzled out, as we focused more and more on the US.  One could also argue that we are not playing a big enough partt in the Americas writ large.

We should not focus exclusively on Singapore; we must be sure, for example, to maintain good, friendly relationships with Malaysia which is a keystone in the struggle with Arab extremist/Islamic fundamentalist movements which are, loosely, united in propagating one brand of Islam and trying to demonize the liberal-democratic, secular West.

A policy of active engagement?  Silken bonds?

Singapore has influence in China â “ considerable influence; many Chinese officials and leaders look to Singapore as a model of some sort of Confucian democracy.

Damn.  Something else I didn't know!

Further, not directly related to Singapore, but rather to Asia in general: one of the best ways to engage and contain China (not in Kennan's sense) is to increase our trade and political support for India while we do the saame with China - including negotiating a free trade agreement.

As opposed to sending Development dollars into the maw of the world's largest economy...

Singapore is a gateway, not an end in itself.

Got it.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Is 'Oka' too big a word for you?

Operations in aid of the civil power are absolutely central to the CF and to its relationship with the rest of the nation-state.  That is domestic defence in policy and practice - defence against all threats, foreign and domestic.

We might get a new Trudeau with a totally supine foreign policy which would need no military forces at all; there would still be a requirement for forces for internal security.

Good point, though I'm not sure the level of involvement that the CF plays in internal security (be it intervention or routine) is such that a major revision of domestic defence policy (in relation to the CF, not elsewhere) would really be called for. From what I understand, the CF are there if they're needed (domestically) but the overwhelming majority of domestic security policies and programs are handled by agencies such as CSIS, the CSE, RCMP, provincial/local police, Customs, etc. Thus, wouldn't the CF primarily function as a foreign policy resource? It doesn't seem (though I could be wrong) that the CF is really geared to any substantial role in everyday domestic defence issues - especially given the emergence of more unconventional threats recently. I suppose a new domestic policy could be made to increase the CF's role in domestic security but would it be necessary, as opposed to putting the focus on the non-military agencies that usually handle it?

 

[Edward Campbell]

... From what I understand, the CF are there if they're needed ...

The point is that, as a former CDS said, when (not if) they are needed they cannot lose; all the other agencies may throw in the towel, saying, "Sorry, too many Indians with too many guns," etc, as the SQ did in '90, or "Sorry, no one's available," as the RCMP did in '90, but, when the Attorney General of a province calls the CF must respond and win.   Any failure to win it all means that our sovereignty as a liberal, constitutional democracy is a farce - we have surrendered government with the consent of the governed to armed thugs and Canada no longer exists as a sovereign state - not a sovereign state that is worth 25 ¢ to a two-bit whore, anyway.

Sounds like domestic defence to me; sounds like our role is important, too.

 

[Glorified Ape]

The point is that, as a former CDS said, when (not if) they are needed they cannot lose; all the other agencies may throw in the towel, saying, "Sorry, too many Indians with too many guns," etc, as the SQ did in '90, or "Sorry, no one's available," as the RCMP did in '90, but, when the Attorney General of a province calls the CF must respond and win.   Any failure to win it all means that our sovereignty as a liberal, constitutional democracy is a farce - we have surrendered government with the consent of the governed to armed thugs and Canada no longer exists as a sovereign state - not a sovereign state that is worth 25 ¢ to a two-bit whore, anyway.

Sounds like domestic defence to me; sounds like our role is important, too.

I understand the importance of the CF performing when called upon, I just doubt that there's a sufficiently large domestic threat to defeat the CF. I'm not sure that it's a realistic concern.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I understand the importance of the CF performing when called upon, I just doubt that there's a sufficiently large domestic threat to defeat the CF. I'm not sure that it's a realistic concern.

My house is statistically unlikely to burn down.  I'm not sure that having fire insurance, and for that matter a fire department is a realistic concern.

See the problem?  Don't confuse the likelihood of something happening with the impact should it happen.  Basic risk analysis.

 

[Infanteer]

As well, the CF has been an essential part of domestic Homeland Defence in the last decade or so.

FLQ crisis, Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Kananskis (just in case), Abbacus (just in case) come off the top of my head.  The Navy and the Air Force are active all the times off our littoral and in our airspace.

If the Army gets deployed to a serious domestic problems every 5 years or so within Canada, I'm sure there is both realistic concern and serious enough threats to justify the importance of including Homeland Defence as an essential and seriously regarded task.

Enemies both foreign and domestic is important - it should be, like in the US, part of our Oath; threats to sovereignty do not have to come in the form of Soviet Bear Bombers.

 

[Glorified Ape]

My house is statistically unlikely to burn down.   I'm not sure that having fire insurance, and for that matter a fire department is a realistic concern.

