The Commonwealth must not relent this time ...
Let us remember that Pakistan was suspended from The Commonwealth in 1999. I stand by my assertion that its readmittance in 2004 was premature and wrong-headed.
Pakistan's continuing slide into Dictatorship must not be tolerated. Having said that, if Islamist groups end-up in total control of Pakistan, then the relationship with The Commonwealth must be permanently severed.
General Pervez Musharraf is likely somewhat caught in the middle between the Radicals of Left and Right (as it is understood in that Country ...), but the fact remains that The Commonwealth cannot tolerate the emergence of such Dictatorships - which are anathema to the British Civic Values that bind the constituent nations together.
Kudos to The Commonwealth of Nations. It is my hope that such moral leadership will re-invigorate the Organisation and help it realise its potential as an effective counterweight to the American Empire, the invisible forces of Globalisation, and other nations and powers (such as Russia & China) who do not comprehend British values such as fair play and moderation.
I also acknowledge Stephen Harper's role in this decision. Having said that, until Harper demonstrates a consistent pro-Commonwealth disposition - rather than a consistent pro-US Empire inclination, then I cannot vote for his party.
posted by Aeneas the Younger @ 5:45 pm
19 Comments
19 Comments:
A few problems here:
First off, international organizations such as the Commonwealth typically advance globalization, not resist it (good luck with that).
Secondly, Pakistan is nuclear-armed. We can't simply "permanently dispel Pakistan from the Commonwealth", if Islamists come to power there, we have to prevent that from happening.
That being said, it's imperative that we at least understand Musharraf's motivation in what he's doing: he's in a very tenuous position, where he understands that he's one of the few in Pakistan who can be trusted to keep the country's nuclear arsenal under control.
That being said, we certainly don't have to like the way he's doing this. As such, suspending Pakistan from the Commonwealth is actually the right thing to do.
We may have to respect Musharraf's motivation, but we certainly don't have to like his actions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick:
Pakistan is one of the problems that led to 9/11. For the record, again, I am for the War on Terror, but NOT for the War in Iraq. They are two separate matters.
I actually favoured a different and more muscular solution when it came to Pakistan - but that does not involve the USA. It did involve a more muscular and militarised Commonwealth.
In my posting, you will note that I see Musharaf's position as being in the middle of two extremes in Pakistani national life. Not an easy position, but his record in fighting the Islamist Radicals has been spotty at best.
The Commonwealth is not about globalism - that is the agenda of Trans-Nataional Corporations, the majority of them American.
International co-operation is not the same as the globalist agenda.
It's pretty easy to blame transnational corporations for globalization.
But the fact is that internationalism does advance globalism, by creating official links of mutual responsibility between otherwise individually sovereign countries. If these countries accept this responsibility, they are effectively ceding a portion of their sovereignty.
Now, the question is: is this a bad thing? In this case, I think not.
Internationalism does advance globalism, but it advances the right kind of globalism, and advances it under the proper pretences. Effectively, internationalism is an international social contract.
On the other side of the coin, however, an other international organization, the European Union, advances a very different form of globalism.
The European Union, once again, has little to do with corporations. It was concocted by the European states themselves. If you believe Margaret Thatcher (and I personally advise considering whether or not one does very carefully), the EU is essentially a scheme dreamed up by France to create a new polar power to offset the United States.
The EU, furthermore, has been far from entirely benevolent. For example, when Austria elected a government that the EU leadership didn't like, they threatened economic sanctions against the country unless they went back to the polls and elected the government the EU would have preferred. When Austrians rallied behind the government, who threatened to withdraw from the EU, the EU backed off.
Any kind of globalism that undermines democracy not only on a national scale, but on a global scale, is the wrong kind of globalism.
Long story short, globalism is an extremely complex topic. Simplifying it to something that is advanced only by transnational corporations simply isn't accurate.
It isn't wholly accurate, but it is a major piece of the puzzle. Consumer demand is too.
I am for Trading Regimes between like Nations, but I do not think the rich stay rich by engaging in unrestricted trade with the poor.
The EEC example is somewhat flawed in that one of the implied goals of the EEC is to forestall the rise of rabid nationalism - this is what Churchill envisioned when he talked about a "United States of Europe." Of course, he did not envision that the UK would need to be part of that politically, because is his time, he considered the British Empire and Commonwealth as a real bulwark against the United States and a Unified Europe.
Hmmmm. Britain and the Commonwealth as a multicultural bulwark against a largely multicultural (though vis a vis the melting pot) United States and a multicultural United Europe. That's actually a pretty intriguing idea.
(I'm not trying to make any grand statement about multiculturalism here, it's just the first thing that sprang to mind.)
If we accept your argument as sound (and I actually agree that it is), then we could certainly agree that the European Union doesn't advance the cause of globalism, but rather that of continentalism (although I would argue that contentalism still lends itself to globalism, even if in more of a piecemeal fashion).