See the problem?   Don't confuse the likelihood of something happening with the impact should it happen.   Basic risk analysis.

I understand your point but I see worrying about a domestically produced/occuring threat that could defeat the CF about even with worrying your house will be hit by a meteorite. It could happen, yes, but it's extremely unlikely. Having a small clause in your insurance may be sound, but a major re-evaluation and reformation of your housing structure and insurance policy to anticipate such an event is taking things a bit far.

As well, the CF has been an essential part of domestic Homeland Defence in the last decade or so.

FLQ crisis, Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Kananskis (just in case), Abbacus (just in case) come off the top of my head.   The Navy and the Air Force are active all the times off our littoral and in our airspace.

If the Army gets deployed to a serious domestic problems every 5 years or so within Canada, I'm sure there is both realistic concern and serious enough threats to justify the importance of including Homeland Defence as an essential and seriously regarded task.

Enemies both foreign and domestic is important - it should be, like in the US, part of our Oath; threats to sovereignty do not have to come in the form of Soviet Bear Bombers.

I understand there's involvement and importance of the CF in domestic defence and I believe that it's correct to do so, I'm just not clear in why we need any major revision of the policy or programs regarding domestic CF usage. I think focusing efforts more on the appropriate civilian and policing agencies might be a more efficient and practical way to go. As it stands, I can't think of anything short of the entire Quebecois nationalist population taking up arms against the government that could pose any serious risk to governmental stability in Canada. Oka was a disturbing event, yes, but it and similar occurences are hardly so substantial that they call for an expansion or revision of CF domestic deployment policy. Rather, shouldn't efforts concentrate on ensuring the CF isn't needed - like revising and organizing more efficient and effective responses by the RCMP?

I may be out to lunch on this, I don't know. I may be reading the suggestions wrong - maybe people aren't advising what I think they are (IE expansion/major revision of CF domestic defence policies).

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

I may be out to lunch on this, I don't know. I may be reading the suggestions wrong - maybe people aren't advising what I think they are (IE expansion/major revision of CF domestic defence policies).

Not at all!   If I have given that impression please accept my apologies.

I think you are at least half right.   I do not believe we should custom tailor our armed force for domestic operations, but ...

I assume that most people read many threads here on army.ca (and I do not even attempt to read them all) and would, therefore, be aware that I am a bit of a fanatic about reserves â “ not the militia, but reserves for forces which are committed to (generally) expeditionary operations.    Those reserve forces (two to one, in some cases: one unit having returned form overseas and being rested and reduced as people are posted out, sent on course, etc, the second overseas â “ on operations, and the third one gearing up to go overseas and replace the unit which is there) should have domestic operations standby taskings and they should train for it, too.

Some countries, notably France with it CRS, actually design and assign forces to domestic security and the French model means that you are correct when you suggest that the military does not have to be the only solution.   That being said, every country, even Costa Rica and Iceland must have some armed forces â “ even if they are not military forces to guarantee the domestic sovereignty of the country.   If there is no military then there must be a beefed-up RCMP which, also, cannot lose.

I hope that makes my point clear.

 

[George Wallace]

I assume that most people read many threads here on army.ca (and I do not even attempt to read them all) and would, therefore, be aware that I am a bit of a fanatic about reserves â “ not the militia, but reserves for forces which are committed to (generally) expeditionary operations.  Those reserve forces (two to one, in some cases: one unit having returned form overseas and being rested and reduced as people are posted out, sent on course, etc, the second overseas â “ on operations, and the third one gearing up to go overseas and replace the unit which is there) should have domestic operations standby taskings and they should train for it, too.

 

I just looked at this with a little different thought, this fine morning and your post advocating the current "three point rotatation" could be improved to a "Four Point Rotation".  When we use your example, we have one 'Unit' working up for a deployment, one deployed, and one having returned and 'resting'.  The flaw, as I see it, is that the two 'Units'; the one doing workup and the one on 'rest', are both posting personnel in and out.  What we are finding is, due to manpower shortages, personnel are being posted from the 'Resting Unit' into the 'Workup Unit' and heading back out on a deployment with less than a year between deployments. 

If we were to go to a Four Point idea instead, we could have the fourth 'Unit' as the "Neutral".  It would be the Unit to which the Resting and Workup Units would post personnel into and out of.  It would be the Unit where personnel would have the opportunity to be put on courses and other auxiliary training.  Hopefully, this would allow the returning units to properly get the rest they require, the workup units would have fresh and well qualified troops, and there would be a better opportunity to carry on with coninuation training.  This may be the way to cut down on the burnout of our troops.

GW

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The current methodology is 1+4=5.  One out, one on its way in, one doing training for the next op, one doing general training, and one in reconstitution.