The Commonwealth doesn't fit this model, however. Let's take a quick look at just a few Commonwealth members -- Britain (obviously), Canada, India, Australia, South Africa.
I would certainly suggest that the Commonwealth does advance globalism, even if only on a limited scale.
I would, however reiterate: the international cooperation between all these different countries from different parts of the world is the right kind of globalism -- the kind we want.
Any kind of globalism that would allow the rich to exploit the poor is definitely the wrong kind of globalism -- this is only one reason why I agree with Barack Obama that we should add labour agreements to NAFTA.
There is one thing I'm curious about: what kind of "muscular pre-9/11 approach to Pakistan" would you have supported?
I would have supported a Commonwealth intervention - diplomatic, economic, or military - should The Commmonwealth have had the means. I know this is fraught with all kind of problems, but I do believe it is preferable to American hegemony.
If I may say so, a military intervention could have been especially troublesome.
First off, who would participate in this intervention? In particular, would India have been allowed to participate? If so, what the Commonwealth consider the status of Kashmir to be following the intervention?
Secondly, does direct military intervention in the affairs of a nuclear-armed country seem wise? Is the potential payoff greater than the obvious risk?
Thirdly, how would the Commonwealth control Pakistan's North-Western border (with Afghanistan). One has to consider that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan exists only officially once one gets into the Pashtun regions -- though this is partially due to the difficulties of enforcing that border, and partially due to neglect.
Finally, what goals would such an intervention pursue, and by what means would you have had them pursue it?
We could easily ask ourselves the same questions about the current mission in Afghanistan -- I would actually go further and say that we should (and I say this as a strong supporter of the mission).
Here's another thought: should Afghanistan (having formerly been a British colony) eventually be admitted into the Commonwealth?
Like, I said, I favour a more muscular Commonwealth - which is not the one we have currently.
Admitting Afghanistan to the Group would be a fine way to keep the Afghanis engaged with the world.
Would they want in? Who knows ...
Lots of history at play here.
Well, so far as I know, they haven't applied for admittance into the Commonwealth yet. Not to say they never will, but that may be of some indication.
I think I have to agree with you: a stronger Commonwealth certainly would be a boon to internationalism.
On that note, what would you think about a stronger Francophonie?
Francophonie means little to Canada as Quebec was part of the British Empire after 1759; there is no shared modern history with France there - at all.
Well, I agree with you on that note.
But I don't think we exclusively establish these organizations based on history. We share strategic and political interests with France as well as with Britain. Building the Francophonie into a more muscular organization makes as much sense as doing the same with the Commonwealth, I think.
I'm sure you'd agree with me that having numberous internationalist alternatives to NATO would be a boon for internationalism.
Just as a side note, I'm really not trying to pick your ideas apart. I really am interested in them.
Yes, I appreciate that interest. I have no problem with NATO and I think it could be an effective counterweight to American hegemony. I think The Commonwealth is important BECAUSE of the the shared history, however, and I think - from a strictly Nationalist perspective - that it is highly necessary for Canada, in terms of its position in the World and with direct reference to our relationship to the USA. I think Francophonie does not represent the same dynamic and quite frankly, I think the only reason it exists is because of French resentment of the relatively and far greater success of the the British Empire/Commonwealth.
There are simply no nations of the calibre of Canada, Australia & India in Francophonie ...
Well, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Canada is in the Francophonie, as is Belgium and Luxembourg (I beleive). Then there's France. That being said, aside from some former French colonies... I recognize your point.
But here's what I would personally caution against when building our international relations based on history: while history is important, if we make history our sole guiding light, then we'll always be looking backward, and in this sense, regressing. Canada could still act within the Francophonie to build it into a potent organization while still working toward strengthening NATO and the Commonwealth.
I think it's also very important to be forward-thinking and progressive, and to encourage our allies to do likewise.
We agree, but I am not a big fan of Francophonie as I do no think there is a reservoir of common values there, as there is - generally-speaking - in The Commonwealth.
I suppose your right. Consider, for example, the seeming reluctance of the Francophonie, historically, to criticize its more tyrannical members.
In recent days, I'm definitely coming around to your way of thinking vis a vis Pakistan and the Commonwealth.
There are still important questions to be asked and answered, but it seems pretty necessary to me.
[url=http://sbac.org/ralphlaureneaby.aspx]polo ralph lauren[/url] vzvayl liyzvk [url=http://www.monclerjackennoutlets.info/]www.monclerjackennoutlets.info[/url] llgbbf [url=http://sbac.org/de/monclereaby.aspx]moncler online shop[/url] mjuvga skvvqo [url=http://sbac.org/ralphlaureneaby.aspx]ralph lauren sale[/url] yfadyk [url=http://sbac.org/de/monclereaby.aspx]moncler[/url] dotjyg [url=http://www.glouisvuittontaschenoutlet.info/]louis vuitton outlet[/url] leovlr fgscnnl
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